|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 04 2016 08:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Less warhawking and more trustworthiness. I see a reasonable Republican Party as something of a worker's party that holds onto traditional conservative values, but that drops the insane religious positions and corporate shilling. Something that isn't exactly progressive on social issues, but not ass backwards on them either. Traditionally the Democrats are the party that is pro-union, pro-worker. The GOP has a strong anti-union, pro-business, worker at will streak. This dynamic has gotten weird when the GOP went full social conservative in the mid 90s.
The parties are due for a realignment soon because the current dynamic won't last. When it happens, that's what I think the Republican Party could become. The Democratic Party will be more of a traditional leftist party with all the good and bad that that entails.
Hopefully at least one of them will actually be antiwar, but warhawking is an issue that transcends party lines, so not likely.
|
On August 04 2016 08:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:
Hillary president with a more progressive congress (influenced by Bernie's campaign) would be quite good as a middle ground, but I don't think it's possible with your two party system.
It's a bit sad that Obama is still a President, because I would gladly listen to him giving his actual point of view on Hillary and Trump. What does this mean?
He can't speak his mind, he is still a figure of the dems and a politician in office. In a few years, he might completly let go of his political carreer (who knows ?) and become really interesting to listen to, like Jimmy Carter for exemple.
I think he showed that he is an intelligent man, that's why I'm interested.
|
On August 04 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:51 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 08:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Less warhawking and more trustworthiness. I see a reasonable Republican Party as something of a worker's party that holds onto traditional conservative values, but that drops the insane religious positions and corporate shilling. Something that isn't exactly progressive on social issues, but not ass backwards on them either. Traditionally the Democrats are the party that is pro-union, pro-worker. The GOP has a strong anti-union, pro-business, worker at will streak. This dynamic has gotten weird when the GOP went full social conservative in the mid 90s. The parties are due for a realignment soon because the current dynamic won't last. When it happens, that's what I think the Republican Party could become. The Democratic Party will be more of a traditional leftist party with all the good and bad that that entails. Hopefully at least one of them will actually be antiwar, but warhawking is an issue that transcends party lines, so not likely.
I will eat my hat if the Republicans become the pro-union, anti-war/FP party. They would need to be not called the Republican party.
|
Just imagine how nice it would be if you could have more than 2 parties. Like actually having a real choice.
|
On August 04 2016 09:08 RoomOfMush wrote:
Just imagine how nice it would be if you could have more than 2 parties. Like actually having a real choice.
I dont have to imagine, its not as cracked up as it sounds..
|
On August 04 2016 09:08 RoomOfMush wrote:
Just imagine how nice it would be if you could have more than 2 parties. Like actually having a real choice.
Would not change a thing, there's too many people that are attached to the two main parties so your vote just don't matter. In France we have shit ton of party, but well only two party actually rule (and they represent less than 60 % of the voting population)
|
All we need to do is amend the Constitution to do away with half the congressional rules and how we run presidential elections.
The parties were better when they were less focused on idealist purity and "sticking by their principles". We had liberal lions like Teddy Kennedy who could work with the most conservative members of the senate and it was fine. Everyone just lost their way.
On August 04 2016 09:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 09:08 RoomOfMush wrote:
Just imagine how nice it would be if you could have more than 2 parties. Like actually having a real choice. Would not change a thing, there's too many people that are attached to the two main parties so your vote just don't matter. In France we have shit ton of party, but well only party actually rule (and they represent less than 60 % of the voting population)
Its more that our goverment doesn't function well without parties. Many of the systems in place are based on the majority and minority rule of the houses of congress. Our presidential elections do not have a great system to deal with three parties.
