What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again?

[NineSpine]

She claimed that birth control was costing over "$3,000" during law school which is just sensationalized bullshit. Let's say it takes 8 years to graduate, that's $375 a year on contraception.

Some napkin math:

12 condoms is $6.50 at Walmart
$375 a year is almost 700 condoms. Who the hell is having sex twice a day, every day, for 8 years? Fuck, I wish I was that lucky.



It doesn't, and I never said it did. Her claim that she is an American woman who uses contraception qualifying her to talk about the subject, while ignoring the fact that contraception is available nationwide for $9/month, is what I was commenting on.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 10:54 PM ----------




She wasn't expressly talking about her friend, the case was also made about the price of condoms because birth control pills weren't covered by the student insurance plan.

It's like you're completely ignoring the rest of the argument because Rush Limbaugh was brought up, and you're stuck on the situation regarding her friend. She expressly commented about financial hardships of other female students because of the lack of covered medication.

Here's what Republicans have to do to become relevant again: Get out of every woman's doctor's office. I've had my fair share of long term relationships, so I'm solely going on the women I've been with, but a full half of them were unable to use the typical inexpensive birth control. One was because she was hypoglycemic, another was because of thyroid issues, etc..

The question isn't complicated: Should insurance as a baseline part of coverage include birth control, which insurance COMPANIES want to do by the way because it reduces long term costs, or should corganizations be able to enforce their morality on the available healthcare plans that employees or students have to pay for. The aggregate effect of making the birth control available is better health results over the long term, less expensive insurance, less unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions. The aggregate effect of the opposite is to give theocrats a smug sense of satisfaction. Which of those two do you value more?

[Tinykong]

She said it could cost that much. Not that it always did. You're being deliberately dishonest.



Except that she was, since she brought her friend's experience up specifically as an example.

You are stating things that literally anyone could tell are fundamentally untrue, just by reading the wiki or nearly any news story on the subject.

She expressly said other women were enduring financial hardships because of the birth control pill coverage. I agree about her friend and birth control coverage by insurance.

However, her claims about the costs for most women are ridiculous. $9 a month or $.50 per condom is a financial hardship? Give me a break.

[FusedMass]

I'm curiously wondering this, America Gov was created 200 years ago with two sides. Left and Right. What happens if this is the way it was supposed to be. Two separate party's battle it out in their vision of America. What if one side was supposed to win. What if the vision of America is not a balanced view of (both Dems and Republicans) is supposed to go to the winning party.

An example. Dems becoming the majority and Republicans slowly phased out completely from congress. Therefore the most popular winning party Dems would maintain control therefore re-shape America in their image.

[Sivick]

I've read through a bit of this thread, and what I've concluded is the following:

What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again? The opposite of what most of the Republicans in this thread are doing. Seriously: You are the problem. You really just need to all stop acting as though you are entitled to be right about everything. You are not. You are not entitled to have every fact in the world validate every opinion you have. When a fact contradicts your opinion, you really need to learn how to deal with that, because the current canned response of anger and subject shifting isn't doing you any favors, and it's what has led you so far down this rabbit hole that you are currently lost in.

---

I have had this ongoing argument with my grandfather ever since the election. He is convinced the Republicans are only in bad shape because too many people are getting government handouts and nobody will vote to end their handouts. When I point out that Clinton slashed welfare dramatically and retained massive approval amongst those demographics, he just changes the subject. The truth is that the Republicans are falling out of favor because their policies are literally that of a Christian version of an organization like the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that they themselves freak out about (for those ignorant of the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood is a conservative, religious, NONVIOLENT organization). They are falling out of favor because Americans increasingly see the party as hell bent on cramming itself into the most personal aspects of everyone's lives on a religious basis.

Maybe even worse than that is that people are seeing the Republicans as increasingly unwilling to engage in the really basic aspects of managing the government. Republicans seem to have this misconception that most of what government is, is radical policy shifts and societal crafting. That's false. Most of what government is, is basic management. It's filling out the paperwork, keeping the checks mailed, maintaining the infrastructure, etc. etc.. The Republicans have turned every little thing into such a profound emotional drama, obstructing everything that they can get their hands on, that people see that and see people flatly unwilling to really do their jobs. They seem more interested in moral grandstanding than in making sure that the government they are supposed to be running is actually running effectively. They are like a manager of a store who refuses to handle his day to day responsibilities because he has a problem with the overall structure of the corporate management of the company. Whether his gripes are valid or not becomes unimportant, because his store is falling to pieces and he just looks like a lazy ass.

you are awesome!

