The GOP and Its Discontents

[jimmas99]

Oh please. Someone cue up the Bernie Sanders' "women love rape" quote or Hillary communing with the spirits.

U may be right but I am pretty certain that the GOP crazies say A LOT more controversial (Stupid) things that both Hillary and sanders, to compare them is just dishonest.

youtube them and compare

 

[Cold Front]

You need to listen to yourself and realize you are the establishment. The establishment has been Reagan's policies since the 80's. I'm anti-establishment in that I want us to go back to the Eisenhower and before platform the GOP ran on. You're idols are the same people who destroyed this country and crippled this party.

Was Reagan for cutting immigration? Did Reagan agree we were spread too thin in our national security aims? No and no.

I love Reagan. He did not destroy the country. George W. Bush did that. But the King is dead. Long live the King.

 

[Lead]

Lead Salad,

Let's cut through to the heart of the matter: Are you supporting an establishment GOP candidate for president?

If so, then what's with all this dancing around? If you want fewer wars, they won't give you what you want.

I can't honestly tell you I'll be voting for the GOP nominee in the GE for this reason. You are attacking me with something that isn't reasonable though. All these candidates have multiple positions which all align more so or less so with me. I can only look at each candidate, see how far off they are from each issue, factor the weight of the issue, and at least pick who I think is the best in the bunch.

You are arguing from absolutes. Another problem with the GOP.

 

[Lead]

Was Reagan for cutting immigration? Did Reagan agree we were spread too thin in our national security aims? No and no.

I love Reagan. He did not destroy the country. George W. Bush did that. But the King is dead. Long live the King.

This post doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.

 

[Cold Front]

I can't honestly tell you I'll be voting for the GOP nominee in the GE for this reason. You are attacking me with something that isn't reasonable though. All these candidates have multiple positions which all align more so or less so with me. I can only look at each candidate, see how far off they are from each issue, factor the weight of the issue, and at least pick who I think is the best in the bunch.

You are arguing from absolutes. Another problem with the GOP.

I'm not arguing from absolutes. I'm asking why some people here are supporting GOP establishment candidates when other GOP candidates are at least trying to find a new set of conservative policies that will work.

If you don't agree with those new policies, then fine. But just say so. Don't try to muddy the waters by talking about other things that have absolutely nothing to do with why you discourage new ideas and hold on to old ones.

Kasich is not new. Jeb is not new. Rubio is a new face, but old in his thinking.

Paul is a doofus, but at least he was trying for a while to do things differently. Cruz is not standing pat. Trump is a clown, but he's a jester who sees the true folly of the royal court and can call it like it is. Carson is lost in politics, but he gets what most voters get - something different must be done.

If you're supporting a GOP establishment candidate, you're for doing the same thing over again.

 

[Cold Front]

This post doesn't make sense. Please rephrase.

You called me an establishment Reaganite.

I'm for dramatically cutting immigration. Reagan was not.

I'm for a more restrained foreign policy. Reagan was not.

So clearly I'm not stuck in the past, as you claim. I've moved on.

But Reagan doesn't deserve your calumny. He was a great president for his times. But his times are long gone and we need a new outlook.

You also are currently defending Republicans who are like George W. Bush. Look, if you're going to support someone who is similar to a past GOP president, at least support someone who isn't like a failed GOP president. Better a new Reagan than a new Dubya.

 

[Cold Front]

U may be right but I am pretty certain that the GOP crazies say A LOT more controversial (Stupid) things that both Hillary and sanders, to compare them is just dishonest.

youtube them and compare

That's only because you share their insanities. It's a lot easier to see the crazy on the other side than it is to see it on your own side.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

The GOP establishment may be fake but atleast they aren`t crazy fundamentalists like the rest of the field.









A bunch of fakes or crazy people?

Lol like a comedy. They are fools!!

 

[jimmas99]

That's only because you share their insanities. It's a lot easier to see the crazy on the other side than it is to see it on your own side.

Really? So you defend their positions in these videos?











Like Celine Dion i can go on and on.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Some of you guys have your priorities messed up. You don't support the party first and then hope it helps the country. You should ask yourself what will help the country and then demand the party which is closer to those ideas implement them.

The party is just a tool. Helping the country should be the real aim. Yet you guys get your priorities messed up by believing the whole aim of politics is to help either Democrats or Republicans.

I agree completely, though I'm coming from the liberal side. My question would be if you'd be happy having a string of Barry Goldwaters, e.g. ideological purists who lose terribly because not that much of the country really agrees with them. You sound very committed to your views, which is great, but I'm sure you recognize that a majority of Americans don't agree with you and as such your preferred candidates are not going to win national elections. So is it better to have an extremist who goes down in flames, or elect a moderate who will, at least (from your point of view) not be as bad as a Democratic president?

I much prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton, but I don't think Bernie can win the general and assuming Hillary gets the nomination I'll support her mostly because as unsavory as the Clintons can be she's still better than any GOP nominee. Politics 99% of the time is the art of the possible. It's always interesting to me when people who supposedly draw their political philosophy from people like Edmund Burke advocate for radical social change...it's really not conservative at all in the classical sense of the word.

 

[Uchi Mata]

That's only because you share their insanities. It's a lot easier to see the crazy on the other side than it is to see it on your own side.

I don't know man. You don't see any mainstream Democrats railing about GMOs or vaccines. There are definitely social issues (feminism and racism come to mind) where mainstream Dems take some pretty extreme positions, but they're still ideological positions not denials of reality like you get with the GOP on things like evolution, the age of the Earth, or climate change.

 

[Cold Front]

Really? So you defend their positions in these videos?

Some of those aren't positions. Huckabee is being criticized for greed and using his name and religion to peddle bullshit cures. Certainly no potential supporter of Hillary should criticize any presidential candidate for using his position to peddle questionable political influence.

