|
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. |
CBO: Minimum Wage Hike Could Boost Paychecks – And Cut Jobs Whatever you already believed about raising the federal minimum wage, you now have more ammo for your argument, thanks to a report released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, titled " The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income." Yes, you're right: Raising the wage in steps to $10.10 an hour by 2016 would push employers to cut jobs — about 500,000 of them, says the CBO, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. And yes, you're right: The proposed raise would lift nearly 1 million Americans out of poverty and put billions into the wallets of workers who are eager to spend, the CBO says. And yes, liberals and conservatives are scrambling to spotlight passages of the report that support their respective political positions. ...
Link
Sounds like a victory for conventional wisdom - raise the min wage when the labor market is strong enough to absorb the job losses.
|
On February 20 2014 00:37 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 00:13 aksfjh wrote:Household Borrowing Rises Most in Six Years in NY Fed Report
Consumer debt in the U.S. rose last quarter by the most in more than six years as Americans borrowed to buy homes and cars and to pay for education, according to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Household debt increased 2.1 percent, or $241 billion, to $11.52 trillion, the biggest gain since the third quarter of 2007, the report showed. The level of debt last quarter was $180 billion higher than a year earlier.
“After a long period of deleveraging, households are borrowing again,” Wilbert van der Klaauw, senior vice president and economist at the New York Fed, said in a statement.
...
SourceInteresting reversal of the trend. I'm curious if this is a sign of increasing demand (and better future outlook on the economy) or a sign that wages continue to slip below their expected levels (forcing more debt on consumers). I guess the growth over the next year will be a huge indicator of which way it's going. I usually lean towards the latter, but I've been wrong in the past, so here is a useful experiment. The college loan default % in that report is bad. Very, very bad. And that is where a big chunk of the loan increases are, college loans. From the NY Fed: Show nested quote +Student Loans and Credit Cards
• Outstanding student loan balances reported on credit reports increased to $1.08 trillion (+$53 billion) as of
December 31, 2013, representing a $114 billion increase for 2013.
• About 11.5% of student loan balances are 90+ days delinquent or in default.
• Balances on credit cards accounts increased by $11 billion.
• The 90+ day delinquency rate on credit card balances increased slightly to 9.5%.
I don't necessarily see the increased educational loans as a bad thing. It still is increased consumption (of education). Where I see it as running into issues is if we don't see any real income gains out of that education in the medium and long term. Those gains can come from an overall increase in economic output that benefit consumption through lower costs, or as an average increase in wages of those that spent money on or borrowed for an education.
If those debt levels end up simply being a burden on the population without any of the economic trickle effects (unlike what happens with home purchases), it's definitely a bad sign.
|
On February 20 2014 04:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +CBO: Minimum Wage Hike Could Boost Paychecks – And Cut Jobs Whatever you already believed about raising the federal minimum wage, you now have more ammo for your argument, thanks to a report released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, titled " The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income." Yes, you're right: Raising the wage in steps to $10.10 an hour by 2016 would push employers to cut jobs — about 500,000 of them, says the CBO, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. And yes, you're right: The proposed raise would lift nearly 1 million Americans out of poverty and put billions into the wallets of workers who are eager to spend, the CBO says. And yes, liberals and conservatives are scrambling to spotlight passages of the report that support their respective political positions. ... LinkSounds like a victory for conventional wisdom - raise the min wage when the labor market is strong enough to absorb the job losses.
I think this requires a finer tooth comb to really sort through. "Conventional wisdom" may miss the elephant in the room, long-term unemployed. I don't know if the long-term unemployed are normally minimum wage earners, but it's quite likely that those jobs (at or near minimum wage) are in fine shape in terms of availability, so a "loss of 500,000 jobs" may mean 1,500,000 low or no skilled workers losing out to 1,000,000 low to medium skilled workers taking those jobs as demands for efficiency increase. If that were to also decrease long-term unemployed, it would be a net positive in my eyes.
|
On February 20 2014 04:59 aksfjh wrote:
If those debt levels end up simply being a burden on the population without any of the economic trickle effects (unlike what happens with home purchases), it's definitely a bad sign.
