|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.)
Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 11 2012 12:21 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:18 Eschaton wrote:On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 02:41 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 11 2012 02:23 SayGen wrote:
It's really upsetting to see how people sell themselves short, I was really hoping America would start climbing back on the educational ladder to success. Now I fear only our private schools will offer any shelter.
Under Obama Americans have scored lower than any time since Bush Senior. Our high schools are nothing but daycares, too many 'graduate' without having the basic skills of reading and writing. If you want to make something of yourself you are all but forced into college- which costs thousands of dollars. Less money in our classrooms are spent on learning instead we will just hire more unqualified teachers who can't even obtain a 4 year degree.
American truly is under decline.
Average homeowner makes more than ~2000$ less under an Obama Admin and soon that 2000 is going to be ~2200 soon as Obamacare takes effect.
I won't go as far as saying Obama is ruining our country, we were already headed down before he took office--but Obama sure does like speeding the process us.
In a world where knowledge is power, America is fucked.
Shame Ron Paul didn't win.
I agree about the schools, but it seems to me that the blame entirely lies with NCLB and those that decided to enforce it - teachers are entirely judged on test scores and nothing else, funding is pulled from struggling schools (because that makes sense...) and teachers can find themselves having to teach from a script - finding themselves in the wonderful position of simultaneously being blamed for failing in the classroom while having no control over what is taught and how. I have a teacher friend in Cali who has kids in her class who cannot read or write, and in some cases English is a second language barely understood. Yet, as a 4th grade teacher she has to teach 4th grade English in class, regardless of whether these kids have the ability of third-, second- or even first-grade. Then she is judged for their failures. NCLB has some good points, but the bad points far outweigh them and is holding back a generation of kids in this country. Just wait until they enter the work force. NCLB is one part of a bigger issue, which is to accept that kids are less intelgent. fact is, we have lower IQ kids cause poor/minorities tend to have more kids. Those poor/minorities (no hate to them because of race or class-- just calling a flower a flower) Until we can stop giving tax cuts for having more children, people will see bringing another child into this world as a financial move. We need to also introduce a merrit based school plan. What I would propose. Take all the money that goes to schools right now (including the teachers union fund) and take 90% of it and give it out EVENLY to all schools located in the US. which ever schools do the best gets a bonus from the remaining 10%. This way you offer an incentive to do well, while not harming schools that do poorly. Break the teachers union. Demand all teachers have a4 year degree from an accrediated school. Stop hiring excess teachers, no reason to have more than 1 teacher per 20 students. Did you really just say that poor and minority people are inherently less intelligent than others? they do in fact have lower IQs, seeing as IQ is a purely theoretical entity defined as "that for which the IQ test tests"
the guy claimed "we have lower IQ" which is not true when interpreted as modern people have lower IQs.
poor minorities actually have pretty high IQ. check out indian EE students or (real) chinese international students.
|
not worth the discussion, edited out
|
On November 11 2012 12:16 NicolBolas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either. Gay marriage is less controversial now than it was 10 years ago (back then, it was a pipe dream; today, it's law in many states). It will be even less controversial 10 years from now than it is today. Republicans are on the losing side of this argument. Just like they were on civil rights. And many other arguments. When you're shown to be objectively wrong on many issues, when you constantly argue for things that history shows are bullshit and potentially hate driven, people are going to stop listening to you. That's why a lot of independents these days are lapsed Republicans. Many will vote for Republican candidates and hold some Republican views, but they will not identify themselves as Republicans. On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example:
"We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy."
no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like:
"We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need." Ignoring the veracity of those claims (it's very possible to objectively determine whether "eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need"), the problem is that this is not the right's position. This is a centrist position. It's not a fiscal conservative position. For them to espouse this belief would require them to change their position and move towards the center. Do you want them to keep their ideology or change it? On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic. Or they can realize that Republicans are obviously making a play for them and are completely insincere about the whole thing. Voters aren't as stupid as some people think they are. Usually. If you want voters, you have to actually change your policy. You don't "tone down the class-warfare rhetoric", you "stop being a party of rich white folks that ostracizes everyone else." On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education).
conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far. Yes, and those "pro-life" votes are also often attached to Christian evangelical conservatives who have anti-immigration views and will accept no compromise on sex education. It all comes back to that in the end. The Republican base's views are not some arbitrary mixture of things that you can just throw a few away and keep some. In a large part, they come from a fairly homogeneous voting block: social conservatives. They are pro-life. They are also anti-immigration. They are also anti-sex-education. And most importantly of all, they are willing to compromise on none of these.You are going to either lose the base, or the base will be all you have left. Live or die; make your choice.
ok, first of all it was Republicans who supported Civil Rights in the 50s and 60s. and even neglecting that point, a lot of Hispanics and Blacks do not support gay marriage. I agree that we might have to let this one go, but not as much as you might think.
second, eliminating the tax loopholes and deductions is actually a right-wing position as much as it is a centrist position. no one likes the tax-code, and everyone agrees that eliminating loopholes and deductions is a big part of it.
third, you ignored my point about immigration, which leads me to believe that you are not actually serious about discussion. i clearly said that we need to change our policy. I think pushing for amnesty AND a more secure border is perfectly reasonable, especially if it is couched with very comprehensive immigration reform, making it much easier to get in legally.
fourth, you clearly don't understand GOP positions or opinions. most right-wingers are willing to compromise, but we want actual results. conservatives feel as though compromising has usually ended up with moderates and liberals getting 100% and conservatives getting 0%. a change in rhetoric is not going to make the Christian right abandon the Republicans, because as was said by someone else, where would they go?
tbh, it's pretty clear what you are and what your agenda is. don't even really know why I'm responding to you, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
On November 11 2012 12:26 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:21 sam!zdat wrote:On November 11 2012 12:18 Eschaton wrote:On November 11 2012 02:49 SayGen wrote:On November 11 2012 02:41 Sanctimonius wrote:On November 11 2012 02:23 SayGen wrote:
It's really upsetting to see how people sell themselves short, I was really hoping America would start climbing back on the educational ladder to success. Now I fear only our private schools will offer any shelter.
Under Obama Americans have scored lower than any time since Bush Senior. Our high schools are nothing but daycares, too many 'graduate' without having the basic skills of reading and writing. If you want to make something of yourself you are all but forced into college- which costs thousands of dollars. Less money in our classrooms are spent on learning instead we will just hire more unqualified teachers who can't even obtain a 4 year degree.
American truly is under decline.
Average homeowner makes more than ~2000$ less under an Obama Admin and soon that 2000 is going to be ~2200 soon as Obamacare takes effect.
I won't go as far as saying Obama is ruining our country, we were already headed down before he took office--but Obama sure does like speeding the process us.
In a world where knowledge is power, America is fucked.
Shame Ron Paul didn't win.
I agree about the schools, but it seems to me that the blame entirely lies with NCLB and those that decided to enforce it - teachers are entirely judged on test scores and nothing else, funding is pulled from struggling schools (because that makes sense...) and teachers can find themselves having to teach from a script - finding themselves in the wonderful position of simultaneously being blamed for failing in the classroom while having no control over what is taught and how. I have a teacher friend in Cali who has kids in her class who cannot read or write, and in some cases English is a second language barely understood. Yet, as a 4th grade teacher she has to teach 4th grade English in class, regardless of whether these kids have the ability of third-, second- or even first-grade. Then she is judged for their failures. NCLB has some good points, but the bad points far outweigh them and is holding back a generation of kids in this country. Just wait until they enter the work force. NCLB is one part of a bigger issue, which is to accept that kids are less intelgent. fact is, we have lower IQ kids cause poor/minorities tend to have more kids. Those poor/minorities (no hate to them because of race or class-- just calling a flower a flower) Until we can stop giving tax cuts for having more children, people will see bringing another child into this world as a financial move. We need to also introduce a merrit based school plan. What I would propose. Take all the money that goes to schools right now (including the teachers union fund) and take 90% of it and give it out EVENLY to all schools located in the US. which ever schools do the best gets a bonus from the remaining 10%. This way you offer an incentive to do well, while not harming schools that do poorly. Break the teachers union. Demand all teachers have a4 year degree from an accrediated school. Stop hiring excess teachers, no reason to have more than 1 teacher per 20 students. Did you really just say that poor and minority people are inherently less intelligent than others? they do in fact have lower IQs, seeing as IQ is a purely theoretical entity defined as "that for which the IQ test tests" the guy claimed "we have lower IQ" which is not true when interpreted as modern people have lower IQs. poor minorities actually have pretty high IQ. check out indian EE students or (real) chinese international students.
