You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 02:26:41 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: So... Mitt Romney  (Read 15465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #100 on: September 14, 2012, 10:34:30 AM »
What depresses me is that if he loses this time around..he'll have four MORE years of fishing and sniping to try again. He's got the money and contacts to continually snipe at the president and stay in the eye. Every little mistake will be like this.... 'see I told you he sucks' smirk.

Offline Luna

  • Muse's Blessing ~ Shadowsmaiden's little Koneko-chan
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2012
  • Location: The deep end of the gene pool
  • Gender: Female
  • My soul is painted like the wings of butterflies
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #101 on: September 14, 2012, 10:43:13 AM »
I am a little more optimistic in that regard, because if he loses, then the Republican party will be so fractured they will be in shambles and hopefully easy pickings for the Dems to pick up another win in four years... providing these next four years aren't some kind of major disaster.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #102 on: September 14, 2012, 10:50:54 AM »
I am a little more optimistic in that regard, because if he loses, then the Republican party will be so fractured they will be in shambles and hopefully easy pickings for the Dems to pick up another win in four years... providing these next four years aren't some kind of major disaster.

I think it would take a serious implosion to break the hold the authoritarians have on the party. My look.. baring a SERIOUS ouster of a LOT of GOP reps and senators, things won't change in four years. The GOP would have to lose hold of the house for the first in years.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #103 on: September 14, 2012, 10:59:48 AM »
It takes votes to defeat him.  Vote if you're registered because I think this will be a close one.  Get registered if you aren't or get your absentee ballot if you need one.  The absentees do count, especially in close races.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #104 on: September 14, 2012, 11:07:42 AM »
It takes votes to defeat him.  Vote if you're registered because I think this will be a close one.  Get registered if you aren't or get your absentee ballot if you need one.  The absentees do count, especially in close races.

don't worry.. I got a new card.. verified the voting area, been reading up on the distressingly stupid reps I have a choice for and wishing I could vote Rubio out (a few more years)

Offline Stattick

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #105 on: September 14, 2012, 12:44:29 PM »
What depresses me is that if he loses this time around..he'll have four MORE years of fishing and sniping to try again. He's got the money and contacts to continually snipe at the president and stay in the eye. Every little mistake will be like this.... 'see I told you he sucks' smirk.

I think that Rmoney's political career's over if he looses this election, which is looking quite likely to happen. Republicans don't like him. They hate how badly he's ran this campaign. He can't go back to Massachusetts to pick up his political career since his one term tenure as governor turned the people strongly against him.

He might get to guest star on some fake Fox news stories though. Not as a regular anchor though; he doesn't have the eloquence or mental celerity for it. Just a guest star that they let come on and say a few lines now and again for some ridiculous sum of money.

In short, I see him as being the new Sarah Palin.

I think it would take a serious implosion to break the hold the authoritarians have on the party. My look.. baring a SERIOUS ouster of a LOT of GOP reps and senators, things won't change in four years. The GOP would have to lose hold of the house for the first in years.

Yeah, I'm afraid you're right. If the membership of the GOP continues to decline though, and the Dems win the presidency again after Obama's second term is over, then the Repubs might start changing, especially if they start taking more permanent losses in both Congress, and more red states start turning purple or blue.

The problem with the GOP right now, is that they aren't living in the real world. They've based their entire philosophy and way of doing things on fiction, like how a fundamentalist bases their world view. The GOP don't listen to the news, the listen to Fox's "News" (which lies so much it might as well be poorly written slashfic), conservative talk radio like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and take in very few sources of news that have any sort of journalistic integrity. They don't listen to science, scientists, or research facilities. Instead, they've built themselves a series of fake research facilities and conservative "think tanks" that are bought and paid for by people who only want "science" in one flavor - conservative. Science just doesn't work like that. And when you really dig down to get the details about the fake science the GOP is funding, you see that it's on par with "creation science", in other words, science in name only. They've literally published (not in peer reviewed science journals of course) studies where they cherry picked thirty or forty people who will give the answers they want, created statistics around them, and then said that it applies to everyone (for instance to say that homosexuality is curable). Then the GOP purged itself of as many dissenting voices from its own ranks as possible.

