Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[Jero]

Where to begin. Which god or gods specifically? You talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster here? Invisible Pink Unicorn in the Sky?
I think human life is sacred. I'm talking about the life that already exists rather then some hypothetical phantom being.
I'm going to assume you know how to use google and you're just choosing not to. Already taking up time to respond to your nonsense, not going to go digging up easily accessible information just so that you can attempt to spin it into something slightly more palatable, only to fail miserably once again.
Legislating on purely religious and anti-scientific ground is almost exclusively the domain of the GOP. That's just a fact.
HA!
Good. I hope the GOP changes nothing about their strategy for the next election
You are more blind than most of the bigoted sheep I run into, and that is saying something.

You are attacking Christian principles, so I am talking about the Christian god. I don't buy that you think human life is sacred, you think that it is sacred after birth, but not prior.

If you choose not to be held accountable for your statements, then there isn't much here to discuss. Just making a statement without any support doesn't mean anything. You can choose to use a typical liberal tactic of acting as if it is my responsibility to disprove your claims, but that is a failed tactic.

Did the Dems not pass a healthcare law that pushed their views of the healthcare system on everyone? Did this same law not mandate that religions were forced to pay for items that they are morally opposed to? Please support your "facts" and I will begin to take you seriously.

Ha? That is your response? Okay, well I can see you are not here to actually support your wild claims.

The GOP and the Dems will continue to swap elections until we have a viable third party. History shows this. Until a new history proves otherwise, there is nothing to worry about.

So now you are so opposed to actually proving your point that you have resulted to baseless insults. Well, you have fun with that. Good day.

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 05:44 PM ----------

You, quite obviously, do not speak for the Tea Party. You are, if anything, a voice in an extremely small minority within it. The vast majority of the Tea Party is talking about completely different things than you think they are.

You should really educate yourself about your chosen party more thoroughly.

If you could actually support anything you say, I might take you seriously. As it stands, you are just a troll.

[Spectral]

Did the Dems not pass a healthcare law that pushed their views of the healthcare system on everyone?

You realize this is how laws work, right? That if a sufficiently large portion of Congress agrees on something, and the President agrees to it, it becomes law. Even if there are some people that aren't keen on it, it becomes law.

Did this same law not mandate that religions were forced to pay for items that they are morally opposed to?

Sort of, although it's a bit more complicated than that. Let's just take that claim as a fact for the moment though - so what? I'm legally obligated to pay taxes, and do so happily, even though some of that money goes to things that I'm morally opposed to. This is part of living in a society of laws is that we wind up paying for things that we personally find distasteful some of the time.

[Jero]

And the fact that you think this is acceptable says all I need to know about you. If you really believe that there are women who are comfortable enough with getting an abortion that they would use it as a primary contraceptive, you have some serious, serious issues. Like, you should turn off the computer and go seek help immediately.

It would be one thing if conservitards like you believed these things, but they are also trying to push through legislation based solely on unscientific, irrational nonsense. The democrats don't do that, no matter how you try to spin it.

It looks like you did a bit of editing here so let me clear a few things up. I didn't say that it is common for women to use abortion as birth control. In fact that is the opposite of the point I was trying to make. The point is that abortions for pregnancies that result from rape are rare, but this is all that gets focused on when asking Pro-life politicians about abortion. However, you don't see the Pro-choice politicians getting asked about the also rare circumstance of using abortion as birth control. Please do try and pay attention. Also, it looked like you resulted to insults even earlier than I thought. Hilarious.

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 05:55 PM ----------

You realize this is how laws work, right? That if a sufficiently large portion of Congress agrees on something, and the President agrees to it, it becomes law. Even if there are some people that aren't keen on it, it becomes law.

Sort of, although it's a bit more complicated than that. Let's just take that claim as a fact for the moment though - so what? I'm legally obligated to pay taxes, and do so happily, even though some of that money goes to things that I'm morally opposed to. This is part of living in a society of laws is that we wind up paying for things that we personally find distasteful some of the time.