[Tinykong]

Here's what Republicans have to do to become relevant again: Get out of every woman's doctor's office. I've had my fair share of long term relationships, so I'm solely going on the women I've been with, but a full half of them were unable to use the typical inexpensive birth control. One was because she was hypoglycemic, another was because of thyroid issues, etc..

The question isn't complicated: Should insurance as a baseline part of coverage include birth control, which insurance COMPANIES want to do by the way because it reduces long term costs, or should corganizations be able to enforce their morality on the available healthcare plans that employees or students have to pay for. The aggregate effect of making the birth control available is better health results over the long term, less expensive insurance, less unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions. The aggregate effect of the opposite is to give theocrats a smug sense of satisfaction. Which of those two do you value more?

The government needs to get out of everyone's doctors office, IMO.

[Twotonsteak]

Republicans could sit back and let Obama have full control. But every time he gets what he wants he blames the Republicans for how bad it turned out. Of course when ever they try to stop him he blames them for being in the way. And when they actually offer a compromise he accuses them of favoring the wealthy while trying to throw everyone else off a cliff.

So, honestly, there isn't a damn thing they can do. I say that because anything they try to do will be opposed by the guy handing out all the goodies. And in the end that is how people will see it. They won't see the economy, the deficit, spending problems, big government, or anything else. All most people see is "OMG, they want to take away all the free stuff* Obama wants to give us."

*Note that nothing is free. If you are getting something from the Government it means another tax-payer (or China) paid for it.

[MathAddict]

Again, Republicans need to brand themselves as "the party of freedom," which means that they don't get involved in your private life. Your decisions on birth control, health, abortion, gay sex, marriage, etc. are all your private life. They want a world where the government doesn't need to interfere or guide people because everyone already has a great footing.

I think this is so true. It is obvious to anyone with a handful of braincells to rub together, the modern republican party is not the party of freedom. The party hitches their wagon to mega ultra bat shit crazy conservatives like michele bachmann and rick santorum. These people are just as toxic as super left socialist types.

The republicans need to really adopt a libertarian approach to freedom. As of now, I see republicans as highly intrusive and extremely regulatory if you are not a white male heterosexual gun toting christian. If you don not fall in the aforementioned category, then your personal freedoms come into question.

You gay? Too bad, we think you should not have the same rights as a heterosexual.
You Muslim? Don't build that Mosque there! Why? Cause you scary bitch!!!
You are a Women? Conform to our religious beliefs about your womb!?!!??!111!! even if you are not part of our religion....
You brown? Get the fuck out!

I can keep going and going. I know the conservatives and republicans next door (for the most part) are NOT that extreme. Unfortunately, due to the candidates the party supports, this seems like the Republican brand.

The party needs to get some republicans that are libertarian in their views on personal freedom. Also, the party needs to end it's love affair with religion and stop denying any sort of well supported science. I will never forget the one republican debate where more than 70% of the candidates on the stage vehemently denied evolution.

Freedoms + Science + Republicans = much better party.

[Kujako]

I'm curiously wondering this, America Gov was created 200 years ago with two sides. Left and Right.

Actually, no it wasn't. The founders where very much against a two party system. It only devolved into that over the issue of the Federalist Bank being established when the southern agricultural states felt that would put too much power into the northern industrial interestes.

Jefferson said it best I think. "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

[Cthulhu 2020]

I've read through a bit of this thread, and what I've concluded is the following:

What do Republicans have to do to become relevant again? The opposite of what most of the Republicans in this thread are doing. Seriously: You are the problem. You really just need to all stop acting as though you are entitled to be right about everything. You are not. You are not entitled to have every fact in the world validate every opinion you have. When a fact contradicts your opinion, you really need to learn how to deal with that, because the current canned response of anger and subject shifting isn't doing you any favors, and it's what has led you so far down this rabbit hole that you are currently lost in.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

― George Bernard Shaw

[NineSpine]

Republicans could sit back and let Obama have full control. But every time he gets what he wants he blames the Republicans for how bad it turned out. Of course when ever they try to stop him he blames them for being in the way. And when they actually offer a compromise he accuses them of favoring the wealthy while trying to throw everyone else off a cliff.