These days, you don't get to be a major player in the GOP unless you drink the Kool-Aid, and continue to do so time and again. If you don't say what they want, when they want, and how they want, you don't get their financial backing. If you don't march lock step with the party and vote they way they want you to vote, you don't get their backing. If you say something or do something that they don't like, you get tons of phone calls or visits from others in the party to "set you straight". If you won't back their platform of lies and hate, they'll kick you off their ticket. They've very much reorganized themselves into something that resembles a strict fundamentalist sect that borders on cult.

The only good news here is that the party at present is only catering to wishes of one group of people: bigoted rich old white guys. The group that they're catering to are dying off. Younger generations of women tend to actually believe in things like equal pay for equal work and other feminist positions. It's a shame that more women don't get out there and vote. If they'd vote in numbers, their demographic would be the most powerful in the country. Hispanics and Blacks are starting to wake up and realize that their votes actually really can make a difference, and we're starting to see more and more persons of color running for high offices. As anyone who's paying attention can tell you, the GOP's current policies are about as racist as you can get without reinstating Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting... scratch that, the GOP actually are trying to bring back those sorts of laws right now. The GOP has burned their bridges to every single group of people in this country that don't vote as if they were bigoted rich old white guys. They've got the tiger by the tail, but it's only a matter of time before that tiger spins around on them, and once it happens, the GOP will either have to evolve or die.

Offline TyKing

  • Mr. Gryffindor White Knight | Royal Assassin | Ame's Personal Spider Killa.
  • Lord
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: In the shadow of the wind.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #106 on: September 14, 2012, 01:39:25 PM »
Quote
As anyone who's paying attention can tell you, the GOP's current policies are about as racist as you can get without reinstating Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting... scratch that, the GOP actually are trying to bring back those sorts of laws right now. The GOP has burned their bridges to every single group of people in this country that don't vote as if they were bigoted rich old white guys.


I respectfully disagree with your dissection of the GOP, it is biased and doesn't accurately represent the Republican Party's demographic. I will say that because of Obama and the Democrats shift to the left, there have been more Republicans who have moved to the far right, or the radical/religious right. But just because members of the Republican Party adamantly disagree with Obama and his policies doesn't mean they are enacting laws to bring back Jim Crow in or outside of the party. There are Black, Hispanic and women who are representatives and part of the GOP because its ideals best represent their values and the values of their constituents. To say they are actively seeking a return to the prejudice of the pre-Civil Rights Era is not only a slap in the face but is doing that which you have accused Fox News of doing.

Like it or not the GOP's agenda has always drastically differed from that of Democrats but in the past twenty years there's been a disturbing swing towards the fundamentalist conservatives. I think the GOP would benefit from a moderate conservative majority rather than fundamentalist conservatives who look through blinders or have tunnel vision that is defined by a few key issues which they think if lost will lead to the 'complete destruction of American society'. (Gay marriage, stem cell research, the right to choose. etc.) On the reverse there are liberals who have become so polarized they believe that if these issues aren't immediately met to their satisfaction that the GOP is bringing back fascism and civil liberties are as dead as Jim Morrison.

I doubt the GOP will die out, as much as liberals hate to admit it there will always be conservative minded people who disagree with them. And as long as the Democrats continue to move farther left, Republicans will move farther right. Politics is like a pendulum. The farther it swings one way, the farther it is going to swing the other way too. If anything, I bet the Democratic Party implodes long before the GOP does.  The Democrats can never seem to agree exactly what they stand for and always seem to be divided over which issues are the most important.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #107 on: September 14, 2012, 01:51:53 PM »
The thing is TyKing.. the Democrats are more flexible and to some degree are willing to moderate and talk with each other. The GOP is 'our way or the highway'. I've been called a RINO (Republican In Name Only) because I'm a Modern Conservative (ie.. share a LOT of Barry Goldwater's views.. such as you can't legislate morality.. I don't agree with everything he said)

The problem is.. the leadership has gotten older and older.. and wanting to keep control of the party ..they backed the more radical right elements. I don't see (short of a massive die off of party leadership) that changing anytime soon.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #108 on: September 14, 2012, 02:01:15 PM »
Something to keep in mind about party demographics is the voter base in the district an elected member represents.  To get elected in a district that is dominated by one party or the other you nearly always need to be a member of that party.  My district is predominantly Democrat.  A Republican can get on the ticket but will seldom win against a Democrat unless running unopposed or a scandal tarnishes the Democrat. 

