Not calling this a "referendum", but it makes me wonder what the right will/should do

[Munky]

The fact that you're so blindly mistaken rather proves my point. But you'll continue to believe that convenient lie over an inconvenient truth, because I'm right.

You might wanna back up that "fact" with something substantial instead of just a dimwitted one-liner. And try addressing the rest of my post if you're gonna quote me.

 

[scootermaster]

The socially conservative wing of the GOP will get smaller and smaller as the older generations die off. Then the GOP will be free to say "fuck off" to them and their demands on social issues in the primaries.

This is, I believe, what I said earlier.

It'll be interesting to see what happens then.

Conservatives like to blame their losses on "bleeding heart" liberals and other undesirables who simply vote because they think they're going to get free shit. But when casting a vote for the republicans no longer means throwing away every bit of moral integrity you have, that excuse may just vanish.

Like I said, it'll be interesting to see.

 

[scootermaster]

First off: Your opinions -- and, very likely, you -- are completely asinine, childish, and have no basis in reality. Having said that, it begs another, somewhat similar, interesting question:

Let's say things really do get worse, and the country has a choice (it obviously won't be this simple):

1). Raise taxes, the rich get poorer, the military shrinks, more schools, work programs etc

or

2). People starve in the streets. Mass deportations. Schools crumble, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is, sure, the right and the left each have their ways of "fixing" America, and we can argue until we're blue in the face about what works and what doesn't. But let's just say, hypothetically, we're just at this point -- and let's say who's "fault" it is doesn't really matter -- where it's a choice: Either everyone tightens their belts, or people die.

I wonder what this country would do?

Because the right likes to say that their policies prevent that from happening. And the left likes to say that that is the logical conclusion, if the right have their way, and wack-job libertarians say "Fuck 'em. If they can't hack it, they deserve to die", and frankly, it's a testament to the system of checks and balances that this hasn't happened already.

But what if it did?

You forgot the third option, which is:

3) Shrink government . . . reduce overhead . . . balance budget. . . everyone wins.

The solution to societal "problems" is usually not more government. Our forefathers rebelled against that ideal hundreds of years ago.

You misread what I wrote.

My question was, forget about how to fix the problem entirely. That is, for the most part, a question of conjecture, and the parts that are not aren't something most conservatives would appreciate.

But that's not the question. The question was: Fast forward to whatever fiscal policy you choose that you're just 100% sure will bankrupt this country and make things even worse than they are now. If it's moronic liberals taxing and spending, then sure. If it's ridiculous conservatives with inept trickle-down methods, fine.

Put yourself in that place. As bad as things are now, they're worse. And pointing fingers about who got us there won't fix it.

So, the question: Would conservatives adopt a more socially liberal platform, or would they watch their fellow countrymen wither and die? Would liberals? Would anyone? It's been shown that the top 5% won't [voluntarily] give to educate, integrate, or otherwise help the bottom 60%. But what if it was a question of feeding them? Or housing them?

And keep in mind, I'm not [just] talking about poor immigrants here. I'm not talking about inner-city people (although I'm guessing a fair percentage of you think of that first when stuff like that comes up.) For what it's worth, these populations are still a small percentage of the country's poor people. Y'know, the old Chris Rock line about how only like 10 cities have black people, and the rest of the country is full of poor white trash sucking up more welfare than black people could ever hope to.

Again: Would the top 5% offer help to keep the rest of the country -- the vast majority of the south, for example -- from starving?

The answer to that question is a). interesting, b). illustrative, and c). should inform social and fiscal policy moving forward.

 

[scootermaster]

what ticks me off is people who say the right needs to be more like democrats in order to get the latino / black vote.

If we just behave more like dems, what's the point of being a different party?

I don't know what the answer is, we are fighting a demographic tide of people who want as much free shlt as possible and don't want to pay for it. Maybe we just need to get on the bandwagon and let the country burn, when there eventually isn't enough wealthy people to pay off the horde. ala Greece.

