The Republican Long Game

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Now I’m not saying gay marriage and slavery are comparable, but you can’t claim we shouldn’t legislate morality.

The issue is whether or not the morals we are legislating are just.

I would imagine if the republican party were to evolve its stance to one of “silent disapproval” of gay marriage, I would doubt their vote share would jump all that significantly. [/quote]

Nationally they should punt/pivot to “states rights” and argue individual states should decide, IMO. [/quote]

That is silent disapproval in a way I guess.

I’m not disagreeing with you.

142

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
@Counting Beans

I disagree with you. I fee that if the Republican party became much more tolerant to the homosexual community and argued we judge a person not by age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender but by content of their character I believe they would see a growth in party affiliation. I feel uneasy with Dick Cheney denying his daughter the right to get married if she so chooses. It is hard to be the champion of individual freedom when you deny law abiding citizens the freedom to pursue there own life, liberty and pursuit of their own happiness.

The Republican party should argue in regards to domestic policy that black, white, yellow, orange, brown do not matter all that matters is the colour green. [/quote]

Yeah, that works out well when you apply it to affirmative action… the right gets lanced when they try to apply that ideal too.

Point being, you can’t ask someone to give up their principles. Best you can hope for is them to remain silent in the face of this that which they disapprove, if and only if, they can.

I’ll never ask someone who is against gay marriage to endorse it just to pander for votes. I’ll never ask a gay person to stop fighting for what they think is right either.

143

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
No but a creates a mixed message to voters when Warren Buffet goes the rich should pay more and the general public is like yes they should because if Warren Buffet one of the world’s richest men thinks he is not paying his fair share then there is problem.

It automatically makes the wealthy look greedy and arrogant if they disagree with Buffet. The picture is painted before the Republicans can rebuttle. [/quote]
So what.
Its a very valid position to say the top tax rate is too low.
All you are really saying is the republicans need a better narrative. This is clearly true. If you take the result of bush versus gore as it should have gone then the last few presidential elections have not gone well either in popular or electoral votes for the republicams
Demographically this will likely continue unless there is a change. Yet the religious right along with a couple other groups doesnt get this
I have seen a few national figures say the party is not right enough and every position should be more conservative, folloe that advice welcome to never winning again.
Politics isnt about going down in flames all or nothing .its about the change you can accomplish.
Roe vs wade ain’t going away. Gay marriage will become legal. If these are important to you live your life in a fashion that reflects it and attempt to change the minds and behavior of people by example and conversion. Legislating or attempting to legislate a morality that doesnt reflect a common view is doomed.
As well kick the fucking morons out of the party that can’t seem to grasp rape. They hurt you. I think every one of the dumb rape quote guys lost. Too fucking stupid to be running.[/quote]

Again, this idea that republicans should become like democrats is just ridiculous. Just be a democrat.

The republicans need to back off socially where it intrudes on personal freedom, not necessarily change their message. If you think there is some sort of reeling or complete lack of support, then you are fooling yourself. It was 8 years ago when the democrats had their asses handed to them, and they had no particular identity or message.
What happened? Obama happened. The ‘message’ didn’t change, they got a unifying personality to whom they could rally behind. That’s it.

The republicans simply needs a charismatic leader that can get the message out in a way that people like and understand.

Keep in mind that in the popular vote, obama won by 500,000 votes. This is the same margin that Gore won, but Bush won the electorate in 2000. Point being that 500,000 votes can be in your favor and you can still lose the presidential election as happened in 2000.
This idea that the republicans need a major paradigm shit to survive is ridiculous. Obama is out in 2016, whose going to replace him?
Without obama, the democrats are anonymous, just like the republicans are now. But the republicans are not far from the surface.

It was this kind of arrogance, that the GOP is irrelevant that led to the ass kicking in congress in 2010. It was also the reason obama got reelected. If he got to continue unabated, he would have been fired hard because his liberal policies would be sinking us.

144

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The Republican message becomes underminded when you have the wealthy elite such as Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, the Google owners, and Warren Buffet affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party and the Koch brothers with the Republican Party. [/quote]

You forgot Donald Trump

145

[quote]pat wrote:

Keep in mind that in the popular vote, obama won by 500,000 votes. This is the same margin that Gore won, but Bush won the electorate in 2000. Point being that 500,000 votes can be in your favor and you can still lose the presidential election as happened in 2000.
This idea that the republicans need a major paradigm shit to survive is ridiculous. Obama is out in 2016, whose going to replace him?
Without obama, the democrats are anonymous, just like the republicans are now. But the republicans are not far from the surface.