So, honestly, there isn't a damn thing they can do. I say that because anything they try to do will be opposed by the guy handing out all the goodies. And in the end that is how people will see it. They won't see the economy, the deficit, spending problems, big government, or anything else. All most people see is "OMG, they want to take away all the free stuff* Obama wants to give us."

*Note that nothing is free. If you are getting something from the Government it means another tax-payer (or China) paid for it.

Like how Clinton dramatically slashed welfare and all the Democrats in the country turned on him? Oh wait, he's insanely popular to this day... huh...

[Kujako]

Like how Clinton dramatically slashed welfare and all the Democrats in the country turned on him? Oh wait, he's insanely popular to this day... huh...

Reducing welfare spending is good. Arbitrarily cutting welfare funds is bad. Much like the upcoming sequestration. Even if I agree with the amounts being cut, I do not agree with how the cuts will be applied.

[Felya]

The government needs to get out of everyone's doctors office, IMO.

So a doctor's negligence can be discovered as experience, instead of guidelines to maximize patient safety?

[NineSpine]

Reducing welfare spending is good. Arbitrarily cutting welfare funds is bad. Much like the upcoming sequestration. Even if I agree with the amounts being cut, I do not agree with how the cuts will be applied.

If reducing welfare spending is good, why do the countries with more welfare spending almost universally have healthier economies overall than the US?

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 11:25 PM ----------

She expressly said other women were enduring financial hardships because of the birth control pill coverage. I agree about her friend and birth control coverage by insurance.

However, her claims about the costs for most women are ridiculous. $9 a month or $.50 per condom is a financial hardship? Give me a break.

I'll slow this down, since you seem really oblivious to what it might be like to be a woman. Relying on condoms is idiotic, especially for a college aged woman. Men use them incorrectly very often in ways that are imperceptible to the woman.

[smelltheglove]

If reducing welfare spending is good, why do the countries with more welfare spending almost universally have healthier economies overall than the US?

my issue with our welfare is not the cost, but the poor management. we approach it stupidly because of its status as a political hot button

[NineSpine]

my issue with our welfare is not the cost, but the poor management. we approach it stupidly because of its status as a political hot button

Fair enough. I think a lot of it could be consolidated into simpler programs instead of the scattered set of policies we have now. I've supported replacing most welfare with a negative income tax.

[Kujako]

If reducing welfare spending is good, why do the countries with more welfare spending almost universally have healthier economies overall than the US?

So why dont these unnamed countries spend 100% of their GDP on welfare? Because there is a balance to be maintained. If you can reduce costs while maintaining effectiveness, why would you not do it?

[Felya]

If reducing welfare spending is good, why do the countries with more welfare spending almost universally have healthier economies overall than the US?

At the very least, if welfare spending is the issue. Why do states that are synonymous with welfare, like NY and CA, contribute so much more to the federal government coffers, than they receive in return?

[NineSpine]

you are awesome!

no youre awesome!

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 11:30 PM ----------

So why dont these unnamed countries spend 100% of their GDP on welfare? Because there is a balance to be maintained. If you can reduce costs while maintaining effectiveness, why would you not do it?

Because very little of the costs are actually wasted. The problems with the system are more about people who need it being unable to get it than the reverse. We could probably get more for our dollar, but we should be spending more on it overall anyway. Even if we streamlined the systems, the overall spending should be increased.

---------- Post added 2013-02-25 at 11:31 PM ----------

At the very least, if welfare spending is the issue. Why do states that are synonymous with welfare, like NY and CA, contribute so much more to the federal government coffers, than they receive in return?

Because modern conservatism isn't about facts. It's about a moral framework, and that means that they are always right.

[Moshots]

Pass a law that you have to pay taxes to vote. Then the republicans will win with 70% of the votes when you take out the welfare/poor/illegals. Why should people who can't afford to pay taxes have a say in putting people in office that spend our taxpayer money.

[NineSpine]

Pass a law that you have to pay taxes to vote. Then the republicans will win with 70% of the votes when you take out the welfare/poor/illegals. Why should people who can't afford to pay taxes have a say in putting people in office that spend our taxpayer money.

Everybody pays taxes.