Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XVII

[SV Fan]

I would have gone with Pennsylvania, personally.

Why not be different, do it in Montana.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Because there are more voters in Philly than all of Montana (and Wyoming combined).

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think they want to do whatever they can to snatch a swing state.

Montana is far from a swing state.

 

[SV Fan]

Because there are more voters in Philly than all of Montana (and Wyoming combined).

Yeah but going to Montana says you are above playing politics, which intern I thinks makes a great political move.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I know a couple of girls that worked at the Hooters that was by the convention center during the last RNC. They were specifically told to not discuss politics with anyone no matter what. I imagine that would be the case in a lot of restaurants when one of these conventions is held near them for either party

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Agreed, because hosting the DNC convention in Charlotte, NC did such a great job for Obama in that state. I doubt that simply hosting the RNC convention in Ohio will do wonders for them.

They really don't place the conventions in places where they're hoping for votes; they're placed because of political connections and cities wanting an economic boost from all the people that come in. Perfect example is the Republicans hosting their 2004 convention in NYC, not exactly a hotbed of their constituency.

 

[Marvolo]

GOP Lawmaker Says Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars Have 'Exactly' Same Temperature

In a condemnatory speech last week against the Obama administration’s new Environmental Protection Agency carbon emission regulations, Kentucky state Sen. Brandon Smith (R) claimed that man-made climate change is scientifically implausible because Mars and Earth share “exactly” the same temperature.


Smith, the owner of a mining company called Mohawk Energy, argued that despite the fact that the red planet doesn’t have any coal mines, Mars and Earth share a temperature. Therefore, Smith reasoned, coal companies on Earth should be exempt from emission regulations.

During a Natural Resources and Environment Committee meeting Thursday, Smith, the Senate majority whip, said:

"As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of."

According to NASA, the average temperature on Earth is 57 degrees Fahrenheit -- 138 degrees above Mars' average of -81 degrees.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5568058?utm_hp_ref=tw

Well, we know this guy slept through science class.

 

[SV Fan]

GOP Lawmaker Says Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars Have 'Exactly' Same Temperature

I could be wrong here but I think he ment that the temperature was warming up on Mars as it is on the Earth. Somebody should have asked a follow up question to make sure what he is saying

 

[wiegeabo]

*scratches head*

If that was true, then it means the Sun itself is putting out more energy. Which means we are royal ****ed.

Also means addressing climate change to get the temperature down is even more ciritcal.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I know a couple of girls that worked at the Hooters that was by the convention center during the last RNC. They were specifically told to not discuss politics with anyone no matter what. I imagine that would be the case in a lot of restaurants when one of these conventions is held near them for either party

Dammit, my whole trip to Ohio was centred around debating Keynesian economics with Hooters waitresses. Now I have to cancel my plans!

 

[Marvolo]

I could be wrong here but I think he ment that the temperature was warming up on Mars as it is on the Earth. Somebody should have asked a follow up question to make sure what he is saying

Regardless, of what he meant, its a stupid comparison. Mars is a much smaller dead planet with no magnetosphere and very little atmosphere so to point to the current state of Mars and use that as an excuse for humans to not curb carbon emissions is beyond moronic. If he would like to see the effects of runaway greenhouse gases he can however look at Venus. Its extreme heat and pressure is a result of runaway greenhouse gases and the planet is still active.

Even if we lived in a magical world where our actions didnt effect our ecosystem, carbon emmissions are still bad for our species's health. This was proven long ago. That is the only argument we really need for moving away from oil and coal. Its bad for us. We need clean fuel for reasons other than climate change. They need to be putting doctors and scientists in front of congress and the public and point out what these emmissions do to us. Thats a lot harder for the GOP and public to refute and ignore.

And I get it and sympathize with coal miners and people in the oil and coal industry. They dont want to lose their jobs. They cant afford to. But this is just the nature of progress. We cant hold onto stuff that is bad for us just so people have a job. This is why we need a better and smarter welfare system in this country. So that when progress leaves people out of a job they dont die of starvation and lose their homes before they can get a new job.

But this will never happen in my lifetime, because the two political parties have too many votes and too much money to lose. They will prolong this issue and milk it for all its worth. They could care less about the effects of carbon emmissions and dirty fuel and the blue collar workers in that industry.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I thinking it's a waiting game for Republicans.

"Maybe climate change is real but if it is I'll be dead before things get too bad"

Or "Climate change is probably real but hopefully I'll be done with politics before it becomes so obvious any voter can see it".

 

[Thundercrack85]

GOP Lawmaker Says Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars Have 'Exactly' Same Temperature


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5568058?utm_hp_ref=tw

Well, we know this guy slept through science class.

