Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[Spectral]

Well, you'd have to prove it, not just say it. The Tea Party is none of those things; anti-intellectual, anti-government, nor anti-science. Also, the Tea Party is separate from the Republican Party. Although, there are Republicans who support the Tea Party movement, they are separate.

The idea that they're separate is absolute nonsense. Every single politician that's gained Tea Party support is Republican, there's not a single exception.

The Tea Party's most relevant member and chair of the Tea Party caucus is Michelle Bachmann. If that's insufficient evidence that movement has an anti-intellectual, anti-government, anti-science bent, then I have no desire to discuss the matter with you.

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 12:16 AM ----------

Actually, I said "No one that's sane actually supports abortion, they support a woman's right to choose."

My intention wasn't to distort, it was to paraphrase. I'm sorry if the way I put it doesn't capture your intended meaning. I honestly fail to understand the different between the statement "no one's in favor of abortion" and what you actually said, unless you're telling me that I'm insane (I assume that's not your position, but I don't want to put words in your.... keyboard?).

You're right that I worded it incorrectly, and I shouldn't speak for other people, it's just that I see the act of having an abortion as an inherently negative concept. I understand that having an unwanted child is horrible, but that doesn't make the act of having an abortion any better. I've seen the decision permanently change the way people act.

Well, relative to not being pregnant at all, having an abortion is surely a negative experience. Nonetheless, it's a vastly superior choice to having a child for many of the people that choose it. There's absolutely zero doubt in my mind that my girlfriend would have no compunctions about popping the required pills for a chemical abortion, and both of us would move on with life and never really give it a second thought. The only thing it would make me think is that maybe it's time to badger a doctor for a vasectomy. There's literally nothing morally ambiguous about this to me at all. I understand that others don't feel the same way; please try to extend that courtesy.

[MustangMark83]

But Romney was a weak candidate. Nobody actually voted for Romney. They were all just voting against Obama and that's no way to win an election.

Where the Republicans lost big was in the Senate. And that can largely be blamed on the rape comments and not wanting gays to be able to marry.

Good point. I am a conservative and I wasn't thrilled with Romney being selected. I would have much rather had Ron Paul, but I think my main driving focus for voting was to vote for whoever had the best chance against obama. We lost, and now it's time to find someone who can motivate more people to vote in 2016. Life goes on.

[BrerBear]

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.

LOL
So cute.
I'm one of those "job creators" the GOP fawns over (probably a 1% too) and I still voted Democrat. There is a point you reach where you recognize that policies that massively benefit the rich do not benefit anyone in the long run.

At least, some of us recognize that.

Tipping point, my ass.

[Seranthor]

Some alarm bells have to be going off. When they can't win the home states of the 2 people running there is a serious breakdown. If it is policy the canidates or a mix of the two something miss fired majorly. If you cannot convince the people that know them best and where they are from they are the correct choice how can the GoP expect strangers to back them.

Realistically, Michigan hasn't voted for a Republican for President since 1988, Wisconsin hasn't voted for a Republican for President since 1984, and with the exception of Reagan in 80 and 84 Massachusetts hasn't voted for a Republican for President since 1956.

Some states are just unwinnable, regardless of whether a candidate is from there or not.

[Verain]

Well, you'd have to prove it, not just say it. The Tea Party is none of those things; anti-intellectual, anti-government, nor anti-science. Also, the Tea Party is separate from the Republican Party. Although, there are Republicans who support the Tea Party movement, they are separate.

Ok, I'm pretty sympathetic to conservatives at times, but I gotta call you out on some of this.

The tea-party guys have been saying stuff like "evolution is a lie from hell" and "women's bodies have a way to shut that whole thing down". I think it's fair to call that opposed to science. Honestly believing the second thing has ALL SORTS of ludicrous implications- for instance, it means that you believe that if a woman gets pregnant and has accused her rapist of rape, that she is a false accuser. While false accusation of rape is a big and legit problem assuming that a woman being pregnant makes her a liar is ludicrous and wrong, and VERY hateful. And of course, it's scientifically absurd.

Is he a strawman? Hell no. Akin is not a straw man. No tea party, no Akin.

The tea party being seperate from the Republican party is also mostly a lie. Certainly, they have an aspect that is separate, much as, say, the Constitution party is not part of the Republican party. But there are several "tea partiers" in the Republican party, occupying Republican seats, and who are Republican on the ticket. Compared to say, Libertarians- there are some right leaning libertarians in the Republican party, but by and large libertarians are in the Libertarian party.



It's my hope that the social conservatives lose their traction in the Republican party. The R's have to do SOMETHING to be more palatable, but I'm not sure what that is.

[Seranthor]

Unlikely. Atleast not anytime soon.

I think it's safe to say that the retarded elephant is down and injured. And the sane among us are glad it is so.

It's probably going to die. I hope a smarter elephant with less hate, more education and the majority's interests at heart replaces that silly retarded elephant.

Calling someone 'retarded' isn't going to get them to agree with you anymore than someone calling you names... just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them any less educated, nor does it bolster your claims about interests.

I could easily say that there were a great deal of people that voted for Obama because he promised to take from the rich and give to them. Would it be fair? maybe, maybe not, would it be accurate? also debatable. Truth is personal responsibility is a dying virtue in America, and pretty much throughout the world. And its my personal belief as that virtue continues to die, the stability of Western Civ will go with it.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 11:55 PM ----------

I live in Tennessee. Of the people that vote republican, 50% have an IQ less than 85, their opinion does not matter in American politics.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 04:03 PM ----------



They picked Kerry in 2004! Gore in 2000 and he should have won.

who should have won? Gore or Kerry?

[reikoshea]

The reason that they wont admit it, is they haven't lost (yes, the GOP lost the presidential election), but the majority of the country (by land mass) still votes republican. Go figure.

[Seranthor]

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.

Query, who says YOUR version of morality has any more relevance than theirs? as far as self reliance, that wont get them much traction, because while there are those that call the rich greedy for wanting to keep what they earn, those same folks aren't willing to admit their own greed for someone else's efforts.

[Spectral]

The reason that they wont admit it, is they haven't lost (yes, the GOP lost the presidential election), but the majority of the country (by land mass) still votes republican. Go figure.

I've never understood why Republicans find this meaningful. I've had more than one of them point it out to me, but I'm not sure what they're even trying to drive at. Land pretty much doesn't vote, people do.

[Rendia]

The reason that they wont admit it, is they haven't lost (yes, the GOP lost the presidential election), but the majority of the country (by land mass) still votes republican. Go figure.

By land mass sure, the Rep's have the majority, but the majority of that land mass is empty, rural communities.

By contrast, nearly every major city votes Dem. Land mass =/= Majority of voters.

[reikoshea]

No one ever said it did, but do you think you should run the rural areas the same way you run the major metro areas?

[Spectral]

No one ever said it did, but do you think you should run the rural areas the same way you run the major metro areas?

In what way? I've never heard anyone posit that every and all rule applies to all communities. Yes, rural areas should have to adhere to basic shit like not discriminating against ethnic minorities in housing though.

[Verain]

Well, does land need representation, or do people?

Here's fun for you:

Each state gets two senators. Representatives are divied up by population. So Montana has the same number of Senators as New York. Montana has about 5% of the population of New York state. Each Montanan has 20x the representation of a New Yorker. But the Senate skews Democratic.

A lot of our national policy is chosen by that. Liberal California should probably not be one state (though dividing it would probably produce at least one conservative state). The entire North East, which is all this gaggle of tiny states, shifts that as well. It's a rather strange system for something as important as Senators.

[Seranthor]

The image speaks for itself. The 10 most educated states (measured by college degrees) voted for Obama. 9 of the 10 least educated voted for Romney. That's an astounding correlation.

My point isn't to ridicule the intelligence of Republicans, its to point out the facts and let people form their own opinions.

Then here is a fact for you... of those states that voted for Obama in 2012.

1. Mass hasn't voted for a Rep president since 1984
2. MD hasn't voted for a Republican President since 1988
4. CT hasn't voted for a Republican President since 1988
5. VT hasn't voted for a Republican President since 1988
6. NJ hasn't voted for a Republican President since 1988

So, what you've proven in essence is that some states invariably vote Democrat regardless of who the hell is running...

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 12:33 AM ----------

No one that's sane actually supports abortion, they support a woman's right to choose.

I could easily say that pro-choice is also pro-abortion, and it would be factually correct... see how facts can be spun?

just like your picture might contain 'facts' my statement above is factually accurate... both are highly subjective use of facts to paint one position in an extremely negative light.

[Verain]

My point isn't to ridicule the intelligence of Republicans, its to point out the facts and let people form their own opinions.

Calling straight BS here. Your point was to imply that Republicans are stupid- and the implication you'll claim you don't believe but probably secretly do is that dumb people are less than people, subhuman, shouldn't have the vote, don't matter.

The reason I know you aren't "pointing out facts" is because you're looking at the one metric out of all that implies that exact point.

Here's an actual article. Guess what? It's not as simple as your dumb picture.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...han-red-states

Oh, and here's a "fact", which is both true, and also misleading (I'll leave figuring out why this is misleading as an exercise to the reader):

Republicans on average are smarter than Democrats, by over 2 IQ points.

Uhoesies! What does that do to your simplified "facts"?


Of course, all these data points are useless. Data, sure, but they don't point to a greater truth.

So don't pick out something VERY CLEVERLY CHOSEN, a statistical manipulation meant to imply that one political party is smarter, or favored by smart people, or whatever, and not expect to get called out.

[Nakura Chambers]

America no longer being the "greatest country on earth"

We are though. Problem?

Our problem is that we have a huge divide in our party, between the fiscal conservatives (and libertarians) and the social conservatives. We need to keep the foreign policy, actually practice the economics we preach, and adopt the libertarian ideas on social issues and civil liberties.

[Seranthor]

post #7 gets a free pass, and post #201 gets infracted?

both used the same insult in the same manner. either use your hammer fairly or hold it back please.

Public comments on moderation isn't acceptable, take it to IMs.

[MasterHamster]

Since I see the republican party as a danger to anyone who isn't a financially secure white man, I hope they don't. Ever.

[Porimlys]

No one that's sane actually supports abortion, they support a woman's right to choose.

See I don't know about messages like this. I support abortion and a woman's right to choose. When you start saying things like this the message gets muddled, you're saying "I support your right to choose, but I think there's only one right choice". It might seem like arguing semantics but it's really the only way the discussion is going to change. I support abortion because I support a woman's right to choose. We can't support women's rights and in the same breath judge and condemn them for how they choose to control their body, it's just a different color of the same patriarchy.

[Nakura Chambers]

Since I see the republican party as a danger to anyone who isn't a financially secure white man, I hope they don't. Ever.

You're clearly ignorant on the subject and not contributing anything to this thread, so why reply?