Oh yes, good ol' trickle - down economics. That worked out so well over the last two decades, oh wait except for the part where it totally didn't:
![[image loading]](http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/compensation_and_corporate_profits.png)
|
On February 20 2014 05:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 04:59 aksfjh wrote:
If those debt levels end up simply being a burden on the population without any of the economic trickle effects (unlike what happens with home purchases), it's definitely a bad sign. Oh yes, good ol' trickle - down economics. That worked out so well over the last two decades, oh wait except for the part where it totally didn't: + Show Spoiler +
Probably just a language mix up here. I meant in terms of economic multipliers. When somebody buys a home, so much of the money goes right back into the "normal" economy, through workers and suppliers, where it quickly becomes consumption spending. Not much of it gets put into a retirement or "investment" account, or is moved overseas.
|
On February 20 2014 05:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 04:59 aksfjh wrote:
If those debt levels end up simply being a burden on the population without any of the economic trickle effects (unlike what happens with home purchases), it's definitely a bad sign. Oh yes, good ol' trickle - down economics. That worked out so well over the last two decades, oh wait except for the part where it totally didn't: + Show Spoiler +
What an odd graph to cite...
|
On February 20 2014 03:50 Velr wrote:
I'd like to ask again.
How are the republican voters thinking, they can win the presidency back like ever again.
Blacks don't vote for you.
Hispanics don't vote for you.
Women don't vote for you.
50% of the white males vote for you (and their wives most likely).
I see the reps trying to create scandal after scandal and even the one that was justified, the implemention of obamacare and all its "issues", most probably won't hold till 2016...
And on top i would like to ask... Why do you even vote Rep? Danglars/Introvert (your positions don't seem to allign totally from what i read but well), you seem so libertarian that even the most "rep" candidate there is won't do you justice.. So why?
Btw: I hold deep sympathies for libertarian ideas, reality just kinda made me rethink and therefore i know vote hard left most of the times in switzerland... Because libertarianism seems to only be good for the the assholes...
Republicans can win by doing what the democrats do: get out the vote! Make people WANT to vote for you. According to the polls, the American people overwhelmingly describe themselves as "Conservative" or "Independent," but the Republicans want to behave like Democrat lite.
Oh don't worry- the implementation of Obamacare won't hold until 2016, but that's because we'll all be focused on how much of a train wreck it is that year. This is why I think Cruz has a shot: Obamacare is only going to get worse.
Why vote rep? Because it beats the snot out of voting democrat. There are real conservatives in the Republican party, there are none in the democrat party. Better to change the Republican party than start a new one. Reagan beat the GOP once, so it can be done.
|
The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric 
|
On February 20 2014 05:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 03:50 Velr wrote:
I'd like to ask again.
How are the republican voters thinking, they can win the presidency back like ever again.
Blacks don't vote for you.
Hispanics don't vote for you.
Women don't vote for you.
50% of the white males vote for you (and their wives most likely).
I see the reps trying to create scandal after scandal and even the one that was justified, the implemention of obamacare and all its "issues", most probably won't hold till 2016...
And on top i would like to ask... Why do you even vote Rep? Danglars/Introvert (your positions don't seem to allign totally from what i read but well), you seem so libertarian that even the most "rep" candidate there is won't do you justice.. So why?
Btw: I hold deep sympathies for libertarian ideas, reality just kinda made me rethink and therefore i know vote hard left most of the times in switzerland... Because libertarianism seems to only be good for the the assholes... Republicans can win by doing what the democrats do: get out the vote! Make people WANT to vote for you. According to the polls, the American people overwhelmingly describe themselves as "Conservative" or "Independent," but the Republicans want to behave like Democrat lite. Oh don't worry- the implementation of Obamacare won't hold until 2016, but that's because we'll all be focused on how much of a train wreck it is that year. This is why I think Cruz has a shot: Obamacare is only going to get worse. Why vote rep? Because it beats the snot out of voting democrat. There are real conservatives in the Republican party, there are none in the democrat party. Better to change the Republican party than start a new one. Reagan beat the GOP once, so it can be done.
Can we get some input from xDaunt and then archive this for future reference?
Also you're wrong. Current republican strategy seems to be the opposite of what you describe, to 'keep in the vote' of the opposition by standing strong against the voter fraud known as voting for the opposition.
Also, why do you plan on voting for the Canadian? Do you really want single payer that bad?
|
On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric
I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done.
My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you.
Also you're wrong. Current republican strategy seems to be the opposite of what you describe, to 'keep in the vote' of the opposition by standing strong against the voter fraud known as voting for the opposition.
The Republican's talk tough and then give up.
They keep picking moderate Republicans that NO ONE is excited to vote for.
Also, why do you plan on voting for the Canadian? Do you really want single payer that bad?
