Page 9 of 37 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
19
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Bob View Post
    The republican party has standards, out of date with modern times. It's a party stuck in the '50s and which refuses to evolve. No one gives a shit these days about anything.

    It's no wonder they are losing terrain in favor of the democrats who actually in tune with the times.
    Fixed that for you.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    Fixed that for you.
    Standards ?! Must have missed that while Romney was saying one thing and then the complete opposite the next day.

  3. #163
    I hope they do. And I hope the Democrats adapt as well. And every other party, both in the US and the UK.

    Adapting is a good thing. Stagnation is a bad thing.

    Problem is, there's a growing feeling of 'us vs them'. Thus any valid point one side has will be ignored, and all focus will be on the negatives. And a vicious circle begins.

    The Republicans are certainly in denial. But so are the Conservatives, to a degree.

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    I'm not that pessimistic. In both 2006 and 2010, we had majority swings. If the forecasts for the economy remain true next year and roll for another, it will be a good chance to regain. I just doubt anymore republicans will talk about rape in 2 years, which makes winning more difficult.

    I believe this presidency is crucial, as recovery is inevitable and which ever party is leading at that time, will hold office for a while.
    It's not pessimism. It's math. Republicans widely and blatantly gerrymandered districts in the run up to 2010 in order to get and keep a majority long term. These seats are now so safe that except in the most extreme circumstances--like someone spouting ridiculous stuff about rape and abortion--they cannot lose. This is also why Tea Party candidates can beat more moderate established candidates even in Republican primaries: because the districts are now so deeply red.

    Republicans now want to do the same thing at a national level to change the outcome of presidential elections. Basically, they want to divide the Electoral College based on Congressional Districts. Based on the way the these have been gerrymandered, that means McCain would have defeated Obama for the Presidency despite being beat by 7.2% in the popular vote. It means Romney would have won this election even though Obama will end up beating him by 3-4% when all votes are counted. It's being pushed by Republican state govts in place like PA and OH, and could gain traction elsewhere as Republicans seek to "win" without having to change their Party's values.

  5. #165
    The Lightbringer Mandible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,376
    No I do not think they will. What they need to do is accept the fact they lost, and do whatever they can to seem friendly and work towards improving the country instead of automaticly working against anything the democrats / Obama puts up. Even accepting that you need to tax the rich people for a while to gain the funds - if they don´t they have some funny idea of who is part of the country and who isn´t.
    "Only Jack can zip up."
    The word you want to use is "have" not "of".
    You may have alot of stuff in your country, but we got Lolland.

  6. #166
    It does not matter what the GOP does now (or anyone else). This election was won by the "gimme stuff" party. We are past the tipping point now. No way to avoid collapse.

  7. #167
    OP i think you are the one in denial. I saw your replies - and you don't think there is a valid point to arguing both sides of an issue? You feel that because you think global warming is real, woman should have the right to fuck around and when they messup - just kill a baby that's inside of them? Well, those are opinions you have the right to have - but to tell others their opinions are wrong and don't matter because they differ from yours is pathetic.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    No, they are not. For example, the opinion that women can't get pregnant when they're raped is not just as valid as my thoughts on the matter. The belief that evolution is a "lie from the pit of hell" is not just as valid as my thoughts. The idea that all opinions are equally valid is nonsense.
    This. People seem to believe that because they're able to open their mouths that suddenly all the crap that comes out is worth hearing. It's not. A thought should be mulled over and developed before you just lob it out there expecting everyone to respect your half baked ideas.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
    Neither of them would have won. I'm tired of seeing the people on the internet delude themselves into thinking they are some sort of messaihs. The only legitimate candidate the Republicans had this cycle was Huntsman and he got no votes.
    I'm not completely sure that I agree with this. I think that Ron Paul would have swayed independent/middle of the road voters who aren't necessarily fans of Obama, but just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney (my wife is an example). Considering there was only a 3 million vote gap, I believe that Paul would have definitely put up a very good fight for Obama by speaking with sense.