This results in someone who holds Democrat beliefs to switch parties simply to get elected.  Most do this because they believe that once seated in their body they will be able to effect change and get bills passed that benefit the constituents they want to represent.  In the general election votes are cast for that person rather than the party.  Some do it simply to get elected and don't really care about constituents but that's another topic.

Before you decide that the non-traditional Republican, i.e., the black, Hispanic, female candidate, is in favor of party politics it would serve you well to look at the district they will represent.  It's not always the case that party choice is for expedience rather than loyalty but it does happen.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #109 on: September 14, 2012, 02:18:16 PM »
I think there are more 'closet moderates' than we think.  I also think that the divide between the 'closet moderates' and the 'vocal extremists' is getting wider.  I really think that by 2016, we'll see a splitting of the party, unless that die-off Callie mentioned actually happens.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #110 on: September 14, 2012, 02:28:46 PM »
I think there are more 'closet moderates' than we think.  I also think that the divide between the 'closet moderates' and the 'vocal extremists' is getting wider.  I really think that by 2016, we'll see a splitting of the party, unless that die-off Callie mentioned actually happens.

Problem is.. we need leaders for that. The men who could do the job are too cowed by the party's unelected leaders and the power brokers like Karl Rove, who have shown no party loyalty to those who disagree with the main line. Being ruined in the media would make them unapproachable.

Not to mention some of the folks I WANT to step up wont.. because of the strain public life would have on their loved ones. I respect them for it.. but it's hard when you see men go on about the sanctity of marriage..then divorce their wives while they are sick.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #111 on: September 14, 2012, 02:33:55 PM »
That's why I'm giving it four years to happen.  Step on people long enough, and you're going to lose their loyalty - whether it comes in the form of noisily backing a moderate Republican from the grass-roots, or by quietly voting Democrat behind the curtain.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #112 on: September 14, 2012, 02:47:19 PM »
That's why I'm giving it four years to happen.  Step on people long enough, and you're going to lose their loyalty - whether it comes in the form of noisily backing a moderate Republican from the grass-roots, or by quietly voting Democrat behind the curtain.

I'm sorry.. it took 20 years for Newt Gingrich and his successors to get the party in the shape it is.. it won't be a single cycle to fix. Ironically had Ross Perot not killed the Reform Party as a national party.. it MIGHT have undone a lot of the damage that occurred in that time. Ultimately Ross Perot did it to kill any chance of a 2nd Bush I presidency. (There is some SERIOUS hate between the Senior Bush and Perot)


Offline TyKing

  • Mr. Gryffindor White Knight | Royal Assassin | Ame's Personal Spider Killa.
  • Lord
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: In the shadow of the wind.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #113 on: September 14, 2012, 02:56:24 PM »
I keep hearing about the 'old, white, rich' Republicans whom everyone hopes will 'die off' and make room for the younger generation with new ideals and with a more moderate political approach. I don't think that will happen. Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio are the younger generation and they are not any less conservative than McCain, Bush or Romney. In fact I would say they are more fundamentalist than the older politicians. The Party ideology will carry over to the next generation so I don't see how a 'die-off' is going to change anything other than younger conservatives taking the seats that were vacated. To me that argument makes about as much sense as a conservative saying, 'Give it a few more years and let all those old Dem hippies die off, then we'll have a new group of people who will be more open to our line of thinking.' I'm sorry, I don't see that happening.

Offline Stattick

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #114 on: September 14, 2012, 02:59:57 PM »


I respectfully disagree with your dissection of the GOP, it is biased and doesn't accurately represent the Republican Party's demographic. I will say that because of Obama and the Democrats shift to the left, there have been more Republicans who have moved to the far right, or the radical/religious right. But just because members of the Republican Party adamantly disagree with Obama and his policies doesn't mean they are enacting laws to bring back Jim Crow in or outside of the party. There are Black, Hispanic and women who are representatives and part of the GOP because its ideals best represent their values and the values of their constituents. To say they are actively seeking a return to the prejudice of the pre-Civil Rights Era is not only a slap in the face but is doing that which you have accused Fox News of doing.


http://www.aclu.org/voter-suppression-america

Quote
Voting rights are under attack in this country as state legislatures nationwide pass voter suppression laws under the pretext of preventing voter fraud and safeguarding election integrity. These voter suppression laws take many forms, and collectively lead to significant burdens for eligible voters trying to exercise their most fundamental constitutional right.

