US Politics Mega-thread - Page 390

On August 18 2013 00:42 Eregos wrote:
It might not even matter much that the RNC banned CNN and NBC from hosting debates. State republican parties are separate from the national party, and could host their own debates. Although if the RNC stands firm and strips the delegates from anyone who attends them it would still matter.

On August 18 2013 00:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:

"...keep and bear their PRIVATE arms."

"The PEOPLE are not to be disarmed..."

"...keeping their OWN arms..."

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-George Mason
-Co-author of the Second Amendment
-during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

They absolutely thought of it as an individual right to bear arms... as militias are made up of individuals. You have no basis whatsoever to stand on here.

Maybe you could provide a single quote of them explicitly talking about the right to own guns as being collective (whatever that means)? Or a quote of them saying that militia's should be under the complete control of the federal government? (lol good luck with the second one.)

On August 18 2013 01:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
This is the problem with modern political theory in the US. There are two ideas for how Republicans win elections:

1) By appealing to ~20% of the electorate

This is the theory that there are about 40% Republicans, 40% Democrats, and that the 20% of independents in the middle decide elections. Since this theory sounds good and at face value seems logical, it has been a common Republican tactic to focus on gaining independent approval in the general election. So what we get is a candidate who isn't really all that conservative moving to the right during the primary while running on the idea that "only I can appeal to the independents", and then abruptly moving to the center during the actual general campaign after they've secured the nomination.

The major flaw here is that it disillusions conservatives, who then choose to stay home instead of voting. The other big flaw is that the candidate invariably looks wishy-washy, and comes off as being someone who just goes with the tide of public opinion. And the third flaw is that independents do not decide elections, as seen in the recent election where Romney won independents, but still lost. Perhaps most telling is that the Democrats never engage in this tactic. They stay left-of-center throughout most of the election, trusting on their base to see them through. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

2) Republicans need to change their entire political ideology to attract Democrat support.

It's pretty easy to see the big problem with this one. What is the point of even having a separate party if we are going to sacrifice all of our core principles and become a watered-down version of the opposition? Why would democrats suddenly switch over to a watered-down version of their own party? And what stops conservatives, who make up well over 20% of the electorate, from abandoning the party entirely? There can literally be no benefit to moving to the left on the major issues and beliefs of the Republican party. It's good that this idea has never achieved broad support from the party ranks because it is clearly just Democrat misinformation that is eaten up by people who don't know better. The people who espouse this theory are either 1) not looking at the big picture, or 2)intentionally dishonest.

Can you name a single candidate that has ever won a general election by alienating their base?

On August 18 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Yeah, I've heard the "social liberal/fiscal conservative" argument before, but to be honest, I see no evidence of it existing in any meaningful numbers. Otherwise the Libertarian party wouldn't be desperate to grab 5% of the vote, they would be an actual force in politics.

Genuinely believing in the American dream is an empty statement. It doesn't mean anything unless we define "American dream" and we outline how we are supposed to achieve it. High financial opportunity is the exact same. As for "low taxes", I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that any prominent Democrat actually supports the lowering of taxes.

On August 18 2013 01:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
This is the problem with modern political theory in the US. There are two ideas for how Republicans win elections:

1) By appealing to ~20% of the electorate

This is the theory that there are about 40% Republicans, 40% Democrats, and that the 20% of independents in the middle decide elections. Since this theory sounds good and at face value seems logical, it has been a common Republican tactic to focus on gaining independent approval in the general election. So what we get is a candidate who isn't really all that conservative moving to the right during the primary while running on the idea that "only I can appeal to the independents", and then abruptly moving to the center during the actual general campaign after they've secured the nomination.

The major flaw here is that it disillusions conservatives, who then choose to stay home instead of voting. The other big flaw is that the candidate invariably looks wishy-washy, and comes off as being someone who just goes with the tide of public opinion. And the third flaw is that independents do not decide elections, as seen in the recent election where Romney won independents, but still lost. Perhaps most telling is that the Democrats never engage in this tactic. They stay left-of-center throughout most of the election, trusting on their base to see them through. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

2) Republicans need to change their entire political ideology to attract Democrat support.

It's pretty easy to see the big problem with this one. What is the point of even having a separate party if we are going to sacrifice all of our core principles and become a watered-down version of the opposition? Why would democrats suddenly switch over to a watered-down version of their own party? And what stops conservatives, who make up well over 20% of the electorate, from abandoning the party entirely? There can literally be no benefit to moving to the left on the major issues and beliefs of the Republican party. It's good that this idea has never achieved broad support from the party ranks because it is clearly just Democrat misinformation that is eaten up by people who don't know better. The people who espouse this theory are either 1) not looking at the big picture, or 2)intentionally dishonest.

Can you name a single candidate that has ever won a general election by alienating their base?

On August 18 2013 01:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Yeah, I've heard the "social liberal/fiscal conservative" argument before, but to be honest, I see no evidence of it existing in any meaningful numbers. Otherwise the Libertarian party wouldn't be desperate to grab 5% of the vote, they would be an actual force in politics.

Genuinely believing in the American dream is an empty statement. It doesn't mean anything unless we define "American dream" and we outline how we are supposed to achieve it. High financial opportunity is the exact same. As for "low taxes", I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that any prominent Democrat actually supports the lowering of taxes.

First, I don't agree that Romney wasn't conservative. I believe he was playing the part of the liberal only to appeal to Massachusetts, but in fact he has always been quite conservative. We can probably just agree to disagree on that point.