    OT : I think it's about time for the Pubs to distance themselves from the "Family Values" and religious zealots and just focus on fiscal policy. It would have been much more beneficial for them in the long run as well as this past election. Also, Romney was just not likeable. Like I said above, a 3 million vote gap is relatively small. It's the same amount that Kerry lost to Bush in '04, so it's not like the '08 landslide.

  10. #170
    The GOP needs to drop this silly adherence to primitive mythology. Religion isn't needed anymore. We have moved on past silly superstition and mysticism (well, the modern world has) and realize that it offers nothing but false hope and brainwashing.

    If they would drop this crap, i.e. opposition to evolution, opposition to same-sex marriage, sticking their noses in women's bodies, cramming their own primitive form of morality down peoples throat, etc. and focused on their stances on the economy and promotion of self reliance and reward for hard work they would have a much better chance of being relevant again.

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    The GOP needs to drop this silly adherence to primitive mythology. Religion isn't needed anymore. We have moved on past silly superstition and mysticism (well, the modern world has) and realize that it offers nothing but false hope and brainwashing.

    If they would drop this crap, i.e. opposition to evolution, opposition to same-sex marriage, sticking their noses in women's bodies, cramming their own primitive form of morality down peoples throat, etc. and focused on their stances on the economy and promotion of self reliance and reward for hard work they would have a much better chance of being relevant again.
    Well said. It's amazing how powerful ideas are, good and bad. Religious ideas are so pervasive and strong that all these years later we have people who still refuse to face the basic realities of being a human. They opt for a life of fairy tales and bearded men in the sky who like to give immortality when you ask him for forgiveness for.. well, being human.

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious98 View Post
    I'm not completely sure that I agree with this. I think that Ron Paul would have swayed independent/middle of the road voters who aren't necessarily fans of Obama, but just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Romney (my wife is an example). Considering there was only a 3 million vote gap, I believe that Paul would have definitely put up a very good fight for Obama by speaking with sense.

    OT : I think it's about time for the Pubs to distance themselves from the "Family Values" and religious zealots and just focus on fiscal policy. It would have been much more beneficial for them in the long run as well as this past election. Also, Romney was just not likeable. Like I said above, a 3 million vote gap is relatively small. It's the same amount that Kerry lost to Bush in '04, so it's not like the '08 landslide.
    Unless Ron Paul betrayed almost every policy position he has stood for, I am not even sure he would get 40% of the vote, and I consider about 43% as the normal absolute FLOOR for either party. His positions are simply far, far too extreme on far too many issues, and the ugly skeletons in his closet would be very easy to exploit.

    The only chance he would have is if the US was in a situation like being mired in Iraq at the height of the insurgency, and in that case his opponent could easily blunt that by saying they'd end the war too.

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by rboa View Post
    It does not matter what the GOP does now (or anyone else). This election was won by the "gimme stuff" party. We are past the tipping point now. No way to avoid collapse.
    I thought the "gimme stuff" party lost. Isn't the "gimme stuff" party the one living of military contract spending, pork barrel projects, farm subsidies and living in red states that take more money from the federal government than they put in?

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by taurvanhiel View Post
    I thought the "gimme stuff" party lost. Isn't the "gimme stuff" party the one living of military contract spending, pork barrel projects, farm subsidies and living in red states that take more money from the federal government than they put in?
    Depending on how you define it, BOTH parties cater to their "gimme stuff" base. For Democrats their base wants social programs to help the poor and middle class. For Republicans it's tax cuts and handouts for the wealthy and corporations.

  15. #175
    Over 9000! Snowraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    9,226
    Quote Originally Posted by sulfuric View Post
    I think people like you are whats wrong with the country. You see this as "Two sides to every story". Tell me please how the opinion of "Global warming is a hoax" is just as valid as the scientifically proven fact of global warming? Tell me please how the opinion of "I do not believe in evolution" is a valid opinion?

    There are not two sides of every fact, there are only facts. I think you need to look into this further to understand the error of your statement.
    I'm not american, but did a sort of test once and there was a question if you belive in creationism or evolution, and I voted that I think I belive evolution is part of creationism, and I saw that at that point I had the same choice as Romney. Doesn't that mean that they do accept evolution in a certain aspect? Maybe not from the same point as people who don't belive in a higher being watching over us, but they still accept it?