During the 2011 legislative sessions, states across the country passed measures to make it harder for Americans – particularly African-Americans, the elderly, students and people with disabilities – to exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot. Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Studies suggest that up to 11 percent of American citizens lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.

Three additional states passed laws to require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, though as many as 7 percent of American citizens do not have such proof. Seven states shortened early voting time frames, even though over 30 percent of all votes cast in the 2008 general election were cast before Election Day. Two state legislatures voted to repeal Election Day registration laws, though Election Day registration increases voter turnout by 10-12 percent. Finally, two states passed legislation making it much more difficult for third-party organizations to register voters – so difficult, in fact, that some voter registration organizations are leaving the states altogether.

Despite this frenzy of state legislation to counteract so-called voter fraud and to protect the integrity of our elections, proponents of such voter suppression legislation have failed to show that voter fraud is a problem anywhere in the country. Aside from the occasional unproven anecdote or baseless allegation, supporters of these laws simply cannot show that there is any need for them. Indeed, despite the Department of Justice’s 2002 “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative” promising to vigorously prosecute allegations of voter fraud, the federal government obtained only 26 convictions or guilty pleas for fraud between 2002 and 2005. And other studies of voter fraud consistently find that it is exceedingly rare – a 2007 Demos study concluded that “voter fraud appears to be very rare” and a 2007 study by the Brennan Center found that “by any measure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare.” The Voting Rights Project will continue to fight these laws that disenfranchise millions of eligible voters without any legitimate justification.

In recent years, all over the country in Republican held states, there's been a movement to pass laws to make it more difficult for people to vote, particularly by poor people, who are more likely to be people of color. The votes that the Republicans are trying to suppress would overwhelmingly be for Democrats. You may choose not to see these recent laws to disenfranchise minorities as Jim Crow laws, but that's exactly how I see them.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "the Democrats shift to the left". Are you talking about healthcare reform? Every president since Nixon has tried to pass universal health care in this country, like what every other first world country has. Are you talking about gay rights? The movement for gay rights started alongside the civil rights movement in the 60's. It's taken us 50 years to get to where we're at today, including loud and disruptive demonstrations by gay rights activists heckling Obama because he wasn't moving forward fast enough on his campaign promises to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and other bigoted stances the US government still had when he took office. Again, the US had fallen behind most other first world countries on gay rights. Other than those two issues, I cannot think of anything that Obama's done that's particularly liberal. Even for a Democrat, Obama's been surprisingly centrist, and disappointingly so to a lot of people. He hasn't closed Gitmo. He's extended the Patriot Act instead of repealed it. He's expanded Federal law enforcement powers, and weakened the right to privacy. He's expanded warrant-less searches. These are not the acts of a liberal.

You have to understand that the US only has two major political parties. We've got the ultra conservative Republicans, and the Centrist Democratics. We don't have a major liberal party, or major liberal news source in this country. Where's the communist newspapers? When's the last time the communists pushed through an important piece of legislation or won the governorship of one of the states? Where's the socialists? Where's the talking heads pushing for labor to organize, and rise up against their oppressors? No, we don't have a liberal party in this country. The Democrats are liberal only when seen in contrast to the Republicans.

Quote
Like it or not the GOP's agenda has always drastically differed from that of Democrats but in the past twenty years there's been a disturbing swing towards the fundamentalist conservatives. I think the GOP would benefit from a moderate conservative majority rather than fundamentalist conservatives who look through blinders or have tunnel vision that is defined by a few key issues which they think if lost will lead to the 'complete destruction of American society'. (Gay marriage, stem cell research, the right to choose. etc.) On the reverse there are liberals who have become so polarized they believe that if these issues aren't immediately met to their satisfaction that the GOP is bringing back fascism and civil liberties are as dead as Jim Morrison.

I doubt the GOP will die out, as much as liberals hate to admit it there will always be conservative minded people who disagree with them. And as long as the Democrats continue to move farther left, Republicans will move farther right. Politics is like a pendulum. The farther it swings one way, the farther it is going to swing the other way too. If anything, I bet the Democratic Party implodes long before the GOP does.  The Democrats can never seem to agree exactly what they stand for and always seem to be divided over which issues are the most important.