It was this kind of arrogance, that the GOP is irrelevant that led to the ass kicking in congress in 2010. It was also the reason obama got reelected. If he got to continue unabated, he would have been fired hard because his liberal policies would be sinking us.
[/quote]

I’m curious. I have seen you post this number several times. Where are you getting the 500,000 number from?

Right now google has Obama with more than a three million vote lead. Florida isn’t included, but I don’t think that it will make much of a difference.

https://www.google.com/search?q=2012+presidential+election&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Beqn%2Ccconf%3D1.2%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0.035%2Crate_high%3D0.035%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cnum_suggestions%3D2%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue&gs_nf=3&cp=26&pq=2012%20presidential%20election&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=2012+presidential+election&pf=p&client=firefox-a&hs=pzw&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=2012+presidential+election&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=965fc57a826a8ea9&bpcl=38093640&biw=1019&bih=358

146

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Keep in mind that in the popular vote, obama won by 500,000 votes. This is the same margin that Gore won, but Bush won the electorate in 2000. Point being that 500,000 votes can be in your favor and you can still lose the presidential election as happened in 2000.
This idea that the republicans need a major paradigm shit to survive is ridiculous. Obama is out in 2016, whose going to replace him?
Without obama, the democrats are anonymous, just like the republicans are now. But the republicans are not far from the surface.

It was this kind of arrogance, that the GOP is irrelevant that led to the ass kicking in congress in 2010. It was also the reason obama got reelected. If he got to continue unabated, he would have been fired hard because his liberal policies would be sinking us.
[/quote]

I’m curious. I have seen you post this number several times. Where are you getting the 500,000 number from?

Right now google has Obama with more than a three million vote lead. Florida isn’t included, but I don’t think that it will make much of a difference.

https://www.google.com/search?q=2012+presidential+election&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Beqn%2Ccconf%3D1.2%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0.035%2Crate_high%3D0.035%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cnum_suggestions%3D2%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue&gs_nf=3&cp=26&pq=2012%20presidential%20election&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=2012+presidential+election&pf=p&client=firefox-a&hs=pzw&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=2012+presidential+election&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=965fc57a826a8ea9&bpcl=38093640&biw=1019&bih=358[/quote]

Ahhh, you’re right. The results I was recalling was on cnn.com from 11/7 in which all the votes were not yet likely counted, including absentee ballots and such. So the final number is about 3 million. Which still isn’t a huge margin. I wasn’t really thinking about that not all the votes were yet counted.

148

Lol sorry Pushharder I just remembered he endorsed it at the state level in May my bad.

149

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

SS works like a ponzi scheme, as such if you run out of new money, the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

One way to sort of combat this is if someone is smart with their money, lives within their means, and defers some of their earned benefits because they came in over the means limits they can pass their remaining benefits on to heirs. (The left would lose their minds over this idea though.)

Thing is, everyone likes to call SS (forced) retirement savings. It isn’t. It is social welfare for those that A) weren’t able to make enough to save for retirement and still want to retire B) lose everything in a situation like the FC C) were plain stupid with their money.

I’m not saying we should ignore these people and let them die, not, but we need to encourage people to at least try and sustain themselves with saved money, and not rely on SS to live out the rest of their lives. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore.[/quote]

And, it was LBJ (as memory serves) that changed SS radically, including the way it was financed.

It was never conceived of being this general-pension for old people. FDR’s social security started paying benefits (again, as memory serves) after what amounted the year that was the average year of mortality back then. It was designed to be an emergency fund - not a 20 year retirement fund.

I like social security, and I don’t think it is a good idea to privatize it or do away with it - but it needs to be downsized to serve its original mission.[/quote]

It’ll have to downsize. Sooner or later.

I just wonder about those people still living paycheck to paycheck around retirement age.

I’d hate to see the government so irresponsible with it that it just has to be eliminated one day. Do you see that as a distinct possibility?

[/quote]

The average German worker making 2500 EUR before taxes will get around 670 EUR either in 30 years oe when he retires in 2030, I dont remember.

I dont know whether youre government puts out the numbers but Idoubt they will be much different.