I
Rand Paul: Without change, GOP will "not win again in my lifetime"
- Status
R
RC_Sojourner
Guest
I’m fully aware of the multi-party system, and I would prefer that we have multiple parties in the United States. Currently, we have 2 large umbrella parties representing the political views of 300+ million people, supposedly. Of course, in a nation as large as ours, there are many more political views than Republicans and Democrats, but because no other party has a chance, those views are effectively not represented.
IMO, Faithful Catholics are not represented by either party. Disagree with me if you must, but this will only become truer from now on. Look how Rick Santorum did… Rick Santorum will be the last of his kind in the GOP, a faithful Catholic that had a shot at the nomination, that is.
Anyways, Ross Perot should have been able to add his 19% support to either the Democratic or Republican party, forming a coalition government. The winner take all system is clearly flawed, when its solely whoever wins the most states, not an absolute majority of the popular vote. Both Clinton and Bush the Younger got elected with less than 50% of the vote. That is a travesty, and it shows how stupid our system is.
R
RC_Sojourner
Guest
I took your challenge for me to look at state by state data, instead of national data (which I provided for the 2012 election, as evidence that you believed 3rd party voters could have carried Romney to victory in 2012. So, that’s my mistake, if you didn’t believe that, but I think you can see how I would make that mistake.I think you’re protesting just a bit much, RC Sojourner. When did I say that 3rd party voters could have elected Romney? If you go back to my original post, I point out that in 2000, a small portion of Nader voters could have thrown the election for Gore, instead of Bush:
**“In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore’s defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: “In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all.”[18] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)” **
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000
In other words, 3rd party candidates CAN have an effect on the outcome of an election. Do you have a crystal ball RC Sojourner? Can you say with certainty that in 2016 there won’t be a state that is so close that the votes of a 3rd party candidate might have an effect if they went to one of the major candidates? I didn’t think so.
What this all means, RC Sojourner, is that in 2016, Catholics ought to do the right thing and not eschew the good candidate out of an unreasonable obsession with ideological purity. I would much prefer having a good president than having a terrible president. Even if it means that I don’t vote for the “perfect” guy.
Ishii
I went through all the trouble to provide the national 2012 data, where Romney lost by 5 million votes, and all the 3rd parties combined gained only 2 million votes, and you challenged me, and asked me to look at the state by state data. If you weren’t arguing that Romney could’ve won with the 3rd party votes, then why make me look at the state by state data?
Sure, the Ralph Nader thing in Florida is a pretty common argument, but your just choosing a scapegoat based off of your belief that there shouldn’t be any 3rd parties. Imagine there were no 3rd parties, and Bush still won by less than 1,000 votes. The interesting observation could still be made: “Gee, if just a small amount of those Bush voters decided to vote for Gore, then Gore would have won”.
It’s nothing but an interesting observation, of a close election.
The reason 3rd parties are scapegoated, is because you want to say: “Next election, there shouldn’t be any 3rd parties, because then we will avoid another 2000 election”.
Well, those people had the right to vote for Nader. And people in this country have the right to vote for whoever they want. What you are doing, is honestly tantamount to trying to take away people’s right to vote.
Sure, it happens after the election, but the more you keep it up, maybe there will be someone with a club in their hand, telling people not to vote 3rd party if they know what’s good for them. The more people like you express this view of scapegoating 3rd party voters, maybe people like you will be responsible for violent voter intimidation in the next election.
You wouldn’t want to be responsible for that, would you, Ishii?
Its voter intimidation. Its harassment. It should be illegal.
I voted my conscience, that is, I found a Christian to vote for. I shouldn’t be attacked by Catholics, or anyone, for doing that. But, especially Catholics.
Lastly, I already addressed your argument that I’m unreasonably obsessed with ideological purity in my Post #194 Is it unreasonable to ask for a Christian who opposes abortion in all circumstances?
I’m -]sorry/-] not sorry, I won’t vote for someone who isn’t a Christian, and doesn’t oppose abortion in all circumstances.
And, because you didn’t listen to my Post #194. I’ll reiterate, that my standards SEEM to be in the mainstream of the GOP, given that the majority of the candidates met those two criteria.
Ok. I’ve answered your argument twice now. And I want an answer.
**
Is it unreasonable to ask for a candidate to vote for who is a Christian, that opposes abortion in all circumstances?**
**
Is that unreasonable? I want an answer this time.**
I
ishii
Guest
Now I see where you’re coming from. I think all forms of government are overrated. And as humans are flawed, will always found to be wanting - even your ideal “minarchist” govt. The Libertarian candidate in 2008 got 0.4% of the popular vote - a far cry from your 10% libertarian figure - maybe some of the 10% of libertarians were too stoned to go out and vote for Bob Barr?
If the Ron Paul wing of the GOP is winning then why are you abandoning the Republican party?
Ishii
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Beat me to it. Yes, please, one accomplishment.