Funny. But contrary to popular belief, conservatives don't care where you were born (so long as you are a citizen and thus able to run, that is!).
|
On February 20 2014 05:21 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 05:14 Nyxisto wrote:On February 20 2014 04:59 aksfjh wrote:
If those debt levels end up simply being a burden on the population without any of the economic trickle effects (unlike what happens with home purchases), it's definitely a bad sign. Oh yes, good ol' trickle - down economics. That worked out so well over the last two decades, oh wait except for the part where it totally didn't: + Show Spoiler + Probably just a language mix up here. I meant in terms of economic multipliers. When somebody buys a home, so much of the money goes right back into the "normal" economy, through workers and suppliers, where it quickly becomes consumption spending. Not much of it gets put into a retirement or "investment" account, or is moved overseas.
Sure money never vanishes, but that's really not the point. You can take thousand bucks from every middle class worker and give it a CEO's rich kid to buy candy, someone will put the money back into the economy but that's not really an argument, that's just a given.
There's just so much wrong with the student loan system. It's probably a bubble because the amount of debt is so large that at some point probably a lot of it has to be written off, which in the end will mean tax payers are going to save broke creditors.
It's also a giant redistribution from bottom to top and people who drop out are seriously screwed.
Also education isn't a tangible asset like a house. If you take a loan and buy a house you have a house you can sell. It's not so easy or guaranteed that you can turn your education into profit when you need the money.
|
On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done. My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you.
We're talking about the xdaunt irony. The repetition of "We can do it! Yes we can!" didn't work to well in the face of... reality, which went along with the numbers.
And a tea party nomination would be about as successful in the primary as a communist party nomination, so go ahead.
|
On February 20 2014 05:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done. My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you. We're talking about the xdaunt irony. The repetition of "We can do it! Yes we can!" didn't work to well in the face of... reality, which went along with the numbers. And a tea party nomination would be about as successful in the primary as a communist party nomination, so go ahead.
Because Romney was a weak candidate, he couldn't even run that well against Obamacare because of Romneycare. I'm not talking about slogans, I'm talking about making people believe that you are actually who you say you are: a small government conservative. Not a big government Republican. Like his first debate with Obama, not the last two. Maybe from your angle you can't see it, but NO conservative was excited to vote for Romney, more people voted for McCain. He didn't get out the vote. Just telling me he had a slogan doesn't help.
I think I'll archive this post  I though the general consensus among the left was that the radicals really have their time in the primaries! This time, we have good conservatives. In 2012, who was there, really? By now there are so many good choices, I'm excited to see how the primaries turn out.
Edit:
Such is the case when a group subscribes to the notion that altruism is, in some way, inherently evil.
Just saw this. Let me clear that up: altruism is not bad (to the contrary), but government altruism is more harmful than helpful. Conservative Christians give more to charity that just about anyone else, and that aid goes right to the poor, not massive, bloated welfare programs that go broke and don't work. Every time a group gets massive help from government, what happens? How many blacks are still in poverty? Latinos? if you force people to provide for themselves it will hurt at first, but in the end they will be better off. That's the idea, not this idiotic notion that "altrusim is evil."
|
On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done. My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you. Show nested quote +Also you're wrong. Current republican strategy seems to be the opposite of what you describe, to 'keep in the vote' of the opposition by standing strong against the voter fraud known as voting for the opposition. The Republican's talk tough and then give up. They keep picking moderate Republicans that NO ONE is excited to vote for. Show nested quote +Also, why do you plan on voting for the Canadian? Do you really want single payer that bad? Funny. But contrary to popular belief, conservatives don't care where you were born (so long as you are a citizen and thus able to run, that is!).
So get someone exciting and halfway respectable instead of some entertaining tea partier who is unelectable to two thirds of the voting population. Trying to be helpful here. Going harder conservative isn't going to make more people vote for you (unless you're suggesting new people will be coming out of the woodwork). It may make people who are already going to vote republican happier but that's not how you win elections. You already have their vote, move on.
|
On February 20 2014 05:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 05:51 Jormundr wrote:On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done. My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you. We're talking about the xdaunt irony. The repetition of "We can do it! Yes we can!" didn't work to well in the face of... reality, which went along with the numbers. And a tea party nomination would be about as successful in the primary as a communist party nomination, so go ahead. Because Romney was a weak candidate, he couldn't even run that well against Obamacare because of Romneycare. I'm not talking about slogans, I'm talking about making people believe that you are actually who you say you are: a small government conservative. Not a big government Republican. Like his first debate with Obama, not the last two. Maybe from your angle you can't see it, but NO conservative was excited to vote for Romney, more people voted for McCain. He didn't get out the vote. Just telling me he had a slogan doesn't help. I think I'll archive this post I though the general consensus among the left was that the radicals really have their time in the primaries! This time, we have good conservatives. In 2012, who was there, really? By now there are so many good choices, I'm excited to see how the primaries turn out. Edit: Show nested quote +Such is the case when a group subscribes to the notion that altruism is, in some way, inherently evil. Just saw this. Let me clear that up: altruism is not bad (to the contrary), but government altruism is more harmful than helpful. Conservative Christians give more to charity that just about anyone else, and that aid goes right to the poor, not massive, bloated welfare programs that go broke and don't work. Every time a group gets massive help from government, what happens? How many blacks are still in poverty? Latinos? if you force people to provide for themselves it will hurt at first, but in the end they will be better off. That's the idea, not this idiotic notion that "altrusim is evil."