See, this is entirely missing the point, as I referenced in a previous reply. It's cheap, and displays a serious lack of understanding.

You have any stats on welfare acceptors who vote democrats? Both in terms of the % of them that vote left and the overall numbers? It's possible that a more significant portion votes to keep, say, medicare, but that's true of both the right and the left (i.e. there's just as many 55 year middle and lower-middle class white people who want health care on the right as there is on the left).

But you being factually incorrect isn't the point. The point is not that people vote democrat cuz they want free shit. The point is: What if people could vote republican without offending every fiber of their being?

It'd be interesting.

 

[RabidMongoose]

what kind of fucking racists ass talk is that?

'angry white men'?

Might as well call the dems the party of ni**gers & wet backs since they get 99% of that vote.

It's not racist. The GOP's constituency has de-assimilated itself. They need to go back and work on assimilating into American society. They've been so angry over the last four years and some of their leaders have even used that exact wording.

We need to have the GOP voters (mostly white men) to re-assimilate into American culture. It's not good when most white men in this country have de-assimilated from American society. Maybe a social program can be set up to offer classes to them to help re-assimilate them with a more multicultural American society.

 

[quest55720]

Of all people Alec Baldwin sum's up the current GOPs issue.

"your know your party is in trouble when people ask did the rape guy win, and you have to ask which one?"

 

[SMOGZINN]

The problem with the republican party is that they have marginalized everyone that is not white, straight, christian, male, Upper Middle Class, and at least 3nd generation American. And White Straight Upper Middle Class Americans are no longer a super majority, and their attempts at scaring minority voters away from the polls are failing.

 

[HomerJS]

Hell from a social conservative standpoint they should also be winning the black vote. For Bush's faults he did understand that and Rove pushed it home.

If the GOP would stop making a comfortable home for racists % of black vote would go up.

 

[Farang]

I think they need to drop social conservatives from the national platform. It is incompatible with the type of fiscal conservatism that does well on the West coast and northeast. With gay marriage slowly being taken off the table as an issue, there just aren't a lot of people who vote solely based on social issues (unless it is AGAINST social conservatism). It drags down candidates all over the places and loses them elections in places like Indiana and Missouri.

 

[airdata]

How about never mention abortion in any political campaign ever again. It has no bearing on the real issues the country faces and shouldn't be the focal point of any debate in an election year.

 

[shadow9d9]

How about never mention abortion in any political campaign ever again. It has no bearing on the real issues the country faces and shouldn't be the focal point of any debate in an election year.

Hard to drop rape from the party of rape's platform.

 

[michal1980]

It's not racist. The GOP's constituency has de-assimilated itself. They need to go back and work on assimilating into American society. They've been so angry over the last four years and some of their leaders have even used that exact wording.

We need to have the GOP voters (mostly white men) to re-assimilate into American culture. It's not good when most white men in this country have de-assimilated from American society. Maybe a social program can be set up to offer classes to them to help re-assimilate them with a more multicultural American society.

You are so wrong.

Its the others that neet to assimlate themselves into america.

Who ponders to special interest groups?

The dems have created the following (not complete list) special interest groups:

Latino america
Black america
Gay america
Poor america
(fill in the blank) america

The libs dont want a country united. They wanted a divided depdenat america so they can control the votes.

Futhermor, the racism of black america is once again on display.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You are so wrong.

Its the others that neet to assimlate themselves into america.

Who ponders to special interest groups?

The dems have created the following (not complete list) special interest groups:

Latino america
Black america
Gay america
Poor america
(fill in the blank) america

The libs dont want a country united. They wanted a divided depdenat america so they can control the votes.

Futhermor, the racism of black america is once again on display.

Because old America and war America don't exist.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You are so wrong.

Its the others that neet to assimlate themselves into america.

Who ponders to special interest groups?

The dems have created the following (not complete list) special interest groups:

Latino america
Black america
Gay america
Poor america
(fill in the blank) america

The libs dont want a country united. They wanted a divided depdenat america so they can control the votes.