I
ishii
Guest
I was arguing that any election can be close - we don’t know how things will go, turnout, etc. It could be real close or not. We don’t have a crystal ball. Elections can come down to one or two key states and it can be very close. This what happened in 1960 - although the mafia made sure that Kennedy got the votes he needed to win. But have been close elections and there will be again. Every vote counts. Of course in retrospect, Romney getting more votes from 3rd party voters would not have put him over the top. So what. That doesn’t change the fact that in a close election it can come down to one or two states. When that happens, clearly a few hundred votes either way can swing it. Another example is the 2004 governor race in Washington state. The eventual margin of victory was a whopping 129 votes. So its not just 3rd party voters that can swing things but the perfection seeking “stay at home” voters who can bring themselves to vote for a Republican that fails to live up to their high expectations for ideological purity. As a result we got the Emily’s List candidate elected.
RC Sojourner - I didn’t say there shouldn’t be 3rd parties. I have merely questioned the judgment and wisdom of Catholics voting for 3rd party candidates when there are more viable pro-life candidates out there. Nader indeed siphoned off more votes from Gore than Bush. This has happened before - in 1912 Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose party and helped Woodrow Wilson win.
When did I say people don’t have the right to vote for whom they choose? Again, I am just saying that it is not prudent or constructive for a Catholic who wants to promote the sanctity of life, e.g., to throw away a vote on a worthless 3rd party candidate. People can write in anyone they want. They can write in bozo the clown. Or they can vote 3rd party. That is their right. I am merely questioning their judgment in doing so.
RCSojourner, it is not intimidation to inform a Catholic that they made the wrong choice. Last I checked, we do have a right to free speech? And that included expressing an opinion when we think someone makes the wrong choice?
Not unreasonable to ask for that at all. However, when reality sets in - and the choice becomes Candidate A who believes that most abortions should be illegal, and who is for nominating strict constructionist judges, and Candidate B - who says, abortion is a sacred right, God bless Planned Parenthood, etc. then the choice becomes a no-brainer. That is, unless you make the perfect the enemy of the good, which you’re doing if you vote for a 3rd party candidate with NO chance of winning.
I hope you no longer have any confusion as to where I stand. I have no idea why you think I’m for taking away the right to vote for a 3rd party - that was bizarre to suggest that. I haven’t attacked you, I have merely criticized your judgment - there is a difference. Try not to take things personally.
Ishii
S
Skadi
Guest
In 2012 Gary Johnson got .99% of the vote. But your right, why if they poll so high does that not translate? The same view that many here have stated, that those .99% of voters, over a million people, wasted their votes. I garentee you never once heard Johnson mentioned on any major news network except when he appeared on Stossel’s show with the Socialist and Costitution canidates. In terms of funding he revived just under 2 million in campaign funds, from the government, while Obama and Romney toped 70 mill. And most importantly, noone took him seriously. Not sense good ole Ross has a third party guy been taken seriously, its been over 40 years sense a third party won an electoral vote.Now I see where you’re coming from. I think all forms of government are overrated. And as humans are flawed, will always found to be wanting - even your ideal “minarchist” govt. The Libertarian candidate in 2008 got 0.4% of the popular vote - a far cry from your 10% libertarian figure - maybe some of the 10% of libertarians were too stoned to go out and vote for Bob Barr?
If the Ron Paul wing of the GOP is winning then why are you abandoning the Republican party?
Ishii
I remember in highschool my government teacher, my favorite one of all time and the man who inspired me to teach, told us flatly “a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.” And while I may have stood up and objected how many of the kids in the class who arnt very political just took that at face value? How many wont even look into third parties which possibly are more in line with their values. It’s a clasic case of imaginary walls, a third party can’t win because people think it can’t win.
As for the GOP, unfortunately the establishments power play in 2012 shut out Paul’s people but the rise is inevitable. There are only two options for the republicans long term, acceptance of Libertarianism as atleast part of the platform, or refusal to do so. And if the Republicans don’t do that then a new party will do to them what they did to the Whigs 150 years ago, replace them.
Either way I support the libertarians simply to help break the 2 party system.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not sure any of this is workable.
Acceptance of libertarianism by the Repubs could be a poison pill. Libertarianism is a “straddle”; an acceptance of fiscal and regulatory conservatism and social ultraliberalism. While, certainly, some people are able to believe in both at the same time, or think they can, it requires a traditionalist acceptance of historic (some would say “natural”) economic instincts with an almost libertine acceptance of the very opposite in the social realm. So, for example, many libertarians would favor a minimum of governmental interference with the natural economic instincts of men, yet simultaneously favor a maximum of governmental fostering of the counter-intuitive.
At least for me, listening to libertarians reminds me of nothing so much as college sophomore reasoning and argumentation.
And there is no particular reason to believe a multiparty system is any more effective than a two party system. If it was so, there would be a lot less parliamentary chaos in those systems than we see.