Let me guess, he's on the science committee?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I know a couple of girls that worked at the Hooters that was by the convention center during the last RNC. They were specifically told to not discuss politics with anyone no matter what. I imagine that would be the case in a lot of restaurants when one of these conventions is held near them for either party

To be fair, I think wait staff is generally discouraged from bringing up politics because it's a good topic to avoid when talking to total strangers.

Or as I found out with my ultra conservative coworker, coworkers as well.

 

[Persistence]

Everybody Is Going Crazy Buying Up Weird .gop Domains Today

Feel free to go here:

https://www.join.gop/

And get yourself that .gop domain you have always dreamed of!

Wow, this seems like the dumbest idea the party has ever considered. They need to work on building a coherent political philosophy instead of creating gimmicks that can only backfire on them.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Quite frankly, given some of their positions, incoherent is actually a good idea.

Tax cuts, no new taxes, no minimum wage increase ever, no to gay marriage, less regulations (read: less safe drinking water, and more exploding fertilizer plants), no new infrastructure, no healthcare, no action on climate change...

Unless you're a Darwinist anarchist, their current platform is terrible. If they actually made a list of everything they are for (or, against really) no one who isn't a social crusader would vote for them. And even some of those "culture warriors" probably want safe drinking water.

Granted, the Democrats have some bad ideas, but they do actually have some constructive ones.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Quite frankly, given some of their positions, incoherent is actually a good idea.

Tax cuts, no new taxes, no minimum wage increase ever, no to gay marriage, less regulations (read: less safe drinking water, and more exploding fertilizer plants), no new infrastructure, no healthcare, no action on climate change...

Unless you're a Darwinist anarchist, their current platform is terrible. If they actually made a list of everything they are for (or, against really) no one who isn't a social crusader would vote for them. And even some of those "culture warriors" probably want safe drinking water.

Granted, the Democrats have some bad ideas, but they do actually have some constructive ones.

They just can't figure out how to implement and pay for them without raising taxes up the wazoo. It's really time for the government to figure out what's actually worth paying for and getting rid of ridiculous waste and pork barrel spending. For me, the government does not need to do or provide stuff that most people could easily pay for out of their own pocket but is only doing so because of bad decisions and/or political favoring.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Wow, this seems like the dumbest idea the party has ever considered. They need to work on building a coherent political philosophy instead of creating gimmicks that can only backfire on them.

Considering all the factions within the GOP coming up with a coherent political philosophy is going to be extremely difficult. The GOP is really just an alliance of various right-winged ideologies, many of which just do not get along with one another.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Considering all the factions within the GOP coming up with a coherent political philosophy is going to be extremely difficult. The GOP is really just an alliance of various right-winged ideologies, many of which just do not get along with one another.

The Tea Party and neo-conservatives are only split on spending but it's such a wedge issue that it's causing the Tea Party to attempt a full-blown mutiny (good luck with that).

The Religious Right doesn't make waves in the GOP unless they feel their agenda is being ignored.

That just leaves the Libertarians, the red-headed step child. I don't see them getting gaining much power within the GOP without revamping their stance on social issues which isn't really an option.

Overall I see three major sects (neo-cons, tea party, libertarians) fighting for the soul of the GOP and I don't see any of them budging any time soon.

 

[Persistence]

Quite frankly, given some of their positions, incoherent is actually a good idea.

Tax cuts, no new taxes, no minimum wage increase ever, no to gay marriage, less regulations (read: less safe drinking water, and more exploding fertilizer plants), no new infrastructure, no healthcare, no action on climate change...

Unless you're a Darwinist anarchist, their current platform is terrible. If they actually made a list of everything they are for (or, against really) no one who isn't a social crusader would vote for them. And even some of those "culture warriors" probably want safe drinking water.

Granted, the Democrats have some bad ideas, but they do actually have some constructive ones.

I think you're too smart to always resort to soundbite rhetoric to demagogue the other side. I can do just as easily for Democrats:

More taxes, stronger IRS, gay marriage, mandatory alternative sex ed in all schools, no legal borders, more welfare, foreign energy dependency, ,more eminent domain, subsidized abortions, less property rights, more free marijuana, consumer micromanagement, more industry litigation, larger Cabinet, more affirmative action agencies, more economic planning


See how easy that was. Why don't we analyze the party based on objectives and their reported results?