Exactly, so when someone says that Repubs are trying to force their views on others, but Dems are not, I call them out on it.

Those two things are not the same. Asking someone to pay taxes that will go to something they are opposed to happens all of the time. Asking a religion to directly pay for a healthcare plan that has things it is morally opposed to is a violation of freedom of religion and doesn't happen all of the time.

[Twotonsteak]

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 would argue that it was less a loss and more a stale-mate. The Republicans kept control of the House. The Dem's kept control of the Senate and Presidency. Nothing effectively changed.

Furthermore I would argue that the driving forces behind this most recent election were the Economy, Healthcare, Big Government, Tax's, and Immigration. (Not necessarily in that order.)

I would also add that the "blame game" has been going both ways. Obama spent four years blaming Republicans for everything from "inheriting" a bad economy to throwing grandma off a cliff. This even after the Democrats had control of everything for two years. In fact the only thing I've heard Obama take the blame for is failing to better explain things.

And as an addendum could your post be any more one-sided? Can you at least try and accept that both parties are screwed up? I mean, if you REALLY want to go partisan on this I could point out how the stock market tanked after Obama was re-elected. I could point out the plethora of businesses, big and small, that announced (after Obama was re-elected) that they WILL be cutting hours and jobs because of Obama-care. I could point out that Health Insurance prices have gone UP, even after Obama promised they would go down if his health-care overhaul was passed. I could point out that, after four years of Obama, things have NOT improved for me or anyone else in my area.

I could point all of that out, and a lot more, but you would just accuse me of playing partisan politics...just like you're doing.

No, nothing changed with this election. Obama still refuses to consider any economic plan unless it involves raising tax's on the wealthy*, who already pay most of the tax's in the country. The Republicans refuse to consider any plan that involves raising tax's period.

The only point I would agree with you on is that Republicans need to address their out-dated Immigration policy. "Deport them all" (no matter how much I like the idea) won't work. However I don't consider handing over citizenship to people that broke the law by entering the country a valid response either.

*Obama has defined the wealthy as anyone who makes over 250k/year. That sounds suspiciously close to the "Middle Class" he claims he is helping. Obama also claims he wants to raise the tax's on "the wealthy" so the poor/working poor don't have to pay more. This is where you define the intelligent from the mindless followers. The poor/working poor may pay a higher rate. However most of us don't pay any Federal Income Tax's.

Example:
I make $10/hour. (This is considered respectable in my area, which is rural and the cost-of-living is lower.)
I work roughly 9 months out of the year doing a seasonal job.
I have NEVER paid Federal Income Tax. Every year the Government ends up owing me.

By contrast...

My employer is a small business with three employee's. (That includes me, the owner, and one girl in the Office.)
The owner of that company pays tax's to the State and Feds no less than 6 times a year. (Quarterly payroll tax's, four times a year. Personal Federal Income Tax's once a year. Federal Income Tax's on the company once a year.)
The owner always pays, always owes.

So where, in any logical world, is it "fair" that the person who is paying Federal Income tax's should pay more. All so people who already don't pay should pay less?

[SirRobin]

Meh... As a man, I do not feel I have the right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion. Nor tell her what qualifies for one. Additionally, I have no problem with a woman choosing to not have an abortion because she feels its wrong. I do have a problem with a woman being told she can't have an abortion because someone else thinks its wrong.

[Espe]

you think that it is sacred after birth, but not prior.

That is not at all what I believe. I believe that after a certain point in the womb unless there is a very real danger to the mother, the child should be born. Your kind, on the other hand, think that life is only sacred until after it is born. Then if it is born into poverty and abuse, well, thems the breaks. That baby should be more responsible and not always crying for social safety nets. What a leech.

Just making a statement without any support doesn't mean anything.

You talking about me or every statement you've made so far about your backwards beliefs based on the fairy tales you treat as fact?

Did the Dems not pass a healthcare law that pushed their views of the healthcare system on everyone? Did this same law not mandate that religions were forced to pay for items that they are morally opposed to? Please support your "facts" and I will begin to take you seriously.