As for Huck's ideas on evolution, who cares? If someone were to talk about human evolution and its impact on race, every single Democrat (and Republican) would become an immediate disbeliever in evolution and start searching for creationists explanations for human variety. Anyway, Huck's views would have close to zero impact on federal policy even if he did become president.

Cruz and Carson are just being accused of the standard hypocrisies, which among the political set are so common they are hardly worth mentioning. In Cruz's case, it doesn't even reach that level, since he is merely being accused in a heavily edited and editorialized video of having particular views that don't jibe with his general philosophy. In other words, less a hypocrisy than a philosophical contradiction.

Like Celine Dion i can go on and on.

I bet you could. Unfortunately for us, Celine can actually sing, while all you can do is link Youtube videos of questionable relevance to the topic.

 

[D Train]

I'm conservative, but haven't voted Republican in the last two presidential elections. Neither candidate accurately reflected my beliefs. I've been voting Libertarian. I may do so again.
I like Carson a lot though. I'd vote for him.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I'm conservative, but haven't voted Republican in the last two presidential elections. Neither candidate accurately reflected my beliefs. I've been voting Libertarian. I may do so again.
I like Carson a lot though. I'd vote for him.

It's funny that you define yourself as conservative, given that Libertarians would basically completely overthrow existing American society if they ever came to power. They're completely radical, the exact opposite of conservative. They're just radical in a non-Progressive way.

 

[Cold Front]

I agree completely, though I'm coming from the liberal side. My question would be if you'd be happy having a string of Barry Goldwaters, e.g. ideological purists who lose terribly because not that much of the country really agrees with them.

The goal shouldn't be to win every single election, which is impossible to do anyway, even when you have no other aim but to win the election.

If your goals for the country can't be implemented now, you should at least try to change the public discourse by airing them out and making the public aware of them.

I admire the gay marriage advocates in one way. They didn't allow the decades-long high unpopularity of their issue to stop them from pushing it. They kept pushing, using the Democratic Party when they could and criticizing it when it was no longer useful.

The right should learn a lesson from their success. What seems impossible today is often very possible tomorrow.

You sound very committed to your views, which is great, but I'm sure you recognize that a majority of Americans don't agree with you and as such your preferred candidates are not going to win national elections.

But as I pointed out with gay marriage, it doesn't really matter.

Immigration restriction, for example, is now more popular with the American people than gay marriage was less than ten years ago. So we should give up on it? That makes absolutely no sense.

So is it better to have an extremist who goes down in flames, or elect a moderate who will, at least (from your point of view) not be as bad as a Democratic president?

But he (or she) will be bad. In some ways, he will be worse. Because he forecloses criticism of positions the party would typically criticize were one of their own not in office. He also forces you to defend bad positions on the less-bad reasoning.

For example, the GOP didn't criticize Bush's big government spending just because he was a Republican. Whereas a Democratic president would have come in for heavy criticism from the GOP on spending, and we would have likely ended up with less spending.

So if you care about spending, what was better?

Another dirty little secret is that Republicans would've been going apeshit if Al Gore had done what George W. Bush did in Iraq. They would've been going absolutely batshit crazy. Nation building ! No belief in victory ! Quagmire ! But instead, with Bush in office, they defended the indefensible. How was that ultimately good for the party?

I much prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton, but I don't think Bernie can win the general and assuming Hillary gets the nomination I'll support her mostly because as unsavory as the Clintons can be she's still better than any GOP nominee. Politics 99% of the time is the art of the possible. It's always interesting to me when people who supposedly draw their political philosophy from people like Edmund Burke advocate for radical social change...it's really not conservative at all in the classical sense of the word.

Well, that kind of approach to politics - the "less bad" approach - will eventually bite you and the party in the ass. Just as it did us Republicans.

Why say that you would rather support someone who puts us in five feet of shit rather than ten feet of shit when ultimately you will still get blamed for putting the country in shit? And what your political opponents would have done in office remains speculative to most in the public?

 

[Cold Front]

I'm conservative, but haven't voted Republican in the last two presidential elections. Neither candidate accurately reflected my beliefs. I've been voting Libertarian. I may do so again.
I like Carson a lot though. I'd vote for him.

I'm in the same boat. I habitually voted Republican, but I couldn't vote for McCain in 2008, and I won't vote for an establishment guy this time around. (I also won't vote for the non-establishment candidates who don't reflect my views, like Huckabee and Paul.)

At some point, we have to ask, "What are you giving us? We have views about how the country should be ran and you're not supporting them. So why should we support you?"

 

[kpt018]

I get that people can have different principles than my own, but it is hard to believe that so many normal folks vote against their own economic interests over these principles (or really, misinformation and affinities).

 

[Cold Front]

I get that people can have different principles than my own, but it is hard to believe that so many normal folks vote against their own economic interests over these principles (or really, misinformation and affinities).

That's largely a scholarly myth promoted by the likes of Thomas Frank and books such as "What's the Matter with Kansas."

 

[Cold Front]

I don't know man. You don't see any mainstream Democrats railing about GMOs or vaccines. There are definitely social issues (feminism and racism come to mind) where mainstream Dems take some pretty extreme positions, but they're still ideological positions not denials of reality like you get with the GOP on things like evolution, the age of the Earth, or climate change.

They involve heavy denials of reality, and unlike the Republican positions they have actually become a major part of federal policy.

All one has to to do is to politely say that perhaps the races don't have equal abilities to learn and that this fact, if true, has obvious implications for education policy - and watch how the shit flies.

 

[Cold Front]

In fact, those positions have become such an integral part of federal policy that they are less Democratic positions than bipartisan positions.