fair enough, so it's not even true. even better.
edit: I guess my impression of iq test is out of date
|
On November 11 2012 12:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:16 NicolBolas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either. Gay marriage is less controversial now than it was 10 years ago (back then, it was a pipe dream; today, it's law in many states). It will be even less controversial 10 years from now than it is today. Republicans are on the losing side of this argument. Just like they were on civil rights. And many other arguments. When you're shown to be objectively wrong on many issues, when you constantly argue for things that history shows are bullshit and potentially hate driven, people are going to stop listening to you. That's why a lot of independents these days are lapsed Republicans. Many will vote for Republican candidates and hold some Republican views, but they will not identify themselves as Republicans. On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example:
"We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy."
no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like:
"We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need." Ignoring the veracity of those claims (it's very possible to objectively determine whether "eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need"), the problem is that this is not the right's position. This is a centrist position. It's not a fiscal conservative position. For them to espouse this belief would require them to change their position and move towards the center. Do you want them to keep their ideology or change it? On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic. Or they can realize that Republicans are obviously making a play for them and are completely insincere about the whole thing. Voters aren't as stupid as some people think they are. Usually. If you want voters, you have to actually change your policy. You don't "tone down the class-warfare rhetoric", you "stop being a party of rich white folks that ostracizes everyone else." On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education).
conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far. Yes, and those "pro-life" votes are also often attached to Christian evangelical conservatives who have anti-immigration views and will accept no compromise on sex education. It all comes back to that in the end. The Republican base's views are not some arbitrary mixture of things that you can just throw a few away and keep some. In a large part, they come from a fairly homogeneous voting block: social conservatives. They are pro-life. They are also anti-immigration. They are also anti-sex-education. And most importantly of all, they are willing to compromise on none of these.You are going to either lose the base, or the base will be all you have left. Live or die; make your choice. ok, first of all it was Republicans who supported Civil Rights in the 50s and 60s. and even neglecting that point, a lot of Hispanics and Blacks do not support gay marriage. I agree that we might have to let this one go, but not as much as you might think. second, eliminating the tax loopholes and deductions is actually a right-wing position as much as it is a centrist position. no one likes the tax-code, and everyone agrees that eliminating loopholes and deductions is a big part of it. third, you ignored my point about immigration, which leads me to believe that you are not actually serious about discussion. i clearly said that we need to change our policy. I think pushing for amnesty AND a more secure border is perfectly reasonable, especially if it is couched with very comprehensive immigration reform, making it much easier to get in legally. fourth, you clearly don't understand GOP positions or opinions. most right-wingers are willing to compromise, but we want actual results. conservatives feel as though compromising has usually ended up with moderates and liberals getting 100% and conservatives getting 0%. a change in rhetoric is not going to make the Christian right abandon the Republicans, because as was said by someone else, where would they go? tbh, it's pretty clear what you are and what your agenda is. don't even really know why I'm responding to you, but maybe I'm wrong.
Again not true. The south was Democrat territory until they supported Civil Rights in the 50s and 60s, Republicans took the opportunity to win over the south by being implicitly racist. Your view of history is really skewed.
Right wingers are absolutely not open to compromise. They've set a record for filibusters. This is due to them filibustering routine bills get usually get bipartisan support. Actual results do not come from denying every bill.
|
haha don't get him started on this
|
Yes, please no revisionist essay on the Southern Strategy, pretty please. Just quote William Buckley or something.
|
Canada11363 Posts
Bah, we've already been through this south Democrat segregationists-Republican civil rights-Lyndon Johnson-and then-southern-strategy thing before.
|
Edit: Never mind. "Don't feed the trolls" etc.
|
On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more.
hmm... lets see:
10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million.
that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win.
so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i rly like the whig party
|
On November 11 2012 12:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more. hmm... lets see: 10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million. that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win. so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%.
You said landslide, now you have to revise your numbers just to make it a win. Why bother responding with this instead of accepting you were wrong on an irrelevant topic.
|
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question.
|
On November 11 2012 12:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:16 NicolBolas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 10:30 Tal wrote:
I'm left wing, but the fact the Republicans are getting so out of touch with reality really worries me, because it means there's no competition. Losing this election with reality effectively stacked in their favour is just embarrassing.
