A new Political party

[BigRedBuster]

So, what you are saying is that changing "thinking" on one side is good. Changing thinking on the other side isn't possible/good.

 

[Undone]

That last part is still true. Eliminating thinking different from your own isn't a solution.

Agreed, but you're only going skin deep with the topic of abortion.

Carl, I'm not accusing you of not being a moral absolutist. I don't know you well to know what your persuasion is on that topic. But the topic of abortion is a question that for many revolves around a moral question. Moral relativists and moral absolutists can't get together and talk about it fruitfully. So for those on the right that are moral absolutists on the topic of abortion, they'll always be accused of being crazy by their moral relativist opponents on the left. That's the nature of the beast.

Now there's obviously a mix of the two groups in both demographics...but my point is, "eliminating thinking different from your own isn't a solution" isn't the point. If one side thinks a thing is intrinsically "wrong," and the other side doesn't think anything can even be intrinsically wrong, the two can never reach a middle ground.

 

[krill]

The biggest obstacle I see for a "reformed" Republican party is that Democrats already have a huge tent that spans from the far left, to a large group that was formally moderate Republicans. Ron Paul, with his libertarian economic, and more ambiguous social stances, has been rejected by primary voters and the party establishment. A John Huntsman like figure that embraces science, moderates on social policies, and moderates some on economics has almost no room to differentiate him/herself from a moderate Democrat.

We hear the endless empty rhetoric about balancing the budget, and it's really not so complicated, or something that requires a new party. We can A) drastically cut entitlements, B) cut some entitlements and raise some taxes, C) drastically raise taxes, or D) have huge deficits. Guess what, option D is the least unpopular, and anyone who votes for A or C will be out of office faster than than a tornado through a trailer park. Democrats and President Obama have been begrudgingly drifting towards option B, but Republicans just aren't quite there yet.

As for Republicans moderating on social issues, they can either do that, or be a party that is only able to elect officials in the midwest, south, and ridiculously gerrymandered districts.

 

[carlfense]

So, what you are saying is that changing "thinking" on one side is good. Changing thinking on the other side isn't possible/good.

No. Are you just confused or are you acting willfully ignorant?

If it's the former I'll explain it for you.

 

[carlfense]

That last part is still true. Eliminating thinking different from your own isn't a solution.

Agreed, but you're only going skin deep with the topic of abortion.

Carl, I'm not accusing you of not being a moral absolutist. I don't know you well to know what your persuasion is on that topic. But the topic of abortion is a question that for many revolves around a moral question. Moral relativists and moral absolutists can't get together and talk about it fruitfully. So for those on the right that are moral absolutists on the topic of abortion, they'll always be accused of being crazy by their moral relativist opponents on the left. That's the nature of the beast.

Now there's obviously a mix of the two groups in both demographics...but my point is, "eliminating thinking different from your own isn't a solution" isn't the point. If one side thinks a thing is intrinsically "wrong," and the other side doesn't think anything can even be intrinsically wrong, the two can never reach a middle ground.

I don't think that I have either a relativist or absolutist view on the issue. In my opinion two cells linked together that cannot survive outside of the womb are not a human life. That said, a fetus that is hours away from live birth is a human life. Somewhere in the gray area between those points is where I'd draw the line on abortion.

Where? Now that's a tough question.

 

[strigori]

Your beliefs aren't the problem . . . you just need to change their thinking, right? :lol:

I said MULTIPLE times in my post that I want to eliminate the NEED for abortions. Sorry if your reading comprehension is bad.

Easy now, carl has a point even if it is a bit pedantic. I think he's just pointing out your ethnocentrism. You believe that people think they NEED to kill babies, but in reality sometimes there is a justified medical reason to have an abortion.

You may not have intended to say it but you are basically wanting to suppress people's thoughts, or the fancy new word I just learned, proselytize them. Convert them to your beliefs.

BS....Eliminating the need for an abortion is just that....eliminating the need.

I know that isn't going to eliminate every single abortion. I can concede that in the chance there is a threat to the life of the mother, fine...have an abortion. If you have to choose, I am fine if the woman and the doctor decide to save the life of the mother over the child.

That is an extremely small percentage of abortions in this country though. Look at all the rest, figure out why they choose abortions and work with women's groups to eliminate that need for an abortion. That can be through:

a) contraceptives

b) sex education that results in girls being smarter about sex and more people waiting to have sex till they can support a child.

c) holding boys/men accountable to support a child they help create. FYI....I am willing to go one hell of a long ways with this one.

d) education and counseling on adoption options while supporting the mother through the process.

Not one thing that I have said in this thread or listed in this post points to me wanting to control women's bodies.

The only problem with your list (which I think most on the 'left' would have as their list also, and I'm all in on the list as well) gets blocked by the bible thumpers who stop at "Abstinence is the only answer" regardless of the fact that as a policy that really has never worked in human history, We just do less shotgun weddings these days.

A top issue in general that the GoP needs to address is being the party of anti-science. As long as they are selecting guys like Lamar Smith to chair the house science committee, its hopeless.

They need to actually separate their religious BS from policy in general.

 

[carlfense]

They need to actually separate their religious BS from policy in general.

Do you think that they believe that there is a difference?

