toldailytopic: What adjustments will the Republican party need to make if they are to

GuySmiley

Well-known member
Republicans need to become conservatives. Currently the Republican party is just a 'lite' version of the Democrats. Democrats overspend, republicans promise to overspend not-as-much. Democrats support immorality, republicans will support it less.

The republicans have lost their base while trying to court the middle.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The problem is that if the "base" is a minority, then the tighter you hold to the base, the more you alienate the majority.

And you can't gerrymander an entire state, which is why the Senate and the WH is trending democrat. A few creative republicans have suggested dividing electoral votes up into districts and gerrymandering those.

But it seems to be unpopular, given that it also greatly reduces the political clout of a state.

So probably not. Eventually, a party has to accommodate the middle, or it will disappear.
 

rexlunae

New member
1. They must learn to stop lying to themselves. Reality doesn't always (or often) accommodate ideology, and the fact that, e.g. you don't like large regulatory agencies like the EPA or policies like carbon taxes does not mean that global warming is a government conspiracy. Figure out what the facts are, and then look for the best ways to address them. And I would love to see conservative ideals applied to the problems of climate change in ways that don't involve sheer denial. Maybe, with the help of Republicans, we could find ways of dealing with the problem that don't impinge on our freedom nearly as much. This is just one example, and there are many more, but I think you get the idea.

2. They must stop playing the victim. No one likes someone who only wants to tell you about how victimized they are, but it's especially obnoxious when it comes from people in very privileged positions. After the 2012 elections stunned the GOP, Bill O'Reilley went on the air to say this:

It's a changing country. The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America any more. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. And, whereby twenty years ago, President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?


Racial resentment, especially the resentment of white men over the rise in political power of other groups telegraphs to those groups a hostile sentiment that the GOP frankly can't afford unless they want to hang all of their future hopes on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement.

3. Break the power of Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge and make a serious effort to raise enough money to fund necessary functions of the government. You can still be for small government and limited taxes without being opposed to every reasonable proposal to generate revenue from people and organizations that can afford to pay, and every program no matter how beneficial. The GOP has managed to convince a small but loud group of middle-class and poor people that tax cuts are in their best interests, but most people are becoming aware that the tax cut agenda will benefit incumbent wealth the most and the poor hardly at all, and that they are used as a ratchet to justify greater and greater cuts to social programs.

4. Learn the meaning of compromise. Not everything has to be a crisis.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
1. They must learn to stop lying to themselves. Reality doesn't always (or often) accommodate ideology, and the fact that, e.g. you don't like large regulatory agencies like the EPA or policies like carbon taxes does not mean that global warming is a government conspiracy.
That doesn't follow. The EPA is a bad idea because it is a governmental power that takes a lot of money but does not offer the same value of service in return. Carbon taxes are a bad idea because the income tax is the only tax, and all other taxes are inefficient or unfair. Global warming isn't a gov't conspiracy any more than the sugar market is. Do you consider the subsidized sugar market a gov't conspiracy?

Figure out what the facts are, and then look for the best ways to address them. And I would love to see conservative ideals applied to the problems of climate change in ways that don't involve sheer denial.
I don't think there are any conservatives that deny the climate changes. This is a huge problem in your thinking.

Maybe, with the help of Republicans, we could find ways of dealing with the problem that don't impinge on our freedom nearly as much. This is just one example, and there are many more, but I think you get the idea.
You seem to think that anthropologic global warming is real. It isn't. It is just a scare tactic by liberals who want to play the victim to gain power. "Impinge on our freedom nearly as much"?!?! The slippery slope is valid here, and no amount of easier solutions will satisfy the liberal because total loss of freedom is the only solution they will eventually accept. Sure, they'll compromise with you as long as you keep going their way, therefore compromise would be a stupid thing to do.

2. They must stop playing the victim. No one likes someone who only wants to tell you about how victimized they are, but it's especially obnoxious when it comes from people in very privileged positions. After the 2012 elections stunned the GOP, Bill O'Reilley went on the air to say this:

It's a changing country. The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America any more. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. And, whereby twenty years ago, President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?


Racial resentment, especially the resentment of white men over the rise in political power of other groups telegraphs to those groups a hostile sentiment that the GOP frankly can't afford unless they want to hang all of their future hopes on gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement.
There, you see. Stay away from listening to establishment republicans like O'Reilley because they are just democrate-lite. The only solution to this problem is to appeal to the freedom loving person inside all of us, which means uncompromising conservative.

3. Break the power of Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge and make a serious effort to raise enough money to fund necessary functions of the government. You can still be for small government and limited taxes without being opposed to every reasonable proposal to generate revenue from people and organizations that can afford to pay, and every program no matter how beneficial. The GOP has managed to convince a small but loud group of middle-class and poor people that tax cuts are in their best interests, but most people are becoming aware that the tax cut agenda will benefit incumbent wealth the most and the poor hardly at all, and that they are used as a ratchet to justify greater and greater cuts to social programs.
A better idea would be to make gov't so much smaller that taxes can be cut while not going into debt? Saying we need to raise taxes to pay for stupid things is just a liberal power grab.

4. Learn the meaning of compromise. Not everything has to be a crisis.
Crises? Oh, like climate change... wait that's a liberal crisis. Like TARP... oh, wait, that was George Bush stabbing conservatives in the back. Like health care... wait, was that conservative?

Compromise with those policies? If it causes a crisis to stop someone from hurting someone else, that's a proper crisis to have.
 

