Republican Party

[Hurlshort]

So Rick Perry, who was likely going to push for the 2016 nomination, has been indicted for coercion.  I've gotta say, this is a blessing for the Republican party.  Hopefully this will allow them to focus on more viable candidates and move away from the circus acts.

 

I'm really hoping for re-focus of priorities for the Republican party.  If they can move away from the ultra conservative mouthpieces that have been dragging them down, I think they have some interesting candidates that can help change the country.

 

Heck, Rand Paul wrote a very good piece against the police militarization in Missouri, try to find another Republican taking that side!

 

You've got Rubio challenging the party line on immigration, and if Chris Christie can move past the bridge scandal, he's a moderate candidate that is popular.

[Leferd]

It's a shame that John Huntsman is currently out of the picture. He was by far the most appealing Republican candidate in 2012 and his moderate and thoughtful disposition could have a lot of mainstream appeal if only the Tea Party hadn't hijacked the party platform.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Leferd

[ManifestedISO]

How many other Republicans speak Chinese, anyway ...

 

Is there a link to this indictment, I haven't watched any news yet today. 

 

Edit: Wait, nevermind, much more important things on TV right now, Chargers and Seahawks. 

Edited August 16, 2014 by ManifestedISO

[ShadySands]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-perry-indicted-coercion-veto-threat-25003869

[Wrath of Dagon]

Probably just another harassing political indictment, something Austin democrats love to do to Republicans. I would think Perry has immunity for any official act. As far as Republican party becoming either Democrats 2 or Libertarians 2, you can already vote for those parties.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I dunno, the Texas Republican party relies on a pretty solid evangelical/social conservative base too much to let moderate candidates have a good chance to get to the general election. Could see a move towards moderation happening for the national party, but I highly doubt it will take in Texas.

[Namutree]

Probably just another harassing political indictment, something Austin democrats love to do to Republicans. I would think Perry has immunity for any official act. As far as Republican party becoming either Democrats 2 or Libertarians 2, you can already vote for those parties.

Libertarians are too obsessed with states rights for my tastes. That said; sure you CAN vote libertarian, but everyone knows that a vote for a third party is a waste of a vote. I'm hoping the republicans will drop the big government aspects of the party and adopt a small government stance on those issues.

 

If only for the party's survival; the republicans MUST end the drug war, support gay marriage, and change their platform of foreign entanglements. The fact that doing so will actually coincide with their message of small government and be good for the country is a bonus. They don't have to be as extreme as the libertarians, but a move in that direction would give them some kind of future.

 

I also feel I should note that their pro-life stance is one I oppose, but it is actually good for the party's future. After all, Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the country and they are usually pro-life. So while I support abortion; I am certain remaining pro-life is a good idea.

[BruceVC]

 

Probably just another harassing political indictment, something Austin democrats love to do to Republicans. I would think Perry has immunity for any official act. As far as Republican party becoming either Democrats 2 or Libertarians 2, you can already vote for those parties.

Libertarians are too obsessed with states rights for my tastes. That said; sure you CAN vote libertarian, but everyone knows that a vote for a third party is a waste of a vote. I'm hoping the republicans will drop the big government aspects of the party and adopt a small government stance on those issues.

 

If only for the party's survival; the republicans MUST end the drug war, support gay marriage, and change their platform of foreign entanglements. The fact that doing so will actually coincide with their message of small government and be good for the country is a bonus. They don't have to be as extreme as the libertarians, but a move in that direction would give them some kind of future.

 

I also feel I should note that their pro-life stance is one I oppose, but it is actually good for the party's future. After all, Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the country and they are usually pro-life. So while I support abortion; I am certain remaining pro-life is a good idea.

 

 

That's true about Hispanics and there stance on pro-life. But this is also due to there slightly more conservative culture, especially due to Catholicism, and I expect this to change for future generations around issues like pro-choice

[Namutree]

 

 

That's true about Hispanics and there stance on pro-life. But this is also due to there slightly more conservative culture, especially due to Catholicism, and I expect this to change for future generations around issues like pro-choice

 

In the long term you are right. For now though it's fine if they stick with pro-life. Republicans can evolve on that issue over time along with Hispanics.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Namutree

[Rostere]

Whenever I want to get a good laugh, I go to news.google.com and type in "gop" in the search field.

[ShadySands]

 

 

 

 

Probably just another harassing political indictment, something Austin democrats love to do to Republicans. I would think Perry has immunity for any official act. As far as Republican party becoming either Democrats 2 or Libertarians 2, you can already vote for those parties.

Libertarians are too obsessed with states rights for my tastes. That said; sure you CAN vote libertarian, but everyone knows that a vote for a third party is a waste of a vote. I'm hoping the republicans will drop the big government aspects of the party and adopt a small government stance on those issues.