The Democrats haven't moved further left. They only appear to have because the Republicans have become so radicalized.

You need to understand what's meant by the terms "Progressive" and "Conservative". Progressives want to see a positive change in the country. Ideas may come and go as to what progress is, but they always are pushing an agenda of change. In the 1800's, this change was for an end to slavery, the right for women to vote, and some other stuff. Over time, they won those issues, and they continued with other issues such as labor rights, the end of segregation, better conditions for prisoners and so forth. Later it became environmentalism, equality for women, civil rights, and so forth. See, always moving, always a new issue. Conservatives on the other hand, mostly want things to stay the same. They mostly resist social change, or they want very slow social change. But here's where I can show that the Conservatives have become more conservative in this country. Instead of wanting to keep things the way they are today, the conservative movement wants to roll back all the progress we've made in the last sixty years, and for the most part, return to the 1950's. They want fundamentalist values to be the law of the land: no abortion, no divorce, women at home, non-equal rights for women, no open homosexuality or gay rights, suppression of non-Christian religions, and so forth. It's a more extreme view because they don't just want to stop progress, but actually roll back the progress that we've made since WWII.

The GOP has a choice to make in the near future, which is to either evolve or die. Yes, you're right that there have always been people who are conservative, and there always will be. But the demographics in this country are changing. The old guard are dying off. New generations are coming of age and voting. The current GOP platform only appeals to old rich white people, conservative Christians, and people who think if they work hard enough that they can join the wealthy. Their platform doesn't reach out to women or minorities at all. Since minorities are becoming a larger portion of the population and voting more, if the GOP doesn't appeal to them, they're going to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats. Some women in this country are so anti-abortion that they'll keep voting Republican no matter how many Republicans publicly espouse misogyny, but most won't stand for it, nor should they. If the GOP doesn't move with the times, they'll see their influence petering away until they become as relevant to politics as the American Communist Party. If that happens, the Democrats may swing more conservative and an actual liberal party might take the place of the Democrats, or more likely, a new Conservative party take the place of the GOP. Maybe they'll call themselves the Bull Moose party, or the Bulldog Lipstick party or something.

Offline Stattick

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #115 on: September 14, 2012, 03:08:08 PM »
I keep hearing about the 'old, white, rich' Republicans whom everyone hopes will 'die off' and make room for the younger generation with new ideals and with a more moderate political approach. I don't think that will happen. Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio are the younger generation and they are not any less conservative than McCain, Bush or Romney. In fact I would say they are more fundamentalist than the older politicians. The Party ideology will carry over to the next generation so I don't see how a 'die-off' is going to change anything other than younger conservatives taking the seats that were vacated. To me that argument makes about as much sense as a conservative saying, 'Give it a few more years and let all those old Dem hippies die off, then we'll have a new group of people who will be more open to our line of thinking.' I'm sorry, I don't see that happening.

I'm not talking about the guys in office, but the people voting. The top voting demographic in this country, the demographic that votes the most, are the old white rich guys. But we're starting to come up to the time when they'll die off or succumb to old age related dementia faster than new people are moving into the demographic. That, plus the minority population growing faster than the white population, and the empowerment of minorities who tend to vote for the Democrats (since the Republicans are very much against anything that would help the poor and sometimes speak in veiled or open racist terms). Between those two things, it's the death knell for the GOP doing things as they do them today. However, as to how fast the switch will be made... some people are predicting it could happen as soon as 2016, while others think it could take twenty years.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 03:12:43 PM by Stattick »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #116 on: September 14, 2012, 03:20:40 PM »
I keep hearing about the 'old, white, rich' Republicans whom everyone hopes will 'die off' and make room for the younger generation with new ideals and with a more moderate political approach. I don't think that will happen. Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio are the younger generation and they are not any less conservative than McCain, Bush or Romney. In fact I would say they are more fundamentalist than the older politicians. The Party ideology will carry over to the next generation so I don't see how a 'die-off' is going to change anything other than younger conservatives taking the seats that were vacated. To me that argument makes about as much sense as a conservative saying, 'Give it a few more years and let all those old Dem hippies die off, then we'll have a new group of people who will be more open to our line of thinking.' I'm sorry, I don't see that happening.