|
On August 04 2016 08:51 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 04 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 04 2016 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows. Their plan at this point is just to wait for Trump to go away. Not sure if that's the best plan, but I don't think starting a new party is a realistic option for them as they would basically be ceding control to the democrats for a few cycles if they tried that. That's already the case though. They go out of their way to be unelectable. At some point, if they want to win the white house, they've gotta rebrand. Lose the Trump cancer, lose the Tea Party cancer, lose the anti-intellectual cancer and start over again. After Bush into Palin into 47% into Trump the white house is a pipe dream for the party. The issue is that while they may not win the white house with that, they have a pretty iron grip on the House as those are the groups that turn out in droves in off-year elections, and better than even odds at the senate as well. Control of the legislature may be more conducive to their goals, especially if their goals are nothing beyond "stop Obama/Hillary", as they seem to have devolved to recently. Going for a new party would splinter pretty badly, it's been tried and while the GOP sort of seems like the Whigs did at their end currently people are more apt to remember Teddy Roosevelt handing Wilson the election with his third party shenanigans. The fundraising apparatuses, name recognition, etc. are all there for the GOP and I don't think they can be easily tossed aside in what they are reacting to as a 1 off candidate. Realistically it would mean handing Hillary Clinton 4-8 years without meaningful opposition, and many in the GOP would view that as the absolute worst possible outcome.
The republicans are looking at a democrat in the white house for 8 years and another 8 years after that for sure if they keep up their current BS. They're legitimately unelectable, their party is infected with cancerous tumors at every level. So they've gotta decide another 20+ years of a democrat in the white house or some aggressive chemo. Right now their last hold out is midterm elections and keeping congress locked up from doing anything. Which is a win for the cancerous Tea Party, but not the rest of the republican party or the nation. Eventually people are going to get sick of that. Hillary gets at least 2 justices on the supreme court, potentially 3 or 4. Republicans lose on more social issues from that and just the advancement of culture in general. SCOTUS hears a case of gerrymandering and rules against it and suddenly republicans are in some deep deep shit.
They're never getting their country back, it will continue to slip from their grip. It is going to happen, they will lose. The party chooses to wrap an anchor around their neck and fade into total obscurity or to try and make a break for it. The break is going to cost them but the alternative is actual suicide.
|
On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable.
Atheistic Fiscal Conservatives who prioritizes social programs.
That would be great.
|
On August 04 2016 09:13 Plansix wrote:All we need to do is amend the Constitution to do away with half the congressional rules and how we run presidential elections. The parties were better when they were less focused on idealist purity and "sticking by their principles". We had liberal lions like Teddy Kennedy who could work with the most conservative members of the senate and it was fine. Everyone just lost their way. Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 09:11 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 09:08 RoomOfMush wrote:
Just imagine how nice it would be if you could have more than 2 parties. Like actually having a real choice. Would not change a thing, there's too many people that are attached to the two main parties so your vote just don't matter. In France we have shit ton of party, but well only party actually rule (and they represent less than 60 % of the voting population) Its more that our goverment doesn't function well without parties. Many of the systems in place are based on the majority and minority rule of the houses of congress. Our presidential elections do not have a great system to deal with three parties.
The US has tonnes of parties but they're all in the local elections. Which is fine, since laws are made on the local and state level, and even federal laws are usually made through alliances of the various parties in the US.
The problem is that Americans places importance in the presidency more than they place importance in their representatives. There is a WIDE range of political fluidity in becoming a congressman or senator or representative. If Americans just looked a bit deeper, looked past the presidential election they'd see that its not cut and dry--at all.