 

If only for the party's survival; the republicans MUST end the drug war, support gay marriage, and change their platform of foreign entanglements. The fact that doing so will actually coincide with their message of small government and be good for the country is a bonus. They don't have to be as extreme as the libertarians, but a move in that direction would give them some kind of future.

 

I also feel I should note that their pro-life stance is one I oppose, but it is actually good for the party's future. After all, Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the country and they are usually pro-life. So while I support abortion; I am certain remaining pro-life is a good idea.

That's true about Hispanics and there stance on pro-life. But this is also due to there slightly more conservative culture, especially due to Catholicism, and I expect this to change for future generations around issues like pro-choice

I faintly recall someone posting an article about how we get people from traditionally conservative cultures that on paper should be likely Republican voters and yet they fairly consistently vote Democrat. It may have been on Facebook if not here but I'll see if I can find it.

[Namutree]

 

I faintly recall someone posting an article about how we get people from traditionally conservative cultures that on paper should be likely Republican voters and yet they fairly consistently vote Democrat. It may have been on Facebook if not here but I'll see if I can find it.

 

Republicans have been doing a poor job recruiting new cultures into the party because the republicans do not have a consistent philosophy and thus no selling point. Even if said culture would be inclined to agree with your positions; it's hard to get people to go vote for something they hardly believe in.

[Bartimaeus]

I feel pretty out of touch with both parties. I'm generally fiscally conservative, lightly liberal with an equally light libertarian bent socially, and strongly pro-imperialism/hegemonism for foreign affairs. Both parties seem pretty imperialistic...although I always feel like both parties generally do a poor job of it...neither parties are really fiscally conservative - they can be fiscally conservative about *some* things - and different things, depending upon the party - but it never really feels like across the entire board...and neither parties are really hardly libertarian or liberal at all for social matters. I guess the Democrats are generally a little more liberal than the Republicans, but it seems like they make up for it with being a little more authoritarian. That might just be perceived, though.

 

Honestly, I dislike both parties enough that I probably won't vote, unless someone does some serious convincing for me. Ideally, I'd like to see an entire new voting system devised, the entirety of our current Congress dissolved and disbarred, a limit made on how long you stay in politics, and a bunch of new parties created before I think I could vote more than half-heartedly. I can't see any of those happening in the near future, (10-20 years). Can always hope, I suppose.

 

Alternatively, an emperor/empress that could just fix all this crap in the duration of their lifetime after which the old but revitalized system falls back into place would be cool, too, I guess. The problem always lies in finding the right one...

Edited August 16, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Probably just another harassing political indictment, something Austin democrats love to do to Republicans. I would think Perry has immunity for any official act. As far as Republican party becoming either Democrats 2 or Libertarians 2, you can already vote for those parties.

Libertarians are too obsessed with states rights for my tastes. That said; sure you CAN vote libertarian, but everyone knows that a vote for a third party is a waste of a vote. I'm hoping the republicans will drop the big government aspects of the party and adopt a small government stance on those issues.

 

If only for the party's survival; the republicans MUST end the drug war, support gay marriage, and change their platform of foreign entanglements. The fact that doing so will actually coincide with their message of small government and be good for the country is a bonus. They don't have to be as extreme as the libertarians, but a move in that direction would give them some kind of future.

 

I also feel I should note that their pro-life stance is one I oppose, but it is actually good for the party's future. After all, Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the country and they are usually pro-life. So while I support abortion; I am certain remaining pro-life is a good idea.

That's true about Hispanics and there stance on pro-life. But this is also due to there slightly more conservative culture, especially due to Catholicism, and I expect this to change for future generations around issues like pro-choice

I faintly recall someone posting an article about how we get people from traditionally conservative cultures that on paper should be likely Republican voters and yet they fairly consistently vote Democrat. It may have been on Facebook if not here but I'll see if I can find it.

 

 

I would like to read that, it sounds very interesting

[Leferd]

I feel pretty out of touch with both parties. I'm generally fiscally conservative, lightly liberal with an equally light libertarian bent socially, and strongly pro-imperialism/hegemonism for foreign affairs. Both parties seem pretty imperialistic...although I always feel like both parties generally do a poor job of it...neither parties are really fiscally conservative - they can be fiscally conservative about *some* things - and different things, depending upon the party - but it never really feels like across the entire board...and neither parties are really hardly libertarian or liberal at all for social matters. I guess the Democrats are generally a little more liberal than the Republicans, but it seems like they make up for it with being a little more authoritarian. That might just be perceived, though.