Buzzword

New member
That doesn't follow. The EPA is a bad idea because it is a governmental power that takes a lot of money but does not offer the same value of service in return. Carbon taxes are a bad idea because the income tax is the only tax, and all other taxes are inefficient or unfair. Global warming isn't a gov't conspiracy any more than the sugar market is. Do you consider the subsidized sugar market a gov't conspiracy?


I don't think there are any conservatives that deny the climate changes. This is a huge problem in your thinking.


You seem to think that anthropologic global warming is real. It isn't. It is just a scare tactic by liberals who want to play the victim to gain power. "Impinge on our freedom nearly as much"?!?! The slippery slope is valid here, and no amount of easier solutions will satisfy the liberal because total loss of freedom is the only solution they will eventually accept. Sure, they'll compromise with you as long as you keep going their way, therefore compromise would be a stupid thing to do.


There, you see. Stay away from listening to establishment republicans like O'Reilley because they are just democrate-lite. The only solution to this problem is to appeal to the freedom loving person inside all of us, which means uncompromising conservative.


A better idea would be to make gov't so much smaller that taxes can be cut while not going into debt? Saying we need to raise taxes to pay for stupid things is just a liberal power grab.


Crises? Oh, like climate change... wait that's a liberal crisis. Like TARP... oh, wait, that was George Bush stabbing conservatives in the back. Like health care... wait, was that conservative?

Compromise with those policies? If it causes a crisis to stop someone from hurting someone else, that's a proper crisis to have.

This post encompasses the mindset which has gotten the Republicans where they are now.
 

zippy2006

New member
They might want to stop cracking wise about rape, for one thing.

They might want to stop with their racial tokenism. One Latino and one black guy here and there does not racial diversity make.

They might want to stop acting, and talking, like crazy, demented, out-of-touch lunatics who appeal to no one but an increasingly small and isolated amen corner.

They might stop acting like anti-intellectual buffoons disinterested in facts or reality.

They might, in other words, drop the crazy routine, stop acting as though Americans don't "really" understand their message, and retool themselves from the bottom up.

First, let evangelicals walk. If they want to start their own party, fine. Evangelicals hijacked the GOP in the Seventies and in large part have run the party right into the ground. Support gay marriage (or at least support the right of states to decide the issue) and force the Christians out. Fewer and fewer people care what they think anyway.

Next, oppose American imperialism and demand an end to drone strikes, pre-emptive and illegal wars, and the empire building in the Middle East. Enough is enough.

Third, end this foolish War on Terror and nip the burgeoning police state in the bud.

Fourth, end the equally inane War on Drugs, and really deal the police state a death blow.

Have you considered making a thread, "Why are Republicans so Incredibly Stupid?" :D
 

Charity

New member
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 31st, 2013 05:00 AM


toldailytopic: What adjustments will the Republican party need to make if they are to be successful in the 2016 Presidential Election?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

to ...Stop destroying powerful stars that get in their un respected deceitful way!
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
In other words, "get a bigger hammer so that it won't hurt when you hit yourself on the head with it."

So ever since President Obama gave them a second drubbing, despite a supposedly disqualifying unemployment rate, GOP elites have admitted that America isn't producing enough angry old white guys for them to win national elections, that they can't be the party of no or the Tea Party party or the stupid party. That's progress! The problem is figuring out what needs...

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135136,00.html#ixzz2UyDBV69c
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass

toldailytopic: What adjustments will the Republican party need to make if they are to be successful in the 2016 Presidential Election?


My prediction: They won't make any adjustments beyond lip service and they won't be successful in 2016.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I said the same thing about the democrats after 1968. Politicians will do amazing things, if elections are at stake. Sometimes, they will even go to such extremes as to reform their party.

Not common, and not without a great deal of agonizing, but they sometimes will do it.
 

Ps82

Active member
If the liberals have not discredited themselves in the eyes of the majority of voters, then there is nothing the Republicans can do to make things better for them.

However, regarding conservatives if they happen to take over the executive and legislative branches in the next election, they had better be honest and transparent.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
If the liberals have not discredited themselves in the eyes of the majority of voters, then there is nothing the Republicans can do to make things better for them.

I don't think the voters are that happy with the democrats. If a party that was anything close to the center was to challenge them, I think that party would win. But no such party exists at this time.

However, regarding conservatives if they happen to take over the executive and legislative branches in the next election, they had better be honest and transparent.

I don't know why. No one's ever had to do it before.
 

Ps82

Active member
I don't think the voters are that happy with the democrats. If a party that was anything close to the center was to challenge them, I think that party would win. But no such party exists at this time.



I don't know why. No one's ever had to do it before.

What ever happened to the idealist concept that imperfect people should strive to perfect their behaviors ... and for the masses to expect it of them and hold them accountable?

Have you just given up Barbarian?
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Center-right. Eisenhower, Taft. That sort.

Which Taft? Robert or William Howard?

I don't see how Eisenhower was a "Centrist" at all, but maybe that's just because I'm so far (Economically, anyhow) to the right. But the man had a freaking top marginal rate of ninety-one percent, and his only difference from the democrats is that he wanted to run social democracy more efficiently. How is that "Centrist?"


I wish my mortgage had been at a 0% rate, but for some reason, that wasn't possible.

I see your point, I'm just not as far as you are.

I don't ultimately disagree with you that you can't get all the way to 0%. But we can get way closer than we are right now, and anything to move in that direction is a good thing, IMO.
Move back to the right.

I seriously doubt very many people want your particular brand of "Far-right." Granted, the people don't want what I want either, and I freely acknowledge that, but I'm not pretending I agree with the majority. The majority, unfortunately, supports socialism...
 
Top