Romney lost because he tried to out-batshit the batshitters in the primary. Then he had to John-Kerry back into respectability, and lost because he looked like a lying fool to both sides.
|
On February 20 2014 06:01 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done. My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you. Also you're wrong. Current republican strategy seems to be the opposite of what you describe, to 'keep in the vote' of the opposition by standing strong against the voter fraud known as voting for the opposition. The Republican's talk tough and then give up. They keep picking moderate Republicans that NO ONE is excited to vote for. Also, why do you plan on voting for the Canadian? Do you really want single payer that bad? Funny. But contrary to popular belief, conservatives don't care where you were born (so long as you are a citizen and thus able to run, that is!). So get someone exciting and halfway respectable instead of some entertaining tea partier who is unelectable to two thirds of the voting population. Trying to be helpful here. Going harder conservative isn't going to make more people vote for you (unless you're suggesting new people will be coming out of the woodwork). It may make people who are already going to vote republican happier but that's not how you win elections. You already have their vote, move on.
I'm not going to take political advice from someone who A) would never vote for even the most moderate Republican (I'm guessing here) and B) someone who doesn't want them to succeed at all.
I don't know what "halfway respectable" means. Plenty of the tea party guys have class (Cruz, Paul, Lee, etc). But I'm assuming this is just another hit on them: their views aren't "respectable."
The Republican continue to adopt your advice and they keep losing! Bush Sr. won as "the third term of Reagan." Turned out to be weak and lost. The two who ran against Clinton, same way. GWB BARELY won on "compassionate conservatism" and won the second time (IMO) due to 9/11. McCain took the moderate stance and lost. So did Romney.
You don't just "have their vote." Romney won independents, but lost votes on the right! You have to make people excited, they aren't just going to vote for you because you have an R next to your name.
The democrats don't win by being moderate! Did you hear Obama's rhetoric when he won? How could it be that the Republicans have to do the opposite of the winning party (in terms of campaigning) to win? Especially when most Americans identify as conservatives or independents? That's absurd.
I just think your analysis is wrong. But time will tell.
|
On February 20 2014 06:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 06:01 Jormundr wrote:On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done. My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you. Also you're wrong. Current republican strategy seems to be the opposite of what you describe, to 'keep in the vote' of the opposition by standing strong against the voter fraud known as voting for the opposition. The Republican's talk tough and then give up. They keep picking moderate Republicans that NO ONE is excited to vote for. Also, why do you plan on voting for the Canadian? Do you really want single payer that bad? Funny. But contrary to popular belief, conservatives don't care where you were born (so long as you are a citizen and thus able to run, that is!). So get someone exciting and halfway respectable instead of some entertaining tea partier who is unelectable to two thirds of the voting population. Trying to be helpful here. Going harder conservative isn't going to make more people vote for you (unless you're suggesting new people will be coming out of the woodwork). It may make people who are already going to vote republican happier but that's not how you win elections. You already have their vote, move on. I'm not going to take political advice from someone who A) would never vote for even the most moderate Republican (I'm guessing here) and B) someone who doesn't want them to succeed at all. I don't know what "halfway respectable" means. Plenty of the tea party guys have class (Cruz, Paul, Lee, etc). But I'm assuming this is just another hit on them: their views aren't "respectable." The Republican continue to adopt your advice and they keep losing! Bush Sr. won as "the third term of Reagan." Turned out to be weak and lost. The two who ran against Clinton, same way. GWB BARELY won on "compassionate conservatism" and won the second time (IMO) due to 9/11. McCain took the moderate stance and lost. So did Romney. You don't just "have their vote." Romney won independents, but lost votes on the right! You have to make people excited, they aren't just going to vote for you because you have an R next to your name. The democrats don't win by being moderate! Did you hear Obama's rhetoric when he won? How could it be that the Republicans have to do the opposite of the winning party (in terms of campaigning) to win? Especially when most Americans identify as conservatives or independents? That's absurd. I just think your analysis is wrong. But time will tell.