I'm not talking about the ELECTED leadership. I'm talking about the policy setters and leaders of the GOP itself. The national leadership that is mostly NOT elected. I got to see behind the curtain when my older brother ran for office. It was very telling. You had a bunch of 'young men' running for office (40s and 50s) and a BUNCH of old guys who were the ones in the Party positions to back them. Offer the party's support. Most of them were over 60 and had been part of the party structure for a LONG time.. playing the politics game back to Tricky Dick's time.

The elected men are dancing for the support of the party machine..the men setting the tune don't usually do press conferences or interviews.

Offline TyKing

  • Mr. Gryffindor White Knight | Royal Assassin | Ame's Personal Spider Killa.
  • Lord
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: In the shadow of the wind.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2012, 04:06:02 PM »
Quote
Over thirty states considered laws that would require voters to present government-issued photo ID in order to vote.

You're basing your argument on one source and the source tells us the laws did not pass in all of these states. I understand the meaning of Progressives and Conservatives I just don't agree with your viewpoint or your definitions of what constitutes a moderate or a conservative. I'm not attacking you, I'm saying that your ideas are not without their own bias because of your politics. Just because someone says they are a conservative does not mean they wish to revert back to a family model where the woman stayed at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. And I don't think all Republicans want to retreat to the 1950's and rescind all the hard fought and hard won freedoms that you claim they want to get rid of in one fell swoop. America is not so polarized as certain people would like for it it be.

Obama's support of gay marriage, his open support, pushed him farther to the left in the eyes of most conservatives. Thus conservatives push farther to the right. Not because they were already ultra-Conservative, or because of ignorance but because the President made a very liberal choice in their opinion. Personally I think people's politics are easily swayed and loosely based upon their values. I don't think any one definition can be used to describe the entire political party and its supporters.

As for the voting majority shifting away from politics of old, rich white guys, maybe, but only if you can convince the younger generation that they should care about voting. Good luck with that. The minority population is not growing fast enough to where they can effect the sort of change in the next election (not the current one) or even the next. And even then some will vote Republican, as much as people don't wish to admit it. Maybe a new Democratic Party will split away from the current one because they aren't as liberal as people would like. They could call themselves the Know Nothing Party but more than likely it will be called the Know Everything Party.   
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 04:15:22 PM by TyKing »

Offline TyKing

  • Mr. Gryffindor White Knight | Royal Assassin | Ame's Personal Spider Killa.
  • Lord
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: In the shadow of the wind.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2012, 04:14:14 PM »
I'm not talking about the ELECTED leadership. I'm talking about the policy setters and leaders of the GOP itself. The national leadership that is mostly NOT elected.

My apologies then, but do you really think the people taking the place of those powerful men will effect change? As traditional as the Republican Party seems to be, wouldn't new officials want to keep the status quo?

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #119 on: September 14, 2012, 04:37:24 PM »
Your basing your argument on one source and the source tells us the laws did not pass in all of these states. I understand the meaning of Progressives and Conservatives I just don't agree with your viewpoint or your definitions of what constitutes a moderate or a conservative. I'm not attacking you, I'm saying that your ideas are not without their own bias because of your politics. Just because someone says they are a conservative does not mean they wish to revert back to a family model where the woman stayed at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. And I don't think all Republicans want to retreat to the 1950's and rescind all the hard fought and hard won freedoms that you claim they want to get rid of in one fell swoop. America is not so polarized as certain people would like for it it be.

Obama's support of gay marriage, his open support, pushed him farther to the left in the eyes of most conservatives. Thus conservatives push farther to the right. Not because they were already ultra-Conservative, or because of ignorance but because the President made a very liberal choice in their opinion. Personally I think people's politics are easily swayed and loosely based upon their values. I don't think any one definition can be used to describe the entire political party and its supporters.

As for the voting majority shifting away from politics of old, rich white guys, maybe, but only if you can convince the younger generation that they should care about voting. Good luck with that. The minority population is not growing fast enough to where they can effect the sort of change in the next election (not the current one) or even the next. And even then some will vote Republican, as much as people don't wish to admit it. Maybe a new Democratic Party will split away from the current one because they aren't as liberal as people would like. They could call themselves the Know Nothing Party but more than likely it will be called the Know Everything Party.   

I don't really like EITHER candidate.. Romney is a fairweather who follows the wind that blows him into the White House and President Obama has greatly disturbed me in his actions of the last year with an eye towards a very dangerous approach to civil liberties considering he's supposed to be a constitutional scholar of note.