 

Honestly, I dislike both parties enough that I probably won't vote, unless someone does some serious convincing for me. Ideally, I'd like to see an entire new voting system devised, the entirety of our current Congress dissolved and disbarred, a limit made on how long you stay in politics, and a bunch of new parties created before I think I could vote more than half-heartedly. I can't see any of those happening in the near future, (10-20 years). Can always hope, I suppose.

 

Alternatively, an emperor/empress that could just fix all this crap in the duration of their lifetime after which the old but revitalized system falls back into place would be cool, too, I guess. The problem always lies in finding the right one...

So basically you want some sort of a benevolent dictator in the mold of a modern day Solon to take power? Yikes. Hopefully more Marshal Tito and less Mussolini in such a scenario...

[Guard Dog]

 

Probably just another harassing political indictment, something Austin democrats love to do to Republicans. I would think Perry has immunity for any official act. As far as Republican party becoming either Democrats 2 or Libertarians 2, you can already vote for those parties.

Libertarians are too obsessed with states rights for my tastes. That said; sure you CAN vote libertarian, but everyone knows that a vote for a third party is a waste of a vote. I'm hoping the republicans will drop the big government aspects of the party and adopt a small government stance on those issues.

 

If only for the party's survival; the republicans MUST end the drug war, support gay marriage, and change their platform of foreign entanglements. The fact that doing so will actually coincide with their message of small government and be good for the country is a bonus. They don't have to be as extreme as the libertarians, but a move in that direction would give them some kind of future.

 

I also feel I should note that their pro-life stance is one I oppose, but it is actually good for the party's future. After all, Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the country and they are usually pro-life. So while I support abortion; I am certain remaining pro-life is a good idea.

 

Actually if Republicans want to survive they should become more libertarian rather than democrat-lite. The democrats are all about big government, more regulations, more taxes, less freedom. The best way to defeat that is to offer a choice that is completely opposite rather than more of the same just not as much.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Half of Republicans are what's called "religious right". The Republican party can't survive without them anyway, so becoming more socially liberal is a dead end. Sure, lots of people say they'd like to see Republicans more socially liberal, but in the end they'll just vote for Democrats anyway, because it's the party of free goodies, and we all feel entitled.

[Guard Dog]

Half of Republicans are what's called "religious right". The Republican party can't survive without them anyway, so becoming more socially liberal is a dead end. Sure, lots of people say they'd like to see Republicans more socially liberal, but in the end they'll just vote for Democrats anyway, because it's the party of free goodies, and we all feel entitled.

You see WoD the biggest problem with that is a philosophical one that is tearing the GOP in two. How can the GOP be in favor of smaller government while half of it wants the government to be the arbiter and enforcer of morality? How can you be in favor of more freedom while at the same time opposing more freedom? What the religious right fails to understand about the Christian faith is that no one can be compelled to follow it. Jesus wanted people to follow his example by choice, not because the government compelled them to do so. If you oppose abortion, don't have one. Encourage others not to, provide an alternative, but in the end you don't get to tell someone else what they can't do simply because you don't believe in it and you don't get to use the government as a stick to force people to behave in a certain way.

 

That is what is so vile and repugnant to me about democrats. The really believe the proper role of government is to control every aspect of our lives. It is borne in the arrogant notion that they are smarter than us and better than us therefore it's proper that they rule over us. To me that sums up Barack Obama's attitude in a nutshell. The religious right would behave in the same way. The Christian religion is unique in that you can only be Christian by actually BEING Christian. If your faith opposes gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person. Don't go to their wedding, don't send them a gift. But you don't get to tell them they can't because you don't believe in it and you certainly don't use the government to do it for you.

 

What they religious right needs to realize is that by using government to control people they are becoming the flip side of the same ugly coin as the democrats.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's been that way ever since US was founded, yet worked just fine. Laws express peoples moral believes, without moral believes you can't have a functional society. Just having a law on what relationships are recognized as marriage doesn't make the government bigger somehow.

[Guard Dog]

No what it does is allow the government to intrude into areas where people really don't need to be governed. I know we are going to have to agree to disagree on this but I'm standing by my point here. The narrative from the left is You Must Do this, You Can't Own That, You Must Buy This, You Can't Read That. If we value or future as a free country we have to defeat that. It's only going to happen by providing a clear and contrasting alternative. Not something equally oppressive but in a different way.

 

Being Christian, being a moral person is a choice you make for yourself. You can't make it for anyone else. I am a Christian and for the most part I have tried to live my life in such a way that Jesus will be happy with me when I do meet Him. But aside from leading by example that is a choice I can only make for myself. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

What about not stealing and not killing? Those are moral choices too. You might say certain behaviors don't affect others, so are OK. But what if I want to live in a society where people aren't all drug users and don't engage in deviant behavior? Do you understand that society affects everyone who lives in it, one way or another?

[Guard Dog]

What about not stealing and not killing? Those are moral choices too. You might say certain behaviors don't affect others, so are OK. But what if I want to live in a society where people aren't all drug users and don't engage in deviant behavior? Do you understand that society affects everyone who lives in it, one way or another?

Your freedom ends the instant it intrudes on someone else. Killing & stealing affect other people. Consenting adults marrying whoever they want does not. c'mon, you know better than that! as far as drug use I would not go so far as to legalize all drugs because with some there ARE significant public safety concerns. But is a gay couple moves in next door and you don't like them being there... move. You are free to move, to ignore them etc. No one is forcing you to like anything.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Guard Dog

[Bartimaeus]

 

I feel pretty out of touch with both parties. I'm generally fiscally conservative, lightly liberal with an equally light libertarian bent socially, and strongly pro-imperialism/hegemonism for foreign affairs. Both parties seem pretty imperialistic...although I always feel like both parties generally do a poor job of it...neither parties are really fiscally conservative - they can be fiscally conservative about *some* things - and different things, depending upon the party - but it never really feels like across the entire board...and neither parties are really hardly libertarian or liberal at all for social matters. I guess the Democrats are generally a little more liberal than the Republicans, but it seems like they make up for it with being a little more authoritarian. That might just be perceived, though.

 

Honestly, I dislike both parties enough that I probably won't vote, unless someone does some serious convincing for me. Ideally, I'd like to see an entire new voting system devised, the entirety of our current Congress dissolved and disbarred, a limit made on how long you stay in politics, and a bunch of new parties created before I think I could vote more than half-heartedly. I can't see any of those happening in the near future, (10-20 years). Can always hope, I suppose.

 

Alternatively, an emperor/empress that could just fix all this crap in the duration of their lifetime after which the old but revitalized system falls back into place would be cool, too, I guess. The problem always lies in finding the right one...

So basically you want some sort of a benevolent dictator in the mold of a modern day Solon to take power? Yikes. Hopefully more Marshal Tito and less Mussolini in such a scenario...

 

 

Yes...and no. With the way our government is set up, (i.e. non-autocratically), the only way a dictator could ever really seize power is if they're almost certainly (at least mostly) horrible - it would be a paradox, by my estimation, for a "just" person - i.e. someone we would actually like to see on the throne - to seize power in that manner...especially so in our current political climate. Any succeeding hegemon would also likely be horrible...at least for a time - probably at least the duration of our lives. I think it would be a huge, gigantic, unestimable mistake to have that happen to a country of the U.S.'s size and power in this day and age. The Roman Republic didn't have the strongest military force in all of human existence, nor unimaginable and devastating weapons of mass destruction that could end life as we know it within a mere few hours.

 

Now, if the government were actually properly transitioned...even then, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the idea. As much as our system is broken, there are still at least half-functioning checks and balances that keep things from *truly* going out of hand. Autocracy is probably the most efficient form of government...when under the perfect circumstances, (a great ruler is absolutely necessary...but also a highly nationalist, undivided, and great people, at the bare minimum - none of which we're even coming close to fulfilling - not that anyone else is, either, but...). The idea was a half-joke, but I do like to privately theorize how much more efficiently and strongly nations could be run under the perfect conditions. 

 

Perhaps, with a triumvirate of sorts...

[Shallow]

The whole gay marriage debate is stupid, there is absolutely no reason the government needs to recognize that two (or depending on your idea of marriage, more) people declare that they're eachothers soulmates, and quite frankly, it creates a large amount of problems whilst solving none. If people had confindence in themselves and didn't need the government to tell them they're married people could just define marriage however they want, if the government doesn't take a stand (legalizing all forms of marriage is taking a stand just as much as prohibiting all but the traditional ones) I could claim I was married to my left fingernail, anyone else could dispute it, however they'd have exactly as much legitimazy doing so as I did making the claim in the first place.

 

The law is there to protect citizens from other citizens, foreigners, and from themselves (I personally don't approve of the last part, but what can you do), that's why things like harming other people, or their property (includes stealing it), should be illegal in most cases, and arguably why things like mandatory education in some form, some drugs being illegal, and stuff have the right to be enforced. Whether things like marriage are government approved however are 100% meaningless, at least in a country with religious freedom (countries without have the argument of protecting you from eternal hellfire & w/e).

[Namutree]

It's been that way ever since US was founded, yet worked just fine. Laws express peoples moral believes, without moral believes you can't have a functional society. Just having a law on what relationships are recognized as marriage doesn't make the government bigger somehow.

Actually it hasn't been this way since the country was founded. Our government does way more than it used to. Government having a hand in everything isn't working fine; we're going broke and losing our way of life.