 

[HuskerShark]

All kind of reaction by repubs and others as to the direction the Repub party should go after the latest election. We have many who say, the conservative message was not pushed properly, or it was pushed but did not have a friendly face. Others say Romney was too moderate, or Romney went too far right, Established repubs controlled the choice of the candidate, tea party ruined it, social conservatives motivated many to vote - social conservatives scared people to vote repub. We've all hear the noice.

So that brings me to this topic, is a new party needed to balance out / challenge the dems? 3 Options (you may have more to add):

1. Should and Can the republican party reform itself so that it can win the presidential election. If so, what should it look like

2. Should a new party be created as the Republican party fades away

3. Should former repubs/independants flock to the Constitution or Libertirian Party

I think if Mitt weren't full of sh#t, the Republicans would have ran away with the election.

Next time, Republicans, nominate a candidate who is worth two sh#ts.

So what would the candidate look like that is worth two sh#ts?

This year, he would have looked like a 70+ year old man with Libertarian and Constitutionalist values

 

[strigori]

They need to actually separate their religious BS from policy in general.

Do you think that they believe that there is a difference?

For anyone associated with the teabaggers, no. But I think there are a few who can see the difference. If they can't figure out how to separate it, then they can count on being a continually shrinking minority.

 

[BigRedBuster]

So, what you are saying is that changing "thinking" on one side is good. Changing thinking on the other side isn't possible/good.

No. Are you just confused or are you acting willfully ignorant?

If it's the former I'll explain it for you.

I've waited a long time for you to explain anything.

 

[MLB 51]

A new Political party

I've been thinking about starting up the Whig party again. We won't have any agenda or party planks. But we'll drink lots of beer. Any joiners??

You got me with the "drink lots of beer." :lol:

 

[Chef K]

A new Political party

I've been thinking about starting up the Whig party again. We won't have any agenda or party planks. But we'll drink lots of beer. Any joiners??

Throw in bourbon, vodka, rum, whiskey, rye and I'll sign up.......

 

[carlfense]

So, what you are saying is that changing "thinking" on one side is good. Changing thinking on the other side isn't possible/good.

A party can more easily control over it's own policies and philosophies than attempting to control the reaction of people outside of the party to those policies and philosophies.

In short, whitewashing extremism won't work. The Republican Party needs to join the rest of the country here in the 21st century.

 

[lo country]

What needs to happen is EVERY incumbent needs to be shown the road. Both parties are self-serving looking out for the interests of themselves and their particular big donors. Yes, Obama won, BUT if the Republicans were so evil, and completely at fault then they would have not kept the House.

I am sick and tired of people thinking that the Dems have all the answers and that the Republicans have none. Just as some of you are supportive of excluding Christian values, I am just as adamant about keeping them. Your right to abolish them, now interferes in my ability to have them. Not fair regardless of what side you are on.

What needs to happen is both parties need to go back to being held accountable by their constituents. Implement recall elections by the party that you represent. Term limits, campaign finance reform, limited campaign war chest etc......Until this happens, BOTH parties pander to their big money and could give two craps about their constituents.

Both sides, now playing the blame game with the fiscal cliff. Boehner blaming the Dems and Obama traveling on my tax money to "sell" the tax increase. WE AS AMERICANS should demand a resolution. A compromise, not a capitulation is needed. BOTH sides need to quit trying to be righteous and fix the problem. TOO MUCH SPENDING. Simple, Republicans raise taxes and close some loop holes. 8 of the 10 wealthiest US counties voted for Obama. So much for being rewarded for "protecting" them. Dems, cut you precious social welfare programs. It needs to be workfare, not generational employment.

Unsure how people on this board will do come January 1, but for me and my family if the Bush tax cuts expire and credits are done away with, I will see a significant increase in my taxes. (I am not wealthy, I am middle class) If my taxes are jacked. Guess what.......both side screwed me because they couldn't reach a compromise.

Next election cycle, send a message. They can all pack and go home.

 

[lo country]

So, what you are saying is that changing "thinking" on one side is good. Changing thinking on the other side isn't possible/good.

A party can more easily control over it's own policies and philosophies than attempting to control the reaction of people outside of the party to those policies and philosophies.

In short, whitewashing extremism won't work. The Republican Party needs to join the rest of the country here in the 21st century.

Carl,

The irony though, and the problem, is both sides think that the other"whitewashes extremism". I am a diehard conservative. Make no issues about it. I feel that the dems are doing the exact same thing that you same the Reps are doing. That is a problem. We are two guys on an internet board who both, based upon life experiences, jobs, culture, whatever that have the exact same idea. Extremism is wrong, yet you say it is the R's and I say it is the D's.

I am not saying this to get into some discussion about point counter point, but just a common sense observation. Our country is divided on views and opinions. Look at the demographics for who voted for who in the previous election and you can see this divide. It is scary. Our country is being divided by both parties.

Something needs to change. I hear you. Approximately 50% think that Dems are correct and the rest sided with the Reps. Their is slowly an eroding of a centerist party. Both sides are going farther left and farther right and those in the middle are forced to choose the lesser of two evils and not the best candidate.

I can't remember when the last presidential election was that I voted for candidate X instead of against candidate Y. Sad.

Some say the Reps need to change. I agree. BUt so do the Dems. Compromise. Both sides. Not just one.