That being said.. I would say your argument isn't as sound as you think TyKing.. if the party was as divided as you think..there would have been other candidates running for the nomination this time around. There wasn't. It the 'don't vote' apathy was as heavy as you say..the President wouldn't have gotten elected. There was a LOT more interest in the last presidential election than any other I can recall (which for me is all the way back to the Carter/Ford race.

And like I said.. the Democrats are more likely to give and take. How else are you going to get the green arch-liberals and the old school farm democrats (former dixie crats or near enough) talking to each other. Whereas one side would have been railroaded and run out of the party or ignored if the GOP management model was followed.

I'm of the opinion that you can't legislate morality and that the issues that the party is lingering over excessively aren't things that are political pertinent. We need to fix budget issues..and trickle down doesn't work. they cite Ronnie Reagan BUT he did things they don't like to bring up. Like oh.. increase capital gains and upper income taxes around eight times in his first term.

I'm for 'right sizing government'. Deregulation has gotten us into this situation we are in now, we need to break up some of these big companies back to safer sizes. It was good for Ma Bell, why not Wall Street? 'Too Big to Fail' means we need to break them up. Not bail them out again and again and again. Everyone is all about 'head in the ground' about overseas elements but we're setting ourselves up for more trouble by leaving our allies before their ready.

I have said before.. Iraq was a mistake. Saddam was a bandit, he could be bought. The Taliban is a bigger threat than he was. And we still haven't given them the focus we needed to do the job. here is a simple fact, you want a piece of ground.. you have to have feet on the ground. Period. Drones, planes, 'smart bombs' and satellites dont' hold it. But thanks to six years of 'tech innovation vs man power' we don't ahve the assets to do the 2 1/2 war threat we're supposed to have our military built on. If there was a blow out right now of any size with any of the treaty allies we have.. we're screwed. The GOP had a merry time gutting the military while pushing 'R&D and Tech Innovation as the cure all for everything', and they are pointing out the failure of the president to do anything with what he has.

Fun note. The Taliban has made MAJOR inroads with the government of Pakistan..the only Nuclear Islamic power. These people destroyed one fo the wonders of the ancient world because it was 'blasphemy' to them. Now, add in historic hate with the access to the bomb and a country full of 'heathens' to the south. India. Think about that for a moment. We, on average at least, are 'children' of the book' to the followers of Islam.. India isn't.

I'm sorry.. the folks in control of the GOP have been riding a dangerous tiger for a long period.. and it WILL bite us all in the ass.

My apologies then, but do you really think the people taking the place of those powerful men will effect change? As traditional as the Republican Party seems to be, wouldn't new officials want to keep the status quo?

I know the reason the party leaders suddenly turned on my brother and the other 'younger candidates' for the run were because they didn't let THEM set their platform.

Offline Stattick

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #120 on: September 14, 2012, 05:00:12 PM »
You're basing your argument on one source and the source tells us the laws did not pass in all of these states.

I'm not basing my argument on one source. The voter suppression laws have been all over the news for the past two years. I pay attention. I only quoted one article and provided one link. Most people are aware of the issue; why would I spend the time and energy to go and hunt down a few dozen links and news articles to spam the thread with? Google is easy to use, and the news stories I'm referring too aren't hard to find. But for your ease, I provided a link that includes a map of what states have passed voter suppression laws, and gives a very brief outline of what the new laws entail.

http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/spreading-suppression-restrictive-voting-laws-across-united-states

These laws are prohibitive, and estimates are that it will disenfranchise 11% of the voters in the 2012 election. That's 11% of the voting public that would otherwise vote this coming election. This is supposedly to stop the massive amount of voter fraud that the GOP claims is going on. Based on current trends, that means that about 20 cases of voter fraud will be found each year. So, millions of voters, most who would vote Democrat, disenfranchised to stop around 20 cases of voter fraud. I think anyone could see that this is a clear case of Republicans trying to swing the election through underhanded means, rather than them trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Quote
I understand the meaning of Progressives and Conservatives I just don't agree with your viewpoint or your definitions of what constitutes a moderate or a conservative. I'm not attacking you, I'm saying that your ideas are not without their own bias because of your politics. Just because someone says they are a conservative does not mean they wish to revert back to a family model where the woman stayed at home in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. And I don't think all Republicans want to retreat to the 1950's and rescind all the hard fought and hard won freedoms that you claim they want to get rid of in one fell swoop. America is not so polarized as certain people would like for it it be.