The first one running against clinton lost to Bush sr. McCain lost to bush jr. Those are some pretty important facts you're missing.
|
The most moderate republican? John Hunstman is the only name that comes to mind as moderate
|
Romney lost because he came off as a scumbag billionaire not a single person on this planet could identify with. It wasn't about his political stance. The problem with the GOP from my point of view is that they basically have departed from reality on several topics.
The majority of people are not going to vote for homophobic, science denying nut-bags. Given the fact that the Republicans historically started out as a progressive anti-slavery party that wanted to modernize the economy and are now sitting in the opposite corner is really ridiculous.
I think the GOP needs to throw away all of the social conservative stuff, take a grassroots approach on politics and economics, and depart from the bible belt nonsense.
|
On February 20 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 06:13 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 06:01 Jormundr wrote:On February 20 2014 05:46 Introvert wrote:On February 20 2014 05:41 farvacola wrote:The irony in mentioning Reagan when describing what changes the Republican Party need go through is almost too much to bear. And I seem to remember a "the polls indicate" strategy last cycle, and we all know how that turned out for the GOP. So, in essence, let us hope that the Republicans adopt Introvert's rhetoric I don't know to what iron you are referring. He challenged Ford and lost (but not by much, considering it was the sitting president!) and then came back after the sucky Carter years and won two of the most massive landslides in history. Will a 49 state win happen again? No, but the point is that it can be done. My point was that A) a conservative can actually get the nomination, and B) that the Republican's need to hold on to some sort of principle. Obviously the mere fact that most Americans are not liberals doesn't help at all unless you can make the people vote for you. Also you're wrong. Current republican strategy seems to be the opposite of what you describe, to 'keep in the vote' of the opposition by standing strong against the voter fraud known as voting for the opposition. The Republican's talk tough and then give up. They keep picking moderate Republicans that NO ONE is excited to vote for. Also, why do you plan on voting for the Canadian? Do you really want single payer that bad? Funny. But contrary to popular belief, conservatives don't care where you were born (so long as you are a citizen and thus able to run, that is!). So get someone exciting and halfway respectable instead of some entertaining tea partier who is unelectable to two thirds of the voting population. Trying to be helpful here. Going harder conservative isn't going to make more people vote for you (unless you're suggesting new people will be coming out of the woodwork). It may make people who are already going to vote republican happier but that's not how you win elections. You already have their vote, move on. I'm not going to take political advice from someone who A) would never vote for even the most moderate Republican (I'm guessing here) and B) someone who doesn't want them to succeed at all. I don't know what "halfway respectable" means. Plenty of the tea party guys have class (Cruz, Paul, Lee, etc). But I'm assuming this is just another hit on them: their views aren't "respectable." The Republican continue to adopt your advice and they keep losing! Bush Sr. won as "the third term of Reagan." Turned out to be weak and lost. The two who ran against Clinton, same way. GWB BARELY won on "compassionate conservatism" and won the second time (IMO) due to 9/11. McCain took the moderate stance and lost. So did Romney. You don't just "have their vote." Romney won independents, but lost votes on the right! You have to make people excited, they aren't just going to vote for you because you have an R next to your name. The democrats don't win by being moderate! Did you hear Obama's rhetoric when he won? How could it be that the Republicans have to do the opposite of the winning party (in terms of campaigning) to win? Especially when most Americans identify as conservatives or independents? That's absurd. I just think your analysis is wrong. But time will tell. The first one running against clinton lost to Bush sr. McCain lost to bush jr. Those are some pretty important facts you're missing.
As is well known, these candidates do the "lurch-to-the-right" dance move when going for the nomination. but in general elections, moderates don't fare so well.
Romney lost because he came off as a scumbag billionaire not a single person on this planet could identify with. It wasn't about his political stance. The problem with the GOP from my point of view is that they basically have departed from reality on several topics.
The majority of people are not going to vote for homophobic, science denying nut-bags. Given the fact that the Republicans historically started out as a progressive anti-slavery party that wanted to modernize the economy and are now sitting in the opposite corner is really ridiculous.
This is hardly worth responding to. But it actually makes my point, somewhat. He didn't excite anyone! He couldn't talk in an engaging way and couldn't get the base to vote for him.
Last paragraph is absurd, we've already gone over those topics and despite seeing what the rationale is for each position, and how it's not anything like your characterization, you still resort to name calling.
They are no longer anti-slavery? Do you even read what you write?
I guess not supporting massive, taxpayer funded green projects=opposing a modern economy?
This thread is so frustrating when, despite the thousands of posts here, people just revert back to what they thought at the beginning. Their understanding of conservatives/conservatism has not changed one bit- still as bad as the day this thread was made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