Futhermor, the racism of black america is once again on display.

I think that we need to look at the numbers here. Not only is it just 'latino america' and 'black america' but also 'female america', 'asian america', 'jewish america', etc. All of these groups have gone big time for the Democrats. And all of these groups are so different that it's impossible to cater to each one individually unless you have a very open platform that is reflective of American culture.

Instead, the GOP has gone to identity politics. They got their constituency (white men) and de-assimilated them from American society. And now we have this group of angry white men (many of whom are older as well) who have de-assimilated from American culture, they have rejected this country.

And now what do we do with them? How can we help them re-assimilate with the rest of America? Do these people even identify as 'real Americans' anymore? Can they even interact with the rest of America right now? I'm not sure if many of them can since they have become so de-assimilated. We need to help them. I'm thinking that Obama might need to establish some sort of American culture program to teach these people how to re-assimilate into this fantastic and diverse country.

 

[Farang]

I think this will emerge as the consensus from the right:

The tea party believes the GOP establishment is ideologically corrupt. They’re right. But replacing the current leadership with obviously unqualified buffoons is no remedy. Republicans have lost at least five winnable Senate races in the last two cycles because they fielded candidates whose only real qualification was being anti-establishment. Many will argue the GOP can only win going forward with more liberal candidates. That’s not true. But the genuine conservatives they find will have to come with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.

The sad truth is that even if the Republican Party did all this — sent its current leaders home and stopped nominating losers — it still wouldn’t be enough. The country is changing too fast. Most people have the sense that America is different demographically from what it was 20 years ago. But unless they’ve been reading the latest census data, they have no real idea. The changes are that profound. They’re also permanent and likely to accelerate. In order to remain competitive outside Utah, the GOP will have to win new voters, and soon.

That’s the Republican reformation plan, Stage B. They may get there. First they’ll have to tackle the basics, like finding fresh leadership and candidates who aren’t embarrassing.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/07/what-happened/#ixzz2BZR9wje8

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/07/what-happened/

Note that this opens to door to candidates who do not pass a litmus test.

 

[scootermaster]

How about never mention abortion in any political campaign ever again. It has no bearing on the real issues the country faces and shouldn't be the focal point of any debate in an election year.

I was going to post something about this as well.

Things like abortion, gun control and couple others are really more "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! I'M A 'MERICAN!" type of issue than, y'know, a real issue.

Like, what percentage of America has an abortion? What percentage owns/wants/needs a gun? This is the basis for how you're going to elect the leader of the free world?

But yet, some people do.

 

[Incorruptible]

I think they need to drop social conservatives from the national platform. It is incompatible with the type of fiscal conservatism that does well on the West coast and northeast. With gay marriage slowly being taken off the table as an issue, there just aren't a lot of people who vote solely based on social issues (unless it is AGAINST social conservatism). It drags down candidates all over the places and loses them elections in places like Indiana and Missouri.

This. Get rid of those idiot social Conservatives.

The GOP could have done much better with real fiscal Conservatism and social Liberalism

 

[scootermaster]

You are so wrong.

Its the others that neet to assimlate themselves into america.

Who ponders to special interest groups?

The dems have created the following (not complete list) special interest groups:

Latino america
Black america
Gay america
Poor america
(fill in the blank) america

The libs dont want a country united. They wanted a divided depdenat america so they can control the votes.

Futhermor, the racism of black america is once again on display.

Oh please.

It's funny. The same democratic values that allowed a bunch of [ostensibly white] immigrants to come here 100 years ago and make something of themselves -- although in most cases it took 2 generations, i.e. your great grandfather was an immigrant, your grandfather had it tough, but succeeded and then raised your dad with some amount of privilege -- are the ones that these people, now privileged, want to take back from the last generation of [ostensibly non-white] immigrants.