I never claimed that all Republicans want anything. That would be as foolish as saying that all Americans like chocolate milk. What I claimed is that there's a large portion of the current crop of GOP legislators that seem to be pushing for a return to an idyllic viewing of the 1950's. I'm sure that some of them don't actually want that, but are just voting that way and keeping in lockstep with their more radical comrades to stay in power and not to have GOP party coffers denied to them. I think that actual Republicans, not the party leaders and elected officials, but just normal voters, mostly wouldn't want that. Maybe some leaning in that direction to greater or lesser extents, and that many are unhappy with certain current trends such as the push for legalizing gay marriage across the nation or that there's a black man as president, but I don't for a moment think that Republicans are a homogenous whole who all share the same beliefs.

Quote
Obama's support of gay marriage, his open support, pushed him farther to the left in the eyes of most conservatives. Thus conservatives push farther to the right. Not because they were already ultra-Conservative, or because of ignorance but because the President made a very liberal choice in their opinion. Personally I think people's politics are easily swayed and loosely based upon their values. I don't think any one definition can be used to describe the entire political party and its supporters.

The GOP already had their ultra conservative viewpoints in place long before Obama endorsed gay marriage. Hell, they've spent the last four years engaging in unprecedented obstructionism, nearly grinding the US government to a halt, trying to block the recovery of the economy, hurting the US's credit rating, and just plain loosing their minds. Also, about a month ago, maybe two, Obama came out for gay marriage.

Quote
As for the voting majority shifting away from politics of old, rich white guys, maybe, but only if you can convince the younger generation that they should care about voting. Good luck with that. The minority population is not growing fast enough to where they can effect the sort of change in the next election (not the current one) or even the next. And even then some will vote Republican, as much as people don't wish to admit it. Maybe a new Democratic Party will split away from the current one because they aren't as liberal as people would like. They could call themselves the Know Nothing Party but more than likely it will be called the Know Everything Party.

Nice. I like how you're calling liberals names without provocation. Or did you think that I made up the conservative Bull Moose Party, or that whole thing with Sarah Palin calling herself a bulldog with lipstick?


Also, between the name calling and the obviously disingenuous remarks you're trying to attribute to me, I think that you're not arguing in good faith.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 05:02:05 PM by Stattick »

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #121 on: September 14, 2012, 05:08:30 PM »
Complaining and worrying about the voter ID situation is all well and good but people need to do something to fight back should the bills pass.  The senior residence where I volunteer is working with the residents and their families to make sure each person has valid ID and is registered to vote.  They are organizing transportation to the polls and having a get out and vote rally on Sunday before election day. 

Find events and groups in your area to help and get people signed up for IDs and voter registration.  Contact organizations to see if you can volunteer on election day to escort people to the polls.  Do something to counteract what to see as an injustice.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #122 on: September 14, 2012, 05:20:06 PM »
At the PTO meeting I went to last night, one of the fathers was talking about doing a voter registration drive through the school.  Get people the information and the forms if possible.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #123 on: September 15, 2012, 07:52:09 AM »
I am a little more optimistic in that regard, because if he loses, then the Republican party will be so fractured they will be in shambles and hopefully easy pickings for the Dems to pick up another win in four years... providing these next four years aren't some kind of major disaster.


Agree if he doesn't win this time around, there will be a lot of infighting and mutual distrust within the Republican party. And a strong chance that the Tea Party breaks out, because they seem too enclosed in their own ways to be able to accomodate within the GOP in the long run - even as ocnservative a GOP as today.


And personally I think Obama will take this one. Not by a huge margin, but I do think he will. Romney seems too much of a compromise candidate to grab it and at the same time he is clearly unpalatable to a large number of people who might otherwise have voted GOP.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #124 on: September 15, 2012, 08:21:31 AM »
See I don't think the thrust of the REAL tea party will survive in the GOP, they are really republican an if they lose ground in the house and senate a lot of the Bellweather types like Ryan will quietly slip away and leave them hanging.  IF that happens and their sponsors dry up...that WILL just the balance of power in the GOP.

I don't see big money letting a good puppet like the Tea party die off though.