The Democrats attempted to lower costs and generate health coverage for millions of people. The conservatives only pushed back because they were more worried about trying to keep Obama a one term president than actually serving their constituencies. If you don't understand why a company should cover contraceptive cost in their healthcare plans then you really don't understand how much reproductive rights effect women. And I can't believe you are that hateful / ignorant to the women in your life (if there are any).

Ha? That is your response? Okay, well I can see you are not here to actually support your wild claims.

Ohio election board Republican Doug Preisse: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine.”

That and the multiple state judges who struck down the voter id laws, citing specifically that it was an obvious tactic to disenfranchise millions of voters.

You really still haven't learned how to use google? I would talk to a doctor as soon as possible if I were you.

The GOP and the Dems will continue to swap elections until we have a viable third party. History shows this. Until a new history proves otherwise, there is nothing to worry about.

Ever heard of the Whig Party?

Didn't think so....

Well, you have fun with that. Good day.

Ok, go back to burying your head in the sand. Enjoy suffocating in your security blanket you have buried down there waiting for you.

[SirRobin]

I would argue that it was less a loss and more a stale-mate. The Republicans kept control of the House. The Dem's kept control of the Senate and Presidency. Nothing effectively changed.

Yet, when you look at the environment going into the election? Its pretty shocking that the democrats did as well as they did. Massive debt, deficits, high unemployment, a still very weak economy, scandals, and more... Pretty amazing actually.

[Mnevis]

Can you show that it was a huge part of the Tea Party agenda?

Seeing as you've already proved willing to dismiss the statements on record by people like Akin as just unfortunate mistakes, I don't know how much persuasive power this graph will have. I think it's a pretty dramatic increase.



And on the other point, I'm well aware that Tea Partiers are only too happy to say "We agree that the Bush years were not good for our fiscal house", my point is the uprisng came once he was out of office, not when he was, for example, tacking on prescription drug care to Medicare and misrepresenting the costs of basically everything. Fox News is more outraged that four Americans died under Obama's watch than they ever were about 9/11 happening on Bush's watch, or the civil war in Iraq that we started and poured a trillion dollars into.

[Spectral]

Exactly, so when someone says that Repubs are trying to force their views on others, but Dems are not, I call them out on it.

I haven't followed this conversation closely at all, but would you mind filling me in on what people are saying Republicans are forcing on others? There's a fair bit of difference between legislating religious beliefs into the personal lives of others (a la an abortion ban) and legislating some sort of public health policy.

Those two things are not the same. Asking someone to pay taxes that will go to something they are opposed to happens all of the time. Asking a religion to directly pay for a healthcare plan that has things it is morally opposed to is a violation of freedom of religion and doesn't happen all of the time.

That's a really, really tenuous claim to say that paying for health insurance is a violation of someone's religious principles. You realize money's a fungible asset, right? No one's being forced to actually do anything that's against their beliefs.

[Twotonsteak]

Yet, when you look at the environment going into the election? Its pretty shocking that the democrats did as well as they did. Massive debt, deficits, high unemployment, a still very weak economy, scandals, and more... Pretty amazing actually.

It only demonstrates how stupid the average American is. And "stupid" is the only way I can describe a nation that spent four years complaining about the economy (and any number of other things), then elected the same dead-locked Government they were complaining about.

[Mnevis]

spent four years complaining about the economy (and any number of other things), then elected the same dead-locked Government they were complaining about.

To be fair to the electorate, if it weren't for the 2010 gerrymandering, they would have given the House back to the Democrats too.

[SirRobin]

It only demonstrates how stupid the average American is. And "stupid" is the only way I can describe a nation that spent four years complaining about the economy (and any number of other things), then elected the same dead-locked Government they were complaining about.

Or it demonstrates just how few actual voters, the ones complaining represent. The United States only manages around half the eligible voters actually showing up, during presidential elections. On the off years, just congress, its more like a third. That is ridiculous all on its own and shows that the most common trait binding this country together, is apathy.