That's why you see Ron Paul and so many internet Libertarians; because the Internet is, especially on a Tech forum like this -- a [ostensibly white] privileged place. And while a "democracy" would allow everybody the chance to vote and decide that, hey, 25% of your privilege goes to help feed other people, these privileged people are no longer fucking interested in democracy. They don't want other people to vote on their shit, because they know they'd lose. So they try, under the auspices of "small government!" etc, to keep people from a democracy.

Why is it so hard to understand? The far right disparages the poor for voting for people who'll give them a handout. Why are the right any better for voting for a system that wouldn't allow those handout-seekers a vote in the first place?

The word "socialism" gets thrown around a lot. "Look at those Dems...they're practically socialists now!" But nothing could be further from the truth. This shit isn't that complicated; if you have a country where everyone gets a vote, and the majority of those people have nothing, they're going to vote for programs that give them something. That's not socialism, that's democracy.

You have a choice, then. Either prevent them from voting, or enfranchise them enough to the point where they're not interested in taking your shit.

Of course what the right -- and the average privileged libertarian -- would prefer to do, is somehow make it illegal for them to take their shit. And honestly, you can't blame them for doing that. But to do so under the guise of fucking "democracy" is appalling and ridiculous.

 

[Farang]

This. Get rid of those idiot social Conservatives.

The GOP could have done much better with real fiscal Conservatism and social Liberalism

I think this also ties in to the article I linked to. Smart, qualified people can be fiscal conservatives. But most of the social conservatives have dubious backgrounds, because you don't really end up with that view of the world if you went to Harvard or Yale.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

How about never mention abortion in any political campaign ever again. It has no bearing on the real issues the country faces and shouldn't be the focal point of any debate in an election year.

Not to mention that the president has exceedingly little authority over social issues.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Oh please.
Why is it so hard to understand? The far right disparages the poor for voting for people who'll give them a handout. Why are the right any better for voting for a system that wouldn't allow those handout-seekers a vote in the first place?

The word "socialism" gets thrown around a lot. "Look at those Dems...they're practically socialists now!" But nothing could be further from the truth. This shit isn't that complicated; if you have a country where everyone gets a vote, and the majority of those people have nothing, they're going to vote for programs that give them something. That's not socialism, that's democracy.

You have a choice, then. Either prevent them from voting, or enfranchise them enough to the point where they're not interested in taking your shit.

Of course what the right -- and the average privileged libertarian -- would prefer to do, is somehow make it illegal for them to take their shit. And honestly, you can't blame them for doing that. But to do so under the guise of fucking "democracy" is appalling and ridiculous.

Small government has nothing to do with preventing the poor from voting. It has everything to do with re-establishing personal liberty. I don't need or want the government involved in my life any more than it has to be. Neither do you. You may not know that yet, but you will eventually come to that realization.

As for the so called "majority of people who have nothing," boo-fucking hoo. Cry me a river. I am the son of a immigrant house painter and a low level bookeeper, neither of whom had more than a highschool education until I left the house (my mother graduated from college when she was 55). I too had next to nothing too when I grew up. I didn't let my lack of money hold me back, and I didn't look for hand-outs. I worked my ass off for 25+ years and made something of myself. Being poor isn't an excuse to look to others that have more than you. Extenuating circumstances excepted, everyone in the U.S. has all the opportunity they could ever need or want the day they are born. Unfortunately, it seems that relatively few have the balls and self respect to take charge of their own lives, seize that opportunity, and work to better themselves. The utter lack of personal responsibility exhibited by large swaths of the U.S. population is sickening.

Is it understandable why people would vote for entitlement programs? Sure. Who doesn't want SWAG? But as my father would say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Entitlement programs that mortgage our future to prolong an unsustainable system are short sighted and, if we are being honest, just plain stupid.

Regarding your argument that voting for entitlement programs is democracy, I agree. The ACT of VOTING is democratic. But the establishment of widespread entitlement programs at the expense of capitalism is the very definition of socialism! "Socialism, (noun): (in Marxist theory) The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles" What is more collectivist than an entitlement program financed by one group of people for the benefit of another?

