My Plea to the Republican Party!

Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

I've been "unfriended" a few times on FB already this morning for poking fun at the boo-hooers.

And I don't even support Obama, I just don't see how anyone thought Romney would be any different, and I don't see why they are so upset. There are people that literally think our country died today. I've seen it on FB, I've heard it a work, etc. The guy I went to lunch with today thinks we are doomed.

The big thing is the pro-life crowd. They are livid! But why? Romney was never going to stay pro-life. He wasn't going to enact any such legislation, he has said so plenty of times.

The economy? Well, it has taken a dip today, just like it could have taken a bounce today, but it is only temporary. By Monday the stock market will be doing its typical illogical thing instead of its current reactionary illogical thing.

Even if you believe all the doom and gloom, and even if Obama can now proudly display his horns, so what? At least we get to the business at hand instead of delaying it further. We were doomed before last night, but at least this way, its possible we might get to see this thing through and see the government for what it really is, instead of being falsely misled for another 4-8 years.

My candidate lost too.

Didn't even get 1% of the votes. Should I be mad? Tell everyone they are idiots for falling for the two-party stranglehold? Well, that is all true, but I didn't say it.

Thank you God almighty!!!

I thought I would never say this but I have found a logical and rational Republicans.

It would be so awesome if more Republicans thought and felt this way. I do not know why it is so difficult for people to talk and behave rationally. No Obama is not Muslim communist or antichrist.
Obama clearly ran a smoother cleaner campaign with little or no fouls or speed bumps.

If Republicans were more streamlined or consistent they may have had a better chance this time.
For example, you cannot claim to be pro small government and then dictate how people live their lives in reference to abortion. If you want small government you cannot pretend the government should be involved in your personal life choices such as abortion and contraception or healthcare.

Republicans could also focus on more prominent issues such as the fake wars that were started over lies. They could also meet Obama in the middle or even giving some Obama request such as tax cuts will continue tax cuts for the Middle class and let the wealthy pay more just like they did under Clinton. They could also stop wasting taxpayer money and political time on trying to repeal Obamacare.

And for those people who think that the United States having 700 bases abroad and still need more should really reconsider. In reality America I could close 100 or 200 bases reinvest all that money here at home and be even stronger instead of spending unmilitary then and outrageous wars.

But whatever they do they definitely absolutely obligated to and must change what they have been doing for the past four years because it obviously did not work.

America will reward the Republicans if they see that the Republicans contributed in bipartisan politics and work with Obama that way anything that goes wrong can still be blamed on Obama and the Republicans can come out as the people who try.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
The GOP is going to try the same formula in 2016 but instead of white, they're going with brown aka Marco Rubio.

Same policies, different color.


Good thing we have Rand Paul 2016. But its not the libertarian wing of the party that everyone should worry about. Rand Paul does have a good connection with the entire GOP electorate, let's hope they take the policies seriously and not just cheerlead for party loyalty.

Rand Paul is a certifiable lunatic.

reply to post by Red Cloak

he should feel right at home in washington then, shouldn't he???

I am beginning to think that the american people are all lunatics, including me!

It seems the lure of the Libs is entitlements, free stuff. Well there is no free stuff, just a redistribution of stuff, with a Handling fee attached by the Bureaucrats. They, are getting more 'free stuff', and you are getting stuff, in appearance only. Taxes are going up, thats one of the first announcements 0bama made after the election. Stuff..... yea, all the stuff you wanted, like food stamps because the economy is so bad, now isn't that a real bonus..
It's the 8th of November, and 'Sandy' has already fallen off the radar, the Stock market is running in the Red, the market plummeted, and now there's talk of reinvigorating aid to Syria. New Yorkers have been left to their own devices, the EPA has turned loose to implement some of the most drastic regulations ever. You do not promote prosperity by taking away from the working man. And make no mistake the redistribution is taking your money.

You (OP) can chastise the Republican party all you want, but in the long run, becoming liberal is nothing more than the path of least resistance and the falling away of our moral fiber and obligations. Giving up character for cash. Trading freedom for so-called security. But that security or illusion of security will be short lived. The majority of Republicans have Built and sacrificed for America in Blood and Sweat, while the Democrats have done little but consume the wealth and contribute little. And at the same time leading the Decay of the moral social structure of this Great Nation.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by darkhorserider

 

Sadly Huntsman was the most qualified this year. Pushed out of the ring by the freak show. I will add to this if it weren't for the Republican Parties insanity right now the Libertarians would be doing far better right now. But they will be unable to peel off the more centrist Democrats as long as the Republicans continue to put up candidates that just simply can not be allowed to hold office i.e. Todd Akin.

edit on 7-11-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)

I would have voted for Huntsman. He was the only grown-up in that sorry mess.