Secondly, there has been a major growth of independents because republicans are no longer desiring to be a nominal republican. Many independents are now republican. So they actually have a growing need of independent support.

Thirdly, Republicans have appealed to their base. Are you watching completely different politics that I am? Do you just consider any republican with a moderate position on any issue to be a RINO?

Fourthly, the Republicans must and will move to left on many social issues, namely gay marriage. They can stay where they are on things like abortion, but gay rights has become a massive liability to the party. The younger Republicans simply don't go for it. This change is inevitable with the passage of time. And because party membership tends to be decently consistent over a person's life, I think it is you who is not looking at the big picture. And hell, I didn't even get into the patronizing, derisive attitude toward young voters.

I'm not overly worried that the tide will always swing against the traditional Republican social issues. Marriage is between a man and a woman, the rest you can call what you like and give right of contract and federal benefits. It has always been about validation, and I don't see it ending for other groups like NAMBLA and the free-love type. My state recently passed a law assigning bathrooms and sports teams to grade schoolers according to their expressed gender identity. There is no place for parents that object to their young children sharing bathrooms with someone biologically of the other sex. I'll continue to stand behind a party that stands against today's popular crusades, as we see the long term effects in the coming years.

On August 18 2013 01:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
This is the problem with modern political theory in the US. There are two ideas for how Republicans win elections:

1) By appealing to ~20% of the electorate

This is the theory that there are about 40% Republicans, 40% Democrats, and that the 20% of independents in the middle decide elections. Since this theory sounds good and at face value seems logical, it has been a common Republican tactic to focus on gaining independent approval in the general election. So what we get is a candidate who isn't really all that conservative moving to the right during the primary while running on the idea that "only I can appeal to the independents", and then abruptly moving to the center during the actual general campaign after they've secured the nomination.

The major flaw here is that it disillusions conservatives, who then choose to stay home instead of voting. The other big flaw is that the candidate invariably looks wishy-washy, and comes off as being someone who just goes with the tide of public opinion. And the third flaw is that independents do not decide elections, as seen in the recent election where Romney won independents, but still lost. Perhaps most telling is that the Democrats never engage in this tactic. They stay left-of-center throughout most of the election, trusting on their base to see them through. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

2) Republicans need to change their entire political ideology to attract Democrat support.

It's pretty easy to see the big problem with this one. What is the point of even having a separate party if we are going to sacrifice all of our core principles and become a watered-down version of the opposition? Why would democrats suddenly switch over to a watered-down version of their own party? And what stops conservatives, who make up well over 20% of the electorate, from abandoning the party entirely? There can literally be no benefit to moving to the left on the major issues and beliefs of the Republican party. It's good that this idea has never achieved broad support from the party ranks because it is clearly just Democrat misinformation that is eaten up by people who don't know better. The people who espouse this theory are either 1) not looking at the big picture, or 2)intentionally dishonest.

Can you name a single candidate that has ever won a general election by alienating their base?

Obama’s move to center irks left

Saturday, July 5, 2008

In the midst of his heated primary battle with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama fully embraced red-meat liberal issues that he said offered Americans “change you can believe in.”

He had outpromised Mrs. Clinton on every hot-button issue and nailed down the nomination by appealing to the party’s liberal base. But his makeover in recent weeks has enraged many in that base who say his sudden abandonment of long-held liberal positions is a betrayal of his claim to be a new kind of politician.

In the past week alone, Democratic advocacy groups say their Web sites have been lit up by angry complaints attacking Mr. Obama’s character and honesty, threatening to withhold their contributions, or worse, shift their allegiance to independent candidate Ralph Nader. ...

On August 18 2013 02:28 Danglars wrote:
I'm not overly worried that the tide will always swing against the traditional Republican social issues. Marriage is between a man and a woman, the rest you can call what you like and give right of contract and federal benefits.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed legislation on Friday that would have banned .50-caliber rifles from the state, despite backing the same proposal just months ago.

In April 2013, Christie recommended banning the sale of Barrett .50-caliber semi-automatic sniper rifles as part of a group of proposals to curb gun violence. On Friday, Christie said the ban wouldn't make the Garden State any more safe, according to Reuters.

"Tellingly, the legislature points to no instance of this class of firearms being used by even a single criminal in New Jersey," he said. "The wide scope of this total ban, therefore, will not further public safety, but only interfere with lawful recreational pastimes."

The Washington Post reports State Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver (D) called Christie’s veto “a failure in leadership" and a move meant to appease Republicans.

On August 18 2013 03:09 DoubleReed wrote:


I don't understand this paragraph. You do realize that their adamant refusal to let LGBT have such rights to contracts and federal benefits is costing your party votes. And the party continues to argue against them having such rights to contracts or federal benefits or rights to adoption or a million other things.

I'm confused why you say it's about validation when those rights to contracts and legal benefits have significant effects on people's lives.

And the "long term effects" are a dwindling republican base as their party dies off. Just because you'll stand behind the party doesn't mean other people will.

They do not possess any power to reshape language, to foist it on others and the state, any more than any other group. It is indeed validation, and the groups like NAMBLA and the polyamorous crowd would like it as well. If you're having a homosexual relationship and want death benefits, hospital visitation, and spousal benefits, there isn't an argument. If you want equal rights, you have them. It is precisely that they want to call it something that it's not that is at issue here. Civil unions has not sustained heavy opposition in recent years as a legally recognized partnership with the benefits accorded by the state to married couples.