Last, are you seriously arguing that the only two options for combating entitlement programs is to undermine democracy per se or to give stuff to the poor? What about not offering entitlement programs because they are inconsistent with our countries founding principles? What about emphasizing personal responsibility for one's future?

 

[zsdersw]

Small government has nothing to do with preventing the poor from voting. It has everything to do with re-establishing personal liberty. I don't need or want the government involved in my life any more than it has to be. Neither do you. You may not know that yet, but you will eventually come to that realization.

As for the so called "majority of people who have nothing," boo-fucking hoo. Cry me a river. I am the son of a immigrant house painter and a low level bookeeper, neither of whom had more than a highschool education until I left the house (my mother graduated from college when she was 55). I too had next to nothing too when I grew up. I didn't let my lack of money hold me back, and I didn't look for hand-outs. I worked my ass off for 25+ years and made something of myself. Being poor isn't an excuse to look to others that have more than you. Extenuating circumstances excepted, everyone in the U.S. has all the opportunity they could ever need or want the day they are born. Unfortunately, it seems that relatively few have the balls and self respect to take charge of their own lives, seize that opportunity, and work to better themselves. The utter lack of personal responsibility exhibited by large swaths of the U.S. population is sickening.

Is it understandable why people would vote for entitlement programs? Sure. Who doesn't want SWAG? But as my father would say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Entitlement programs that mortgage our future to prolong an unsustainable system are short sighted and, if we are being honest, just plain stupid.

Regarding your argument that voting for entitlement programs is democracy, I agree. The ACT of VOTING is democratic. But the establishment of widespread entitlement programs at the expense of capitalism is the very definition of socialism! "Socialism, (noun): (in Marxist theory) The stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles" What is more collectivist than an entitlement program financed by one group of people for the benefit of another?

Last, are you seriously arguing that the only two options for combating entitlement programs is to undermine democracy per se or to give stuff to the poor? What about not offering entitlement programs because they are inconsistent with our countries founding principles? What about emphasizing personal responsibility for one's future?

I generally agree with this, but not everybody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

... and charity alone is by no means guaranteed to meet the need.

 

[michal1980]

I think that we need to look at the numbers here. Not only is it just 'latino america' and 'black america' but also 'female america', 'asian america', 'jewish america', etc. All of these groups have gone big time for the Democrats. And all of these groups are so different that it's impossible to cater to each one individually unless you have a very open platform that is reflective of American culture.

Instead, the GOP has gone to identity politics. They got their constituency (white men) and de-assimilated them from American society. And now we have this group of angry white men (many of whom are older as well) who have de-assimilated from American culture, they have rejected this country.

And now what do we do with them? How can we help them re-assimilate with the rest of America? Do these people even identify as 'real Americans' anymore? Can they even interact with the rest of America right now? I'm not sure if many of them can since they have become so de-assimilated. We need to help them. I'm thinking that Obama might need to establish some sort of American culture program to teach these people how to re-assimilate into this fantastic and diverse country.

The problem isnt the white men.

the problem is liberalism not wanting anyone to assumulate.

They want a Latin America, a black america, a female america, etc etc. Because if america is united they lose.

The liberals want to tell the blacks - its not your fault your poor, its the white mans fault.
The liberals want to tell the women - its the white guy that hates you.
The liberals want to tell the latino's - white guy hates you.

etc etc.

The liberals have turned white men into the Jews in germany. Blame them for all your problems.

What unity do you see in the lib party?

I see none, its a collection of people all wanting a different handout, that the libs are all to happy to give away as long as they are in power.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The liberals want to tell the blacks - its not your fault your poor, its the white mans fault.
The liberals want to tell the women - its the white guy that hates you.
The liberals want to tell the latino's - white guy hates you.

We don't need to tell them that. By being the problem, Republicans do that job much better than we ever could.

Democrats would have a tough time if Republicans weren't racists.

 

[Agent11]

If they do not bring the moderates back they will be in serious trouble in upcoming years.

Over a third of the white men voted Obama, that is a significant amount. So stop playing the race card people.