The GOP's Third Party Option

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Sheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
They tried men near the center twice in succession and it didn’t work.
Click to expand...
I realize it didn’t work twice, but I don’t think it was because the Republican candidates were centrist. McCain was a good solid candidate, but Palin was awful, she sunk his ship, in part, and Obama was a phenomenon then, someone who gave a lot of people hope. It was Obama’s year, and he just couldn’t be stopped by anyone.

Romney had a difficult task of beating a sitting president, which is really tough to do.

I, personally, don’t think the extreme views of Cruz and Trump are going to sit well with most Americans, but a lot can happen between now and November. The Republican Party wants rid of Trump, and Cruz is really unlikable. She makes Hillary seem like she has charisma, and really she doesn’t. Bill does, but not Hillary.
 
TMC said:
Well, they are now looking at two men way outside of the center. Let’s see how that goes for them. I don’t think it will go any better.
Click to expand...
It may not, in which case, it may be time for the GOP to say good night and dive into the history books.

A new party would then rise in its place, but in the meantime, the Democrats would have at least two presidencies in which to run riot, which would not **necessarily **be a bad thing.

ICXC NIKA.
 
TMC said:
If Cruz is the nominee Clinton will win in a landslide. That might be the best thing for the GOP as it will finally silence the nonsense that the GOP could win if they just got even more radically conservative.
Click to expand...
I truly believe that the vast majority of the voters in our country hang out in the middle of the rigid ideologies that have come to define each major party.

I was raised Republican and have voted Democrat all of my adult life, but I am not at all opposed to voting for a Republican. I find the hard left Democrats as off-putting as the hard-right Republicans.

I want parties that work with each other to “govern” us all. You never get that at the far ends of the spectrum. MOO.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I realize it didn’t work twice, but I don’t think it was because the Republican candidates were centrist. McCain was a good solid candidate, but Palin was awful, she sunk his ship, in part, and Obama was a phenomenon then, someone who gave a lot of people hope. It was Obama’s year, and he just couldn’t be stopped by anyone.

Romney had a difficult task of beating a sitting president, which is really tough to do.

I, personally, don’t think the extreme views of Cruz and Trump are going to sit well with most Americans, but a lot can happen between now and November. The Republican Party wants rid of Trump, and Cruz is really unlikable. She makes Hillary seem like she has charisma, and really she doesn’t. Bill does, but not Hillary.
Click to expand...
Agreed. In 2008, when the people left were McCain, Obama and Clinton, I was chill - I would have been happy with any of them. And then the Republican Party introduced the world to Palin…I just still don’t know what to say about that - a political mis-step of the highest order. So, there went the chance of me voting for McCain.

And, as you point out - Romney was a very good man but people wanted to give Obama the full 8 years and I get that.

Trump may give Clinton a small run for her money. Cruz will give her a flat out landslide.
 
GEddie said:
It may not, in which case, it may be time for the GOP to say good night and dive into the history books.

A new party would then rise in its place, but in the meantime, the Democrats would have at least two presidencies in which to run riot, which would not **necessarily **be a bad thing.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
As best I can tell, there are two distinct parties within the Republican Party. The socially, conservative Tea Party crowd with their Michelle Bachmans and Ted Cruzes DO represent a not negligible number of Republican voters. But they also don’t represent MOST Republican voters, who wish for a chance to back a leader who is noble, logical, trustworthy, consistent and tempered towards our diverse population.

Maybe two parties will emerge after all this hullabaloo. But I myself am sad to see the primary Conservative voice in our country so shattered.
 
Little_Sheep said:
As best I can tell, there are two distinct parties within the Republican Party. The socially, conservative Tea Party crowd with their Michelle Bachmans and Ted Cruzes DO represent a not negligible number of Republican voters. But they also don’t represent MOST Republican voters, who wish for a chance to back a leader who is noble, logical, trustworthy, consistent and tempered towards our diverse population.

Maybe two parties will emerge after all this hullabaloo. But I myself am sad to see the primary Conservative voice in our country so shattered.
Click to expand...
Seems to me there are more than two distinct parties within it. Yes, there are the Tea Party folks, fiscally conservative, many being mildly libertarian. There are the Evangelical hard core people like Cruz and Bachman who think anything libertarian is the fruit of the devil, or at least pretend to think so. There are the high intellectuals, the National Review crowd, who could build incredible intellectual structures but who don’t really win a lot of votes because nobody understands them. There are the neo-isolationists like Buchanan and Paul. There are the “sorta liberals a little, but in limited ways” like Kasich. And, of course, there are the cultural and religious fundamentalists (different from Evangelicals) who mostly want government to leave them alone, physically and culturally.

The Repub party is not like the Dem party. Once upon a time, the dem party was very diverse, but only vaguely united as to some core principals, one being a mild populism. It is now very homogenous ideologically and does not brook diversity on its core principals, the main one being gender politics, the central feature of which is abortion on demand.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Seems to me there are more than two distinct parties within it. Yes, there are the Tea Party folks, fiscally conservative, many being mildly libertarian. There are the Evangelical hard core people like Cruz and Bachman who think anything libertarian is the fruit of the devil, or at least pretend to think so. There are the high intellectuals, the National Review crowd, who could build incredible intellectual structures but who don’t really win a lot of votes because nobody understands them. There are the neo-isolationists like Buchanan and Paul. There are the “sorta liberals a little, but in limited ways” like Kasich. And, of course, there are the cultural and religious fundamentalists (different from Evangelicals) who mostly want government to leave them alone, physically and culturally.