|
On August 04 2016 09:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:51 Nevuk wrote:On August 04 2016 08:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 04 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 04 2016 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows. Their plan at this point is just to wait for Trump to go away. Not sure if that's the best plan, but I don't think starting a new party is a realistic option for them as they would basically be ceding control to the democrats for a few cycles if they tried that. That's already the case though. They go out of their way to be unelectable. At some point, if they want to win the white house, they've gotta rebrand. Lose the Trump cancer, lose the Tea Party cancer, lose the anti-intellectual cancer and start over again. After Bush into Palin into 47% into Trump the white house is a pipe dream for the party. The issue is that while they may not win the white house with that, they have a pretty iron grip on the House as those are the groups that turn out in droves in off-year elections, and better than even odds at the senate as well. Control of the legislature may be more conducive to their goals, especially if their goals are nothing beyond "stop Obama/Hillary", as they seem to have devolved to recently. Going for a new party would splinter pretty badly, it's been tried and while the GOP sort of seems like the Whigs did at their end currently people are more apt to remember Teddy Roosevelt handing Wilson the election with his third party shenanigans. The fundraising apparatuses, name recognition, etc. are all there for the GOP and I don't think they can be easily tossed aside in what they are reacting to as a 1 off candidate. Realistically it would mean handing Hillary Clinton 4-8 years without meaningful opposition, and many in the GOP would view that as the absolute worst possible outcome. The republicans are looking at a democrat in the white house for 8 years and another 8 years after that for sure if they keep up their current BS. They're legitimately unelectable, their party is infected with cancerous tumors at every level. So they've gotta decide another 20+ years of a democrat in the white house or some aggressive chemo. Right now their last hold out is midterm elections and keeping congress locked up from doing anything. Which is a win for the cancerous Tea Party, but not the rest of the republican party or the nation. Eventually people are going to get sick of that. Hillary gets at least 2 justices on the supreme court, potentially 3 or 4. Republicans lose on more social issues from that and just the advancement of culture in general. SCOTUS hears a case of gerrymandering and rules against it and suddenly republicans are in some deep deep shit. They're never getting their country back, it will continue to slip from their grip. It is going to happen, they will lose. The party chooses to wrap an anchor around their neck and fade into total obscurity or to try and make a break for it. The break is going to cost them but the alternative is actual suicide.
I think being so successful at gerrymandering is part of their problem. They made it so that there were a bunch of super safe conservative congressional districts, and the unintended consequence is that it made being a far right conservative a lot more electable than a more moderate politician. It's why the tea party was so successful politically in primaries in spite of being rather small, and why a politician like Cantor could have been primaried by a member.
There's some level of thinking, I'm sure, in that they know they'll have to change course (see the 2012 autopsy) but they don't see it as an immediate issue, ie maybe next cycle they'll try it. The Voter ID laws seem to be the only real response they have to the rising number of minority voters.
But really Trump voters are following a long, not very proud tradition in American politics along the lines of the Know-Nothings and Anti-Masonic parties that were more symptomatic of a group of people being afraid of losing power in their society to the changing times than any real ideological principle.
|
On August 04 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:51 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 08:47 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Less warhawking and more trustworthiness. I see a reasonable Republican Party as something of a worker's party that holds onto traditional conservative values, but that drops the insane religious positions and corporate shilling. Something that isn't exactly progressive on social issues, but not ass backwards on them either. Traditionally the Democrats are the party that is pro-union, pro-worker. The GOP has a strong anti-union, pro-business, worker at will streak. This dynamic has gotten weird when the GOP went full social conservative in the mid 90s. The parties are due for a realignment soon because the current dynamic won't last. When it happens, that's what I think the Republican Party could become. The Democratic Party will be more of a traditional leftist party with all the good and bad that that entails. Hopefully at least one of them will actually be antiwar, but warhawking is an issue that transcends party lines, so not likely.
That wont happen because people are what are pushing the parties to the extremes. For example because the Republican party is becoming more right wing extremist people leave it so those people are no longer choosing the candidate so it becomes more right wing and thus more people in the center leave it etc. etc. Its basically a self fulfilling prophecy but unfortunately its really only ever going to be a presidential campaign that is decided between 2 candidates for a long list of other reasons which just complicate everything.
|
Oh, Ben Carson... never change :
|
On August 04 2016 09:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 09:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 04 2016 08:51 Nevuk wrote:On August 04 2016 08:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 04 2016 08:38 Nevuk wrote:On August 04 2016 08:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump takes everything personally because at the end of the day it's all about him.