If they could just drop the 19th Century social policies and love of the military and rich, then they could put together a powerful small government platform. This would force the democrats to be more prudent with their government spending, which benefits everyone.
Basically I'd like the democrats to go on winning, but for the Republicans to put up enough of a fight to keep standards high. I don't think most people feel the same way about Republican social policies as you do. tbh, most people do think there should be some restrictions on abortion, gay marriage is still controversial, raising taxes is still somewhat unpopular (though the taxing the rich position is gaining ground), and an increase in military funding isn't the most unpopular thing either. Gay marriage is less controversial now than it was 10 years ago (back then, it was a pipe dream; today, it's law in many states). It will be even less controversial 10 years from now than it is today. Republicans are on the losing side of this argument. Just like they were on civil rights. And many other arguments. When you're shown to be objectively wrong on many issues, when you constantly argue for things that history shows are bullshit and potentially hate driven, people are going to stop listening to you. That's why a lot of independents these days are lapsed Republicans. Many will vote for Republican candidates and hold some Republican views, but they will not identify themselves as Republicans. On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It's mostly a problem with the fact that Republican politicians haven't been very consistent or honest, and the rhetoric they use is just not working. take this for example:
"We shouldn't tax the rich to fund the lazy."
no GOP politician said that exactly, but they sound like they are saying it. the problem with the statement is: 1) it oversimplifies the issue of taxes and welfare, and 2) it's insulting and inaccurate. instead they should say something like:
"We need to proceed with a balanced approach; not neglecting the poor and unfortunate, but also not penalizing the rich. However, it is a fact that the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income. While we agree with that, we also think that simplifying the tax-code and eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need." Ignoring the veracity of those claims (it's very possible to objectively determine whether "eliminating loopholes and deductions can account for most of the increases in revenue that we would need"), the problem is that this is not the right's position. This is a centrist position. It's not a fiscal conservative position. For them to espouse this belief would require them to change their position and move towards the center. Do you want them to keep their ideology or change it? On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
GOP immigration policy is the only place where I think the Republicans have actually failed on a policy level, not just a communication level. Romney made a huge mistake by going so far to the right of Rick Perry on immigration during the primaries. Hispanics are usually pretty socially conservative, they just differ from Republicans on immigration and on taxation/welfare. if we evolve on immigration and tone down the class-warfare rhetoric, I think we could make serious gains among that demographic. Or they can realize that Republicans are obviously making a play for them and are completely insincere about the whole thing. Voters aren't as stupid as some people think they are. Usually. If you want voters, you have to actually change your policy. You don't "tone down the class-warfare rhetoric", you "stop being a party of rich white folks that ostracizes everyone else." On November 11 2012 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and, of course, we can't nominate dudes who give ambiguous, half-heated condemnations of rape while pushing for a strict pro-life position. I get that a lot of women feel very strongly about abortion, but the fact is that the pro-life movement is actually gaining ground among women, not losing ground. we should press abortion as something we oppose, but also tone down the rhetoric on it and support other measures too (incentives for in-wedlock births, benefits for single-mothers, and, yes.... "comprehensive" sex education).
conservatives did miscalculate the positions of the American people, but so have liberals if they think that abortion is some killer issue that's driving people away from Republicans in droves. we would lose more votes by dropping our pro-life platform than we would gain. by far. Yes, and those "pro-life" votes are also often attached to Christian evangelical conservatives who have anti-immigration views and will accept no compromise on sex education. It all comes back to that in the end. The Republican base's views are not some arbitrary mixture of things that you can just throw a few away and keep some. In a large part, they come from a fairly homogeneous voting block: social conservatives. They are pro-life. They are also anti-immigration. They are also anti-sex-education. And most importantly of all, they are willing to compromise on none of these.You are going to either lose the base, or the base will be all you have left. Live or die; make your choice. ok, first of all it was Republicans who supported Civil Rights in the 50s and 60s. and even neglecting that point, a lot of Hispanics and Blacks do not support gay marriage. I agree that we might have to let this one go, but not as much as you might think.
Keep dreaming while your party sinks. Conservatives have always been wrong on social issues.
On November 11 2012 12:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:
second, eliminating the tax loopholes and deductions is actually a right-wing position as much as it is a centrist position. no one likes the tax-code, and everyone agrees that eliminating loopholes and deductions is a big part of it.