The Repub party is not like the Dem party. Once upon a time, the dem party was very diverse, but only vaguely united as to some core principals, one being a mild populism. It is now very homogenous ideologically and does not brook diversity on its core principals, the main one being gender politics, the central feature of which is abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
Your elephant spectrum is about right. I can see me in there.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Seems to me there are more than two distinct parties within it. Yes, there are the Tea Party folks, fiscally conservative, many being mildly libertarian. There are the Evangelical hard core people like Cruz and Bachman who think anything libertarian is the fruit of the devil, or at least pretend to think so. There are the high intellectuals, the National Review crowd, who could build incredible intellectual structures but who don’t really win a lot of votes because nobody understands them. There are the neo-isolationists like Buchanan and Paul. There are the “sorta liberals a little, but in limited ways” like Kasich. And, of course, there are the cultural and religious fundamentalists (different from Evangelicals) who mostly want government to leave them alone, physically and culturally.

The Repub party is not like the Dem party. Once upon a time, the dem party was very diverse, but only vaguely united as to some core principals, one being a mild populism. It is now very homogenous ideologically and does not brook diversity on its core principals, the main one being gender politics, the central feature of which is abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
I really enjoyed everything you had to say about the Republican Party, so thank you for that. I do see two very distinct branches - the ones I mentioned earlier - but I did not mean to imply that the party is homogeneous. I mean, clearly it is not if establishment Republicans dislike BOTH of the candidates that the people seem to want as the nominee.

You lost me when you started to you try your hand at the Democrat round-up.

“Gender politics” - and I’m not entirely sure what you mean with that phrase, but I will assume you mean that we accept and support people outside of the normal male-female configuration - don’t really figure into my personal politics. I mean, yes, I’m delighted by our Party’s inclusion on that front, but that strand of the population is tiny. They should have a voice, of course, as should all of us. But I know plenty of Democrats that are still adjusting to the fact that human sexuality is not binary.

And “abortion on demand” as the central feature of the Democratic Party’s platform is beyond nonsense and not worthy of a meaningful response. Women just want government to leave their uteri alone, physically and culturally. Surely you Republicans can understand that! 😉
 
GEddie said:
It may not, in which case, it may be time for the GOP to say good night and dive into the history books.

A new party would then rise in its place, but in the meantime, the Democrats would have at least two presidencies in which to run riot, which would not **necessarily **be a bad thing.

ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Okay, I definitely didn’t expect that sentence to end with “which would not **necessarily **be a bad thing”.

But I agree that a Trump nomination will be bad for the Republican Party. Not only would I expect a record turnout on the Dem side sweeping HRC into office, but I would expect numerous reelection losses for Republicans in Congress in two years. 😦
 
Peter_J said:
Okay, I definitely didn’t expect that sentence to end with “which would not **necessarily **be a bad thing”.

But I agree that a Trump nomination will be bad for the Republican Party. Not only would I expect a record turnout on the Dem side sweeping HRC into office, but I would expect numerous reelection losses for Republicans in Congress in two years. 😦
Click to expand...
Do you think Trump has been bad for the Republican Party regardless of whether or not he secures the nomination?
 
Little_Sheep said:
And “abortion on demand” as the central feature of the Democratic Party’s platform is beyond nonsense and not worthy of a meaningful response. Women just want government to leave their uteri alone, physically and culturally. Surely you Republicans can understand that! 😉
Click to expand...
Insightful Little Sheep…

Abortion is a critical issue for all those with a spiritual foundation in their life. It is wrong without compromise. It should not be encouraged at any stage in life; regardless if it’s in the womb or otherwise. Sadly, it does not get the attention it should. Even among Republicans, within the eleven debates that have taken place, there has been less than ten minutes of discussion given to the subject.

The reality is that we need responsible government in our lives. There are too many examples of what can take place when government relaxes standards. We need to be considerate of the poor and watchful of those that aim to take advantage of others for their financial gain.

We are seeing the frustration from those that have seen their jobs leave for overseas facilities. The worst part is that your leaders are telling you this is for the best? However, now that we are broke is not the time to offer services we cannot afford. We are truly witnessing a political paradox.

Just the opinion of a recovering conservative…
 
Little_Sheep said:
Do you think Trump has been bad for the Republican Party regardless of whether or not he secures the nomination?
Click to expand...
I sure do. If he is not nominated, and most likely if he is, he will secure HRC’s victory by dividing her opposition.

I don’t believe the GOP would then survive in its current form.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
I sure do. If he is not nominated, and most likely if he is, he will secure HRC’s victory by dividing her opposition.

I don’t believe the GOP would then survive in its current form.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I don’t know if I would go that far. We’ll probably manage to limp along and gradually recover over a number of years.

Optimistic aren’t I? :o
 
GEddie said:
I would, because they have been flagging for a generation; they desperately need an A team and there isn’t one in sight.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I think the GOP down fall is because they are for the PARTY, Party, Party and not the people… it’s the Party at all costs and how can they keep their jobs forever…
 
Peter_J said:
True. But don’t forget that Romney has something even stronger …
Click to expand...
If Mormons made up a majority in America, Romney would have had something stronger.
As it is, Mormons aren’t even a significant enough minority for anyone to pander to as useful Identity group.
 
Darryl1958 said:
If Mormons made up a majority in America, Romney would have had something stronger.
As it is, Mormons aren’t even a significant enough minority for anyone to pander to as useful Identity group.
Click to expand...
I was being a little bit tongue in cheek there (probably not a good idea, I know, on this forum unless properly indicated by emoticons) about votes relating to becoming gods in the hereafter, and so on.
 
In all seriousness, though, I think any discussion of Romney’s Mormon religion ought to be balanced. I’m reminded of

“I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.”
  • John F. Kennedy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top