Now might be the time for moderate GOP members to start gathering money and resources and plan to split from the Trump wing. And build up from town halls and legislation concerning government controls of prescription drug costs, criminal justice reform etc. It would give them across the aisle support and attract moderate voters while the new party grows. Their plan at this point is just to wait for Trump to go away. Not sure if that's the best plan, but I don't think starting a new party is a realistic option for them as they would basically be ceding control to the democrats for a few cycles if they tried that. That's already the case though. They go out of their way to be unelectable. At some point, if they want to win the white house, they've gotta rebrand. Lose the Trump cancer, lose the Tea Party cancer, lose the anti-intellectual cancer and start over again. After Bush into Palin into 47% into Trump the white house is a pipe dream for the party. The issue is that while they may not win the white house with that, they have a pretty iron grip on the House as those are the groups that turn out in droves in off-year elections, and better than even odds at the senate as well. Control of the legislature may be more conducive to their goals, especially if their goals are nothing beyond "stop Obama/Hillary", as they seem to have devolved to recently. Going for a new party would splinter pretty badly, it's been tried and while the GOP sort of seems like the Whigs did at their end currently people are more apt to remember Teddy Roosevelt handing Wilson the election with his third party shenanigans. The fundraising apparatuses, name recognition, etc. are all there for the GOP and I don't think they can be easily tossed aside in what they are reacting to as a 1 off candidate. Realistically it would mean handing Hillary Clinton 4-8 years without meaningful opposition, and many in the GOP would view that as the absolute worst possible outcome. The republicans are looking at a democrat in the white house for 8 years and another 8 years after that for sure if they keep up their current BS. They're legitimately unelectable, their party is infected with cancerous tumors at every level. So they've gotta decide another 20+ years of a democrat in the white house or some aggressive chemo. Right now their last hold out is midterm elections and keeping congress locked up from doing anything. Which is a win for the cancerous Tea Party, but not the rest of the republican party or the nation. Eventually people are going to get sick of that. Hillary gets at least 2 justices on the supreme court, potentially 3 or 4. Republicans lose on more social issues from that and just the advancement of culture in general. SCOTUS hears a case of gerrymandering and rules against it and suddenly republicans are in some deep deep shit. They're never getting their country back, it will continue to slip from their grip. It is going to happen, they will lose. The party chooses to wrap an anchor around their neck and fade into total obscurity or to try and make a break for it. The break is going to cost them but the alternative is actual suicide. I think being so successful at gerrymandering is part of their problem. They made it so that there were a bunch of super safe conservative congressional districts, and the unintended consequence is that it made being a far right conservative a lot more electable than a more moderate politician. It's why the tea party was so successful politically in primaries in spite of being rather small, and why a politician like Cantor could have been primaried by a member. There's some level of thinking, I'm sure, in that they know they'll have to change course (see the 2012 autopsy) but they don't see it as an immediate issue, ie maybe next cycle they'll try it. The Voter ID laws seem to be the only real response they have to the rising number of minority voters. But really Trump voters are following a long, not very proud tradition in American politics along the lines of the Know-Nothings and Anti-Masonic parties that were more symptomatic of a group of people being afraid of losing power in their society to the changing times than any real ideological principle.
Yeah gerrymandering has screwed them, but it could be ruled unconstitutional which would be no good for them having a death grip on mid terms. The party is screwed man, they're absolutely done for.
I actually know someone who supported Ben Carson, I didn't think they actually existed.
|
Can't wait for the gerrymandering myth to die. By most analysis that I recall seeing, it's cost the Democrats like 8 seats max. There are many factors that go into the current House make up, but gerrymandering is a very small part of it.
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Third, "gridlock" won't have much of an effect this election. First of all, people complain but don't do anything about it. Remember how the government shutdown was going to cost the party dearly? That was incorrect. Combine this with Clinton's unpopularity- people hate her so much they aren't really going to care if the GOP stands in her way on a whole bunch of stuff.
But as usual I enjoy seeing the complaining and doom casters from the left talk about the Republican party.
|
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats.
|
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them.
|
On August 04 2016 10:18 Introvert wrote:
Can't wait for the gerrymandering myth to die. By most analysis that I recall seeing, it's cost the Democrats like 8 seats max. There are many factors that go into the current House make up, but gerrymandering is a very small part of it.
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Third, "gridlock" won't have much of an effect this election. First of all, people complain but don't do anything about it. Remember how the government shutdown was going to cost the party dearly? That was incorrect. Combine this with Clinton's unpopularity- people hate her so much they aren't really going to care if the GOP stands in her way on a whole bunch of stuff.