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

If nothing else Obama winning is showing why I dislike his supporters. Rich old white men. Classism, ageism, racism, and sexism. You talk about minorities? lol. Which do you think is the smallest minority? From your previous words you imply you are not prejudice but with that statement alone you show your true colors. During this race I have heard more about removing the old white man then I have ever heard about about removing a minority before from society.

Nobody has to "remove" them. They won't live forever, and the country is changing demographically. The GOP needs to face up to that reality or die. I don't know why you're so upset that I, and others, are pointing that out to you. If you need any more proof, just look at the photos from election night. Who is surrounding Obama? Who is around Romney? Those photos say it all.

I'm a white woman, by the way, descended from the old slave-owning plantation patricians of the South--only a 2nd generation Yankee. My dad was the first one born north of the Mason/Dixon line.

As a woman, the GOP will never again get my vote, until they throw the American Nazi Taliban faction of their party under the bus, wise up, and get out of the Middle Ages. How dare they treat me as a second class citizen? I don't want my girls to have to wear their equivalent of a burka or a chastity belt. I cannot for the life of me understand why any woman with sense would vote for those medieval morons.

If you find that offensive as a white man, that's your problem, not mine.

Of course I am only 60 years old. I was not around when Hitler started on the Jews. Any similarities? Hitler started with blaming the Jews for all that was wrong with Germany. I keep hearing about how all the problems in this country were caused by old white men.

The Jews were rich and Hitler wanted their money. Humm, I see you mentioned rich above and I keep hearing about how Obama supporters want to redistribute the wealth, of the rich old white men. So that makes three similarities so far. Smallest minority, getting the blame, their money should be taken from them and passed out to everyone else. Just something to consider.

Strawman. Somebody said it just a few posts ago--the Tea Party is nothing but Nazis and fascists. However, Obama doesn't want to redistribute wealth, but you just keep believing that if it makes you feel better. It is ironic, however, that the red states get the lion's share of handouts from the federal government, don't you think? Socialism at its finest.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by darkhorserider

 

O-b-a-m-a does spell D-e-a-t-h to this country unless we can reverse the tide and roll back communism in spite of his disastrous agenda.
I say REVERSE the TIDE!

I'm good either way. If he miraculously reverses the tide, then great. If he fails and the tide rolls us over, then burn the thing down and lets get to the business of rebuilding it. I'm good either way, I just can't stand this stalling pattern whle we get deeper and deeper under water. I want to see this fixed while I'm still a young man, I refuse to leave it for my children to clean up.

That is why I was fine with Obama being re-elected. I would rather have seen Ron Paul or Gary Johnson make some drastic changes to reverse the tide, but since we can't have that, I don't mind seeing Obama open the floodgates and invite the tide in, because that means we get to some resolution sooner rather than later.

Originally posted by Red Cloak

Originally posted by eLPresidente
The GOP is going to try the same formula in 2016 but instead of white, they're going with brown aka Marco Rubio.

Same policies, different color.


Good thing we have Rand Paul 2016. But its not the libertarian wing of the party that everyone should worry about. Rand Paul does have a good connection with the entire GOP electorate, let's hope they take the policies seriously and not just cheerlead for party loyalty.

Rand Paul is a certifiable lunatic.

He sure is.

If the GOP wants to have ANY chance in '16, they need to run a Huntsman or even a Christie. But I suspect they're going to dig their heels in and move even further to the right.

reply to post by HappyBunny


I don't think Rand Paul is a bad guy, but he isn't Ron Paul, and he isn't the right guy for the job. He is really in a no-win situation. If he follows his father's footsteps he'll be called a nutcase, and if he veers off in his own direction he'll be a disappointment.

I agree Huntsman is the right guy for 2016.

I wasn't a fan of Christie, until I saw him lay into the reporters when asked about making nice with Obama. He said adamantly that it was not about politics, it was about doing what was right for the residents of his state, and he seemed angry that they would even ask. He seemed sincere and passionate, so I see now why so many people like him.

Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I don't think Rand Paul is a bad guy, but he isn't Ron Paul, and he isn't the right guy for the job. He is really in a no-win situation. If he follows his father's footsteps he'll be called a nutcase, and if he veers off in his own direction he'll be a disappointment.

I have to disagree. He makes his father look positively sane. Now, I like Ron Paul personally. He's like everybody's crazy uncle at Thanksgiving, but I think he's a good man for the most part.

Rand is just nuts.

I agree Huntsman is the right guy for 2016.

He's on the short list, IMO. He can appeal to Dems as well as moderate Republicans, what's left of them at any rate. If the GOP wants to win, they need to run someone who can appeal to a large segment of the total electorate, not just the base.

I wasn't a fan of Christie, until I saw him lay into the reporters when asked about making nice with Obama. He said adamantly that it was not about politics, it was about doing what was right for the residents of his state, and he seemed angry that they would even ask. He seemed sincere and passionate, so I see now why so many people like him.

And he got shredded by Romney's staff for it. That speaks volumes right there.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Yep, Romney should have praised Christie and mirrored his statements, and advertised his patriotism in putting his trust in the president to handle a crisis.

I like sports, you can have the worst coach in the history of the game, and everyone can know it, but if a player comes out and blames the coach, then suddenly the player is the bad guy. Obama is currently president, and even if you are running against him, during a crisis, you need to put everything else aside and respect the office, and respect the role, and put up a unified front that government can handle the crisis effectively. Christie got that, but Romney didn't. Christie was obviously more presidential than Romney was. Romney was never the right guy for this job. I've never heard a person say they just loved Romney and supported him as a person. His campaign slogan should have just been more straightforward and said, "Not Obama," because that is all he had going for him.

Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Yep, Romney should have praised Christie and mirrored his statements, and advertised his patriotism in putting his trust in the president to handle a crisis.

I like sports, you can have the worst coach in the history of the game, and everyone can know it, but if a player comes out and blames the coach, then suddenly the player is the bad guy. Obama is currently president, and even if you are running against him, during a crisis, you need to put everything else aside and respect the office, and respect the role, and put up a unified front that government can handle the crisis effectively. Christie got that, but Romney didn't. Christie was obviously more presidential than Romney was. Romney was never the right guy for this job. I've never heard a person say they just loved Romney and supported him as a person. His campaign slogan should have just been more straightforward and said, "Not Obama," because that is all he had going for him.

Couldn't agree more with everything you just said.

If nothing else, Sandy showed why a FEMA is necessary--some things are just too big to be handled at the local level and require a coordinated federal response.

Originally posted by Plotus
It seems the lure of the Libs is entitlements, free stuff. Well there is no free stuff, just a redistribution of stuff, with a Handling fee attached by the Bureaucrats. They, are getting more 'free stuff', and you are getting stuff, in appearance only. Taxes are going up, thats one of the first announcements 0bama made after the election. Stuff..... yea, all the stuff you wanted, like food stamps because the economy is so bad, now isn't that a real bonus..
It's the 8th of November, and 'Sandy' has already fallen off the radar, the Stock market is running in the Red, the market plummeted, and now there's talk of reinvigorating aid to Syria. New Yorkers have been left to their own devices, the EPA has turned loose to implement some of the most drastic regulations ever. You do not promote prosperity by taking away from the working man. And make no mistake the redistribution is taking your money.

You (OP) can chastise the Republican party all you want, but in the long run, becoming liberal is nothing more than the path of least resistance and the falling away of our moral fiber and obligations. Giving up character for cash. Trading freedom for so-called security. But that security or illusion of security will be short lived. The majority of Republicans have Built and sacrificed for America in Blood and Sweat, while the Democrats have done little but consume the wealth and contribute little. And at the same time leading the Decay of the moral social structure of this Great Nation.

You have provided yet another great example of why the Republicans cannot lead.

Do you actually believe that crap? Only Republicans have given their blood, sweat and tears for this country? Only "libs" take wealth from other people, yet the corporate leach is given a pass?

You are obviously misinformed and by the way you talk, indoctrinated. You use the key propaganda buzzwords like entitlements and claiming the libs have no moral ground to stand on.

Thanks for contributing, but no thanks. It is garbage like this that illustrates my point well.

Methinks you need to read up on the likes of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.

Sorry it took so long to respond, I had work- I have to support 51% of the country, you know! I kid, I kid! Just a joke, please don't pummel me with hate posts!!