R
RACJ
Guest
You don’t believe that Hillary is an utterly deceitful woman only b/c you wish it not to be so. The record is replete with instances of Hillary’s duplicity and failures. The Clintons stripped the Presidential planes and White House of countless treasures before they left, some of which they were forced to return. They vandalized the keyboards, and wrecked the place. There is much, much, much more, but what else do you need to know before you regard them as contemptible?
Rob
I
ishii
Guest
I see your point. If enough people stop supporting the GOP then they will be in a lot of trouble. But understand that first you will have to endure however many years of one party rule - with everything that implies - entrenched bureaucracies, Church persecution, a Ruth Bader Ginsburg for every justice. The UN controlling our foreign policy. The FCC controlling the media. 2nd amendment threatened. 1st amendment threatened. Let’s see - have I forgotten anything? Probably. The GOP might lack courage and be flawed, but I see them as the only real defense against a takeover by the secular left - or the completion of the takeover. When that happens, Skadi, it won’t matter if there is a strong Libertarian party or not. I think the best option is to elect conservative Republicans and challenge the establishment ones.
Regarding the two party system, I hear a lot of people on the right complain about that and wish we had a parliamentary system like European countries. I would not want to emulate any European country as they are farther along toward secular leftism than we are. They don’t reproduce, and radical Islam is making gains demographically. Not really sure why people think that system is better.
Ishii
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
She was also the author of Obamacare before anybody to speak of ever heard of Obama.You don’t believe that Hillary is an utterly deceitful woman only b/c you wish it not to be so. The record is replete with instances of Hillary’s duplicity and failures. The Clintons stripped the Presidential planes and White House of countless treasures before they left, some of which they were forced to return. They vandalized the keyboards, and wrecked the place. There is much, much, much more, but what else do you need to know before you regard them as contemptible?
The differences between Obama and Hillary are that she’s not lazy and is probably smarter. She’ll finish off whatever decency and freedom Obama leaves this country with.
S
seekerz
Guest
Decency and freedom? I’d say that when the level of common decency is at its current state, we have abundant freedom. Come to think of it, freedom has increased exponentially in the last few years, and I can measure it just in 5 seconds on YouTube…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Colloquially speaking, I suppose you are right inasmuch as “license” is often taken for “freedom” by many, though the Church would distinguish between them, and does.
S
Skadi
Guest
For how blind the American people are I don’t think they would tolerate a one party system long. There would be noone for that party to lay blame on and there are millions of people already programmed to be anti-democrat just there are to be anti-republican. The longer the republicans linger in their current state, the longer this period you speek of will last. If the republicans don’t change now they will demographically be “bred out” by the rise of secularism. Untill the republicans reform their “social agenda” we already live in a mostly one party system which will get worse with each passing election.
As for Europe I agree I don’t like their policy, but that is not a result of their parliamentary system, its a result of the ideological positions of the people of Europe. As for the continued growth of Islam, I agree Europes culture is in danger but what do you think should be done? The only options are to cut of Immigration (which Europe can’t do thanks to its welfare insanity) or preemptively legislate against Muslims before they gain a majority. You canf force the Europeans to have more kids if they don’t want to.
meltzerboy
New member
Wasn’t Romney the author of Obamacare?
S
seekerz
Guest
No, I don’t mean license, I mean freedom. But license has similarly increased too.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not a political policy wonk, but it is my impression that Romney was not the author of “Romneycare”, though as governor, he did sign it and presumably thought it was either a good thing or what Massachussetts people wanted. One can assume the latter was true if not both true.
However, Hillary Clinton’s “Hillarycare” preceded “Romneycare” by a decade and more. Apparently the general notion had been around for some time, and she had a bunch of “brain trusters” working on it feverishly before it was introduced. It was an unpopular proposition and didn’t pass. It passed in 2010 only because Obama had an unbeatable majority in congress at the time, and Pelosi and Reid had an iron grip on Dem legislators.
It was even more ferocious than Obamacare, in that it appeared to provide for garnishing peoples’ wages if they didn’t sign up, imposing a 20% surcharge on such people, and imposing such severe penalties on employers who didn’t aid in financing it that some say it amounted to a virtual “Federal business license” gop.com/news/research/hillarycare-obamacare/
Hillary Clinton is, if anything, a more radical and totalitarian-minded leftist than Obama is.
P
powerofk
Guest
Actually, Bob Dole was the author of Obamacare - back in the 1990’s, Obamacare was the GOP’s more conservative alternative to Hillarycare!
meltzerboy
New member
So you think Hillary is more radical than Bill, who was willing to compromise with Newt?(I’m on a first-name basis with all of them.) BTW, if not Jeb, what about another run by Newt in 2016?
R
RACJ
Guest
Bob Dole is a brave war hero who stood for little but capitulation to progressives as a long-term senator and Pres. nominee. “Shame on Time Warner” is about all I got out of his lame 1996 campaign. It was a disaster, as were most of his ideas which came to fruition. Rob
- Status