I wasn't talking about just that point; I was talking about the entire paragraph. The stuff that makes it centrist is the "the rich can bear more of the burden than the middle class and poor, and therefore they should pay more in proportion to their income" part. That is not a fiscal conservative position. So you're not just talking about shifting rhetoric; you're talking about an actual change in position.
On November 11 2012 12:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:
third, you ignored my point about immigration, which leads me to believe that you are not actually serious about discussion. i clearly said that we need to change our policy. I think pushing for amnesty AND a more secure border is perfectly reasonable, especially if it is couched with very comprehensive immigration reform, making it much easier to get in legally.
That alone isn't going to solve the social problems, especially since it looks exactly like what it is: if I may throw your own term in your face, "buying votes." You're giving up a position for the sole purpose of getting votes. Not because you want to take that stand, not because you think it's right, but because it will get people elected.
As this election showed us, people can tell the difference between a principled stand and obvious pandering. Especially since the Democrats have been wanting all of this from day 1. So it will look like exactly what it is: Republicans pandering to a demographic.
On November 11 2012 12:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:
fourth, you clearly don't understand GOP positions or opinions. most right-wingers are willing to compromise, but we want actual results. conservatives feel as though compromising has usually ended up with moderates and liberals getting 100% and conservatives getting 0%. a change in rhetoric is not going to make the Christian right abandon the Republicans, because as was said by someone else, where would they go?
They would do exactly what they're doing now: put forth their own candidates, use their large base and enthusiastic voters to propel them through primaries, and thus get candidates that won't be voted for by the majority of the population.
In short: they will subvert your party. And they will continue to do so as long as you keep them within your party.
|
On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question.
Ronald Reagan will never happen again; it would behoove Republicans to start acknowledging this.
|
On November 11 2012 12:39 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 12:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 11 2012 12:06 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 11 2012 11:58 heliusx wrote:
hispanics have voted largely in favor of democrats since forever. i know a lot of republicans are hopeful hispanics will drive their numbers up in future elections but that is just wishful thinking. i hear a lot of "hispanics are deeply religious" "hispanics are socially conservative". the truth is the republican party is not going to get the hispanic vote any time soon. sticking a hispanic man in the election isn't going to trick anyone, it's just going to highlight how the GOP thinks. we don't need to get a majority, we just need to get more than we got. if Romney had picked up 10% more Hispanics and 3% more blacks, we would have won this thing by a landslide. (and I don't support picking candidates just for their skin color, but at the same time, a big complaint from liberals is that we're too white. well, highlighting the fact that there ARE successful, Republican conservatives who aren't white is not a bad thing, and isn't racist either.) Not true, that's not even enough for a popular vote victory. Not to mention this election cycle you would have needed to win the popular vote by at least 1.5%, probably more. hmm... lets see: 10% of Hispanics is 1.2 million. that would bring Romney up to about 59.7 million, and Barack down to 60.6 million. 5% of blacks is 780,000, which would give Romney about 60.5 million and bring Barack down to 50.9 million. that's getting very close to a win. so yes, 5% more blacks instead of 3%. You said landslide, now you have to revise your numbers just to make it a win. Why bother responding with this instead of accepting you were wrong on an irrelevant topic.
and if the 3 million Republicans that stayed home would show up? that would make it a landslide even with the 3%. and I think they would have if Romney had been better at presenting himself, or if we had gone with someone like Huntsman.
|
On November 11 2012 12:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question. Ronald Reagan will never happen again; it would behoove Republicans to start acknowledging this.
Jesus Christ, it's just an example.
|
On November 11 2012 12:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'm not going to argue about the Republican 60s thing. facts are facts. the point is that gay marriage is not equatable, and besides, it's not that important an issue to most Republicans. if you asked conservatives if they would give up trying to ban gay marriage or get Ronald Reagan in office and Barack Obama out, they would drop the gay-marriage issue in a heartbeat.
and conservatives are willing to compromise, we just want real compromise. not compromise based on the assumption that our ideas are out of the question.
Do not try to speak for all conservatives, I'm sure they don't all share your views. Large groups turned to Romney pure for issues like gay marriage. Your idea of compromise is getting whatever you want. I'm sorry but the party in power is supposed to get "most" of what they want, they are given that mandate by the people. Denying them that is obstruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