The point of my reply- I'm wondering if the Eisenhower uthinks I should read up on is the same one that was virtually solely responsible for In God We Trust on all our money? And the same one responsible for One Nation Under God in our Pledge of Allegiance?

Methinks most people today are living under revisionist history and moral relativism.

Originally posted by micmerci

Methinks you need to read up on the likes of Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt.

Sorry it took so long to respond, I had work- I have to support 51% of the country, you know! I kid, I kid! Just a joke, please don't pummel me with hate posts!!

The point of my reply- I'm wondering if the Eisenhower uthinks I should read up on is the same one that was virtually solely responsible for In God We Trust on all our money? And the same one responsible for One Nation Under God in our Pledge of Allegiance?

Totally irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe you should read up on his social policies.

Methinks most people today are living under revisionist history and moral relativism.

edit on 8-11-2012 by micmerci because: (no reason given)

I wouldn't attack people with a charge of moral relativism. Where has your moral absolutism gotten you?

reply to post by HappyBunny


I am simply setting the record straight on the history of the Republican Party's platform. I have made no reference to my individual stance on ANY issues on ANY of my posts throughout this thread. So, to assume that I am a moral absolutist is baseless and just an attempt to sideline the purpose of my post.

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I am simply setting the record straight on the history of the Republican Party's platform. I have made no reference to my individual stance on ANY issues on ANY of my posts throughout this thread. So, to assume that I am a moral absolutist is baseless and just an attempt to sideline the purpose of my post.

Okay, then--where has the Republican Party's moral absolutism gotten it?

As far as the history of the Republican Party's platform, prior to about 1980 there wasn't much difference between the GOP and the Dems except maybe in foreign policy. Maybe you should look up Rockefeller Republicans and then contrast them with the neocons. And then look at Taft and Hartley. Eisenhower not only didn't repeal the New Deal--he expanded Social Security, for heaven's sakes.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I realized this while watching the debate: The conservative party needs to move away from touting military spending and mainstream Christianity on social issues and become more fixed on Libertarian/Constitutional ideas and support for State independence. Conservative candidates are just Neo-Cons reaching out to a sect which is becoming increasingly niche.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

I am simply setting the record straight on the history of the Republican Party's platform. I have made no reference to my individual stance on ANY issues on ANY of my posts throughout this thread. So, to assume that I am a moral absolutist is baseless and just an attempt to sideline the purpose of my post.

Okay, then--where has the Republican Party's moral absolutism gotten it?

As far as the history of the Republican Party's platform, prior to about 1980 there wasn't much difference between the GOP and the Dems except maybe in foreign policy. Maybe you should look up Rockefeller Republicans and then contrast them with the neocons. And then look at Taft and Hartley. Eisenhower not only didn't repeal the New Deal--he expanded Social Security, for heaven's sakes.

I thought this thread began with a call to Republicans to shift their methodology in order to win approval as well as elections? I called out the OP in stating that simply if a Republican changes his platform for any reason (approval or winning being among the weakest IMO) then he cannot label himself a true Republican. I did not endorse any stance whatsoever, I just pointed out a fact.

Personally, I don't think you are going back far enough- 1980 was just a stones throw away in light of the long history of the Republican party. How about the 1860's? You want social issues? Who was it that championed the end of slavery in this country? Republicans. And who was it that started the KKK? I don't think I need to answer that question.

Social issues and biblical values are two different things- although one can be applied to the other. The US was founded on the pillars of Biblical Values and religious freedom- whether people want to suppress that or not. I would like to point out that I said biblical and not Christian- there is a difference.

I am willing to concede that Republicans need to work on their image in order to win people over and thus win elections but I do not think it wise to change one's stance. I feel the very same way for the Democrats, or Libertarians,etc. All I am saying, as I have been all along, is that if one is going to attach a label to himself then they need to embrace and stand on the policies associated with that label. Anything else IMO is just pandering and cowardice.

Well, I agree to a certain extent, but they really don't have to change much. The GOP has to pick up Latino voters thus the talk about Rubio. They aren't going to do it with the Tea Party and nativists though. They will not budge an inch and will move to the further to the right as they always do.

A lot of Latino voters are socially conservative, but I think the economic platform and the immigration stance turn them off considerably. Latinos are the future, the future majority. If you can't woo them you are finished. I don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on that but the GOP needs to quit the nativist crap if they want their vote. Heck, Bush got 40% of the Latino vote so it's possible.