    On your main point, they don't need to adapt because many americans still belive in them. They like those "less rights for women" and "less healthcare and wellfare" and whatnot. No clue why, but they do. So... yea. As long as these people exist, the republicans won't have a problem.

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    I'm not american, but did a sort of test once and there was a question if you belive in creationism or evolution, and I voted that I think I belive evolution is part of creationism, and I saw that at that point I had the same choice as Romney. Doesn't that mean that they do accept evolution in a certain aspect? Maybe not from the same point as people who don't belive in a higher being watching over us, but they still accept it?


    On your main point, they don't need to adapt because many americans still belive in them. They like those "less rights for women" and "less healthcare and wellfare" and whatnot. No clue why, but they do. So... yea. As long as these people exist, the republicans won't have a problem.
    Well, the question is not just whether or not they need to adapt, but whether or not they need to adapt to win Presidential elections. The answer right now is tentatively yes, and as the demographics continually shift towards less dominance for whites, with every election the "yes" will be stated more strongly.

    The danger for them less talked about is how partisan the politics is now, and how the young vote is overwhelmingly Democrat. That means beyond just racial demographics the Republicans could be in a world of trouble.

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    Depending on how you define it, BOTH parties cater to their "gimme stuff" base. For Democrats their base wants social programs to help the poor and middle class. For Republicans it's tax cuts and handouts for the wealthy and corporations.
    Yes - the point is one party is aware and admits it. The other is delusional and in denial about it.

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by sulfuric View Post
    It seems that the republican party has been in denial for a very long time on a number of issues. Denial about education, denial about America no longer being the "greatest country on earth", America being a Christian nation (it isn't), Denial about evolution, Global warming, the age of the planet, and a plethora of other scientific issues.

    Watching the GOP play the blame game and scapegoat everything from the hurricaine, to Romney being a weak candidate, to America full of black and latino voters who "want free shit" has made me realize that they are still in denial. Do you guys think the republican party will admit that they lost based on their ideas being out of touch with the country and change their platform to be more inclusive instead of exclusive? Or will they continue business as usual and further alienate women voters by promising laws limiting their control of their bodies, pressing more de-regulation of banks and big business, and further pursuing their losing platform of 2012?
    I think we need to continue to hate each other and get nothing done.

  19. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by ptwonline View Post
    Depending on how you define it, BOTH parties cater to their "gimme stuff" base. For Democrats their base wants social programs to help the poor and middle class. For Republicans it's tax cuts and handouts for the wealthy and corporations.
    The difference, to me, seems pretty clear though. It's a hell of a lot worse to have a "gimme" mentality towards people that already have millions of dollars.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    I'm not american, but did a sort of test once and there was a question if you belive in creationism or evolution, and I voted that I think I belive evolution is part of creationism
    Put simply your vote is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    and I saw that at that point I had the same choice as Romney. Doesn't that mean that they do accept evolution in a certain aspect? Maybe not from the same point as people who don't belive in a higher being watching over us, but they still accept it?
    A Republican Congressman that's on the Science and Technology Committee (Paul Broun) recently referred to evolution as a "lie from the pit of hell". You don't understand how bugfucking insane American fundamentalists are.
    Last edited by Spectral; 2012-11-10 at 06:21 PM.

  20. #180
    Field Marshal Xiaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    90
    It's beyond me why they don't realize that when they alienate 60% of the electorate it's going to make it hard for them to win an election. It's proven that more women are voting than men, so making women's rights (Abortion, Contraception, etc.) a talking point for your party is not in the best interest. When you alienate 60% of the population with your far right social agenda on such things as gay rights, women's rights, immigration, etc. it's going to be extremely difficult to win an election.

    That being said, they're already blaming everything from Obama's smear campaign to Hurricane Sandy for their loss. I'm a firm believer in a two party system where two different opinions are brought in front of the public and then they decide which ideas and plans they want to put into place. However, it seems we have one party of ideas and one party of naysayers. They down Obamacare, even though it was a Republican idea, and offer no other solution in its place. Unfortunately, I think we're in for a bit more of denial before they move on to the next stage of getting their act together.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •