It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The GOP's 'Loyalty Pledge' is the Antithesis of Patriotism

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
ETA: Remember H. Ross Perot? He effectively siphoned just enough votes from HW Bush to cost him the election against Clinton.


You know, I see that as a frequent assertion but I don't buy it. At least, it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction sufficiently for me to say it's unequivocally accurate.

Not all of Perot's votes would've automatically gone to Bush and in fact a helluva lot of Perot's voters wouldn't have even been at the polls that day, if Perot hadn't been on the ballot.

IMO had Perot not been in the race, Clinton would've still won but by a narrower margin.


I wasn't legal voting age at the time, so I can only tell you what I saw. My whole family were Perot voters and they sure as hell weren't going to vote for Clinton had Perot not been around. IIRC, Perot took 19 Million votes and Bush lost by 5 Million. I honestly believe the majority of Perot voters were disgruntled Republicans. If you look at the states Clinton won that had previously been strong GOP states like NM, CO, Montana, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Ohio, Perot was the difference.

A far more intriguing question is, had Perot not played footsies leading up to the actual election, doing his "I'm out, no, I'm back in" BS, would he have actually won the damn election outright?




posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
.They took control and no one even noticed. except Eisenhower...did anyone listen?


Ike would be a Godsend in this atmosphere. There was a great, conservative Republican!



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Who needs a president when we have corporations.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


You're more accurate than I think you realize. The GOP right now is scared to death that a third party, an actual conservative party will rise up and uncover the GOP for the left-leaning tool they've become.


That's complete nonsense. Good luck finding a political scientist to back that one up.

Source - PRC - The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s
edit on 2015-9-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

For different reasons, many on the right would agree. The 'pledge' locks down the option of running as a third party/independent candidate which 'could' be used as a blackmail, of sorts to force GOP Establishment support for someone not 'optimum' for the GOP goals.

For you, it cuts the chances of splitting the right's vote and allowing a backdoor win for a party that is seem as an abject failure.

For the Tea Party, a leverage, for the left, a chance to win the presidency and considering the new level of by-passing congress, the chance to, once again, arbitrarily run a quasi-dictatorship.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I think the RNC loyalty pledge, as well as the Grover Norquist pledge to NEVER vote to raise taxes under any circumstances, are both repugnant. I don’t think a political leader’s ability to perform his/her duties in accordance with the best interests of the People and the nation should ever be superseded by party affiliation and agenda. It amazes me that we have “leaders” in high office who willingly sign these type pledges without hesitation, under threat by party leadership if they don’t.

I agree with you, theantediluvian. It’s anything but patriotic to demand these pledges be made. Allegiance to the Flag should always come before allegiance to the Party. Unfortunately, in real life it doesn’t work that way. It amazes me we’ve managed to hold this country together as long as we have, in light of the greedy, self-serving nature of people.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes, the GOP becoming more conservative would certainly explain their acceptance of same sex domestic unions, their softened stance on amnesty, the lack of any effort to act on Roe V Wade when they had a majority in Congress, the senate, and held the presidency, the fact that they buckle like a house of cards everytime Obama challenges Boehner to stand up to him, etc, etc, etc. The GOP in 2015 is the walking embodiment of liberal, marginalized Republicans.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Yes, the GOP becoming more conservative would certainly explain their acceptance of same sex domestic unions, their softened stance on amnesty, the lack of any effort to act on Roe V Wade when they had a majority in Congress, the senate, and held the presidency, the fact that they buckle like a house of cards everytime Obama challenges Boehner to stand up to him, etc, etc, etc. The GOP in 2015 is the walking embodiment of liberal, marginalized Republicans.


Wow. I could not have asked for a more honest and helpful response! What's happened here is that Barry Goldwater was right.

THE END.

edit on 2015-9-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What's happened here is that you Barry Goldwater was right.



Not really sure what this sentence is trying to say.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The Republicans are leaning to the Left now?



The GOP "acceptance" of certain social liberties is not an acceptance of Leftist ideology in the slightest. But the Left following along with the military-corporate, eroding-your-freedom fascism, instead of working for the rights and welfare of the people, would indeed indicate the Left is moving further Right. At best we can call the Democrats moderate.

On topic: The pledge is ridiculous and nothing more than theater. I don't know why people fall for this crap.
edit on 21-9-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I don't really like that pledge.

I mean, I like independent candidates The History is that they cannibalize one side of the election, but....I like that idea, that a person can not get the nomination, then run independently and still be elected president. That's the American dream.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
But the Left following along with the military-corporate, eroding-your-freedom fascism, instead of working for the rights and welfare of the people, would indeed indicate he Left is moving further Right.


The left built the MIC, man! FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ... Eisenhower reduced defense spending dramatically from what Truman had on the books. He ended the Korean War within months of taking office. The US was merely serving in a limited advisory capacity in Vietnam until Kennedy took office and escalated it, then Johnson really put the pedal to the metal and supercharged the war. Your assessment that the Left is in any way not enamored with the MIC isn't supported by history at all.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



Your assessment that the Left is in any way not enamored with the MIC isn't supported by history at all.


I don't disagree with that whatsoever. What I disagree with is that it is part of a Leftist Ideology. It's not.

Perpetual war and aggressive imperialism is a far right-wing "thing". The Democrats in power went along with that.
edit on 21-9-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Had a typo in there. Fixed.


The statement deserved an explanation anyway! What I was referring to was Barry Goldwater's famous and oft-quoted 1981 speech warning about the takeover of conservatism by the Religious Right.

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""
edit on 2015-9-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Can't have the GOP doing anything but toeing the line of completely made-up and metaphysical ideologies.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6



Your assessment that the Left is in any way not enamored with the MIC isn't supported by history at all.


I don't disagree with that whatsoever. What I disagree with is that it is part of a Leftist Ideology. It's not.

Perpetual war and aggressive imperialism is a far right-wing "thing". The Democrats is power went along with that.


My point is that it isn't a right wing thing, either. Look at the mid 80s. Bob Dole and Barry Goldwater butted heads over the magnitude of defense spending cuts to Reagan's budget... purely over whether the cuts should happen on the front end or the backend of the 3 year plan. Dole wanted $20 Billion right off the top, Goldwater wanted $33 Billion in overall cuts, but with the $20 Billion happening in year 3.

These two men represent much of the core of Conservative ideology. Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol represented what we now call the Republican Party. The entirely of "neoconservative" politics stemmed from these two. Irving was a New York liberal who became disenchanted with the Democrat party, so he began pressing the GOP to adopt a more liberal position on issues to absorb more of the disgruntled Democrats. Through his career as a commentator and a quiet policy advisor to Reagan and GHW Bush, Irving Kristol morphed not his beliefs or positions, but his public labeling of them. In the 60s, he embraced the idea that he was a liberal Republican. In the 80s, he identified himself as a moderate Republican (though his positions hadn't changed at all), in the 90s, when he wrote his final book, he was calling himself a "staunch conservative Republican" though again, no change in his message occurred. The media and left leaning pundits took these cues, portraying neocons as a more conservative, extreme arm of the GOP. In reality, nothing can be further from the truth. They're quite "progressive," only their "progress" is made in different realms than the liberal progressives move in... the end result is America lacks a Conservative party in DC.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I wrote a blog post about the shenanigans regarding that crappy pledge. I believe you should read it from a nonpartisan perspective.

All this pledge accomplished was absolving pollsters from polling a three-way race with Trump as a third party candidate.

And it was backdated. Please, read it:

Trump and Priebus Sitting in a Tree
edit on 21-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Goldwater was on the right track, but gunning for the wrong game. It wasn't the so-called "Religious Right," that was a tool used to take advantage of the party morphing towards a more liberal track that was closer to where Kennedy stood. The thought was they could attract a lot of disgruntled Christian Democrats. They did exactly that, but things ran amok.

Goldwater, whether intentionally or otherwise, failed to lay the blame where it belonged... on what really caused the Religious Right to gain steam: The liberalization of the GOP. A truly conservative GOP doesn't open the door for Pat Robertson any more than a moderate Democrat party would open the door for Bernie Sanders.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

When politicians start making us sign loyalty pledges, then I'll worry. What they sign for each other might as well be love notes passed in homeroom.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's a nice story but the truth, as always, is far more complex.

Ronald Reagan started off as a Democrat, in fact he had developed a reputation of being so left that in 1944, when he approached the Helen Gahagan Douglas campaign, he was rebuffed as being too left. Well he quickly corrected that and turned FBI informant, producing lists of suspected communists in Hollywood and testifying in front of Congress.

In 1947, the same year he testified at the House Committee on Un-American Activities, he was elected for his first term as SAG President. The following year he and his first wife divorced and he began dating Nancy, a conservative and close friend of Zasu Pitts, fellow informant, fervent Republican and staunch Nixon supporter. Also, she allegedly was behind the rumors that the Nixon campaign used to smear Gahagan Douglas who gave him the nickname "Tricky Dick."

So here you have a guy with his first tastes of power at SAG, aspirations of holding political office and he's made a lot of connections moving in the same circles with GOP supporters and FBI informants. He goes from being on stage with Truman in 1948 to supporting Eisenhower in 1952 and Nixon in 1960. He officially changed parties in 1962, but he'd changed allegiances back in the late 40's for all intents and purposes.

It was two years later that he delivered the speech A Time for Choosing for the Goldwater campaign and that is what catapulted him to the national stage.

Goldwater was his friend and mentor. They were close and Reagan absorbed a lot of Goldwater's brand of conservatism. They had a falling out in 1976 when Goldwater endorsed Ford for the nomination instead of Reagan. The two didn't speak for 15 months. Goldwater supported Reagan in 1980 and when he won, he basically won with Goldwater's platform from 16 years earlier.

As for Irving Kristol. Well, he was a disillusioned leftist turned CIA funded anti-communist writer/publisher. If a guy who writes books like Two Cheers for Capitalism and is ardent supporter of trickle-down economics is your idea of a leftist, then I don't know what to say.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join