But as usual I enjoy seeing the complaining and doom casters from the left talk about the Republican party.
It probably costs more than 8 seats in Penny so I am questioning where your statistics came from. Ive seen how they broke up Penn specifically to make sure there would only be 4 of 16 demoncratic congressman in a state where generally more people vote for demoncratic congressman than republican (that was a 2012 number for number of congressman so it might be 1 more or less). There is a reason that 2010 suddenly made it impossible for democrats to take back a house they had just 2 years prior.
|
On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats.
Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama.
On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them.
Staggering level is dishonesty here.
But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to.
Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep.
On August 04 2016 10:34 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:18 Introvert wrote:
Can't wait for the gerrymandering myth to die. By most analysis that I recall seeing, it's cost the Democrats like 8 seats max. There are many factors that go into the current House make up, but gerrymandering is a very small part of it.
And as for the GOP, if they die it will be due to demographics. People coming into this country from other places where large, proactive governments are the norm. Which party in the US represents what they are used to more (and which panders more)? The Democrats. Reagan did amnesty in the 1980s and it didn't help the party at all. "Comprehensive immigration reform" will result in more Democrat voters, which is why they want it. It won't help the GOP.
Third, "gridlock" won't have much of an effect this election. First of all, people complain but don't do anything about it. Remember how the government shutdown was going to cost the party dearly? That was incorrect. Combine this with Clinton's unpopularity- people hate her so much they aren't really going to care if the GOP stands in her way on a whole bunch of stuff.
But as usual I enjoy seeing the complaining and doom casters from the left talk about the Republican party. It probably costs more than 8 seats in Penny so I am questioning where your statistics came from. Ive seen how they broke up Penn specifically to make sure there would only be 4 of 16 demoncratic congressman in a state where generally more people vote for demoncratic congressman than republican (that was a 2012 number for number of congressman so it might be 1 more or less). There is a reason that 2010 suddenly made it impossible for democrats to take back a house they had just 2 years prior.
I'd have to go looking again, but the effect is most certainly overblown. People act like the GOP would barely have a majority without it, which is completely false.
And if you want to talk about districts are are so heavily leaning in one direction that you get radicals... well you can find LOTS of heavy democrat districts with that phenomenon, but no one whines about those.
Edit: This is all pure partisanship combined with an inability to take of the blinders, it's really funny. Or at least it was funny the first 155464847 times I heard it.
|
On August 04 2016 10:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:23 zlefin wrote:
People do complain and respond to gridlock; but it's just one of many factors; it does tip the middle some though.
and that gerrymandering has an effect is well documented; and you're missing the point if you're tlaking about the seats it cost the democrats. Not really, people everywhere (including in this thread) complain mercilessly about it. To place a lot of the blame for gridlock on it is also misplaced. Recall, the Tea Party that everyone laments won in 2010, the same year as the census. These guys and gals weren't high "gridlock" because of gerrymandering, they were swept into office in opposition to Obama. Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 10:28 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Its the immigrants that are killing you. Not the social ass backwardness, not the religious zealotry, not the zero taxes, not clinging to dead ideals, not the fact that half the party will soon be dying off and not replaced. Its the people coming into the country from other countries. If you think that's your problem its no wonder the party is done for. Doesn't harm me in the slightest if republicans are too blind to see their actual problems and address them. Staggering level is dishonesty here. But I will just point out that people all day in this thread have been discussing immigration, so I was addressing another one of these talking points. It is in fact true that Democrat voter importation will do damage to the Republican party far more than anything else. They will vote for things they want or are used to. Meanwhile, the GOP on the state and local level is doing quite well. And in places like MD or NY, there are many more moderate Republicans. Who are actually moderates, unlike the Democrats who love to vote in lockstep.
I didn't blame the gridlock for gerrymanders; I said the gerrymandering has a significant effect, and it has. The effect is on pushing republicans rightward due to primary challenges. With multiple convos happening at once it can be hard to properly track who has claimed what. I generally only claim what I say, nothing more.
also, your claim that democrats vote in lockstep moreso than republicans is laughable (unless oyu have citations).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