---------- Post added 2012-11-11 at 12:21 PM ----------

To be fair to the electorate, if it weren't for the 2010 gerrymandering, they would have given the House back to the Democrats too.

To be honest, democrats have done similar things in the past. Its just that, like with the voter ID nonsense, the republicans have just been a bit more blatant about it over the last few years.

[Mnevis]

No doubt, two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. The Supreme Court says it's cool.
But it's instructive to realize that the House Republicans maintained their majority while getting fewer votes overall than their opponents did.

[Lysah]

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?

No, if the republican party becomes less republican, the major logical step is to become more democratic. Well, there's already a party for that. So they won't get any more votes than they already get. You think the politicians are insane, but realize this, they're just pandering to what they think people want to hear. In a two party system this is a pretty simple game. Party A takes half the stances on everything, party B takes the other half. If party B only has 49%, being more like party A isn't going to get them 1%, those people already have a party. If anything, people in party B might stop voting altogether or vote for party A because there isn't much of a difference anymore.

The biggest issue is that if republicans really do become a vocal minority and alienate enough voters so that they are virtually guaranteed to lose elections the democratic party can just put up whatever candidate it wants and win, which is a scary thing in itself. You might say that two marginally different democratic parties is the answer here, but then a huge chunk of the population won't be represented on a national governmental level and we all know how Americans have tolerated that in the past.

Late reply in a 15 page thread, but I felt it was worth saying even if it's off topic by now. Most people seem to forget that politics is a game of being elected, not having cool ideas. Republicans will keep saying the stuff they think people want to hear. To start believing in abortion when the democratic party already does is to lose the game.

[SirRobin]

You might say that two marginally different democratic parties is the answer here...

Had an immediate flashback to this.

Jack Johnson in 2016!

[Espe]

To start believing in abortion when the democratic party already does is to lose the game.

I have to respectfully disagree. I think the GOP could slide towards a more moderate social agenda rather than the anti-science fairy tale nonsense extremes they have arrived at and still differentiate themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

That is, if they would actually become a party of fiscal responsibility in the first place... but that topic deserves its own thread completely.

[SirRobin]

I have to respectfully disagree. I think the GOP could slide towards a more moderate social agenda rather than the anti-science fairy tale nonsense extremes they have arrived at and still differentiate themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

That is, if they would actually become a party of fiscal responsibility in the first place... but that topic deserves its own thread completely.

Personally I don't think abortion should be a political issue at all. With all the problems we have with the purported "sanctity of life" after birth. It seems rather hypocritical to be making such big a deal about it before birth.

[ares1023]

Both political parties suck, and are lead by snakes. Period.

[SirRobin]

Both political parties suck, and are lead by snakes. Period.

Yep, which is why I think the "biopoly" needs to die. However until we can get, or make, a hell of a lot more people vote? Voter apathy actually benefits these crooks. Even when we've had a viable third option in presidential campaigns, like Ross, before. Voter turnout is still only about half of those eligible.

[Jackmoves]

No, if the republican party becomes less republican, the major logical step is to become more democratic. Well, there's already a party for that. So they won't get any more votes than they already get.

They can become more moderate, and win the voters that are somewhere in the middle. They need to become more wholesome and well rounded, their social political policies makes them lose the votes they need to win, they could still hold on to their economic policies and foreign ones, making them different to the dems, that would make them more accessable to the people in the middle. Romney might have won, had he not pandered to the crazies.

This is exactly what our biggest right wing party did after having lost 3 elections in a row(1994-2006), now they've been in power for 6 years. They changed their stance on some important social policies, they basically said "ok we know this works, we know this is good for the country, we will not change that, we will tweek it, and make it more effective".

Of course my country is not nearly as polarized as the US seems to be. There is more common middleground here it seems, but that is what the GOP should strive for, the dems to for that matter, if they can find some areas that they can work on together the US would be better off, can't see Obama or the dems taking the first step towards that though after a couple of years of consistant cock blocking from the GOP, losers have to sacrifize something, so it's the republicans that should do it and as far as I'm concerned they would come out stronger as a result of it.