Do you really think more taxes and raising minimum wage is always a solution to bring about America's prosperity? My biggest problem with Democrats isn't their stand on social issues...but their complete ignorance of economics and analytic thinking. There's too many ideologue lawyers and not enough economists or business owners in the Democratic Party. You can argue merits of raising minimum wage and corporate taxes, but it just seems many in Democratic Party don't care about performing cost-benefit analysis and only care about instant gratification ramifications of their policy and not long-term trends.

Sure, you can raise minimum wage ...but if you are now required to pay minimum wage employees more for same job, you're going to have to cut costs somewhere else...perhaps corporate technology investments, contribution to voluntary benefits, some other voluntary expense, ..or increase prices of products (leading to inflation)...or just accept lower profit margins and additional risk of cash flow problems. Let's say they choose the last option...and you may say 'tough luck CEO'...but what happens when the sources of capital infusion don't want to accept the cash flow problems and additional risk of bankruptcy...they (stock holders) pull out and invest in another industry that gets them higher return on capital with same risk. So now you have an asset problem on your balance sheet. You can do similar analysis with corporate taxes...which is why these companies are looking to build their operations off-shore. It's no secret why some companies move from California to Texas...or out of country altogether.

Over 500 economists, even award winning ones signed pledge against minimum wage increase citing CBO reports of lost jobs.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/over-500-economists-against-federal-minimum-wage-increase/

Yet, Democrats generally don't care about doing any of this analysis when proposing all their wonderful utopian domestic policy details. It's no secret why most bankrupt and corrupt cities in the country like Baltimore and Detroit are run by Democrats.

There is not universal conclusion on minimum wage hikes, which can certainly be explored, but they should be explored individually at state level...so we see what works and what doesn't work and allow people option to move to economic environment of their preference.

The real problem with Republican Party is that they don't represent their reported platform. The Republican Party serve the Wallstreet lobbyists and military industrial complex as opposed to sticking close to Constitutional limits of protecting the nation, enforcing treaties and contracts, conserving national treasures, and protecting individual property rights. They've turned away from federalism and moved onto corporatism. Their inability to return to their roots is why I'm not optimistic for fate of this country.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Except that, a lot of those are good ideas. I.e. more taxes, gay marriage, more welfare, etc.

Republican economics brought this country to the brink of a second Great Depression. They clearly have learned nothing, and now you have the Tea Party that wants to default.

Also, if you were to let states determine wages, we would still have slavery. Or no minimum wage at all. So in short, to hell with the states' rights. Especially the welfare states that don't pay their workers enough for gas money. They know who they are.

 

[SV Fan]

I think you're too smart to always resort to soundbite rhetoric to demagogue the other side. I can do just as easily for Democrats:

More taxes, stronger IRS, gay marriage, mandatory alternative sex ed in all schools, no legal borders, more welfare, foreign energy dependency, ,more eminent domain, subsidized abortions, less property rights, more free marijuana, consumer micromanagement, more industry litigation, larger Cabinet, more affirmative action agencies, more economic planning


See how easy that was. Why don't we analyze the party based on objectives and their reported results?

I think the problem for me is Republicans seem to love talking in soundbites(ie "less Big Government" or "get rid of regulations") so unless they feel like explaining themselves(ie which aspects of Big government they dislike or what regulations they want to get rid of) you have to take them at face value that they hate all of them because in general they seem to hate talking in specifics.

I never heard Democrats come out and say anything you mention. Whenever they do campaign on something it's not "more Taxes"<end of statement> it's more taxes on any money over 1M dollars, or tax something specific which is a huge difference from just the plan old "more taxes". Beyond that I never heard anyone come out right and claim stuff like like stronger IRS, No Borders, Foriegn Energy dependence, Less property rights, free marijuana, industry litigation, larger Cabinet

 

[Persistence]

I think the problem for me is Republicans seem to love talking in soundbites(ie "less Big Government" or "get rid of regulations") so unless they feel like explaining themselves(ie which aspects of Big government they dislike or what regulations they want to get rid of) you have to take them at face value that they hate all of them because in general they seem to hate talking in specifics.

I never heard Democrats come out and say anything you mention. Whenever they do campaign on something it's not "more Taxes"<end of statement> it's more taxes on any money over 1M dollars, or tax something specific which is a huge difference from just the plan old "more taxes"

There was a time when Democratic Presidential candidates openly campaigned on raising taxes:

Walter Mondale "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes...and so will I."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07m39CQRJXw

Democrats have gotten smarter on pushing forward tax increases. They won't raise income taxes on middle class folks...oh no. They will place taxes on products and services that they mandate you to buy. Not only insurance penalties...but reinsurance and PCORI taxes that are added on insurance premiums..in addition to higher insurance premiums due to increased mandatory benefits...including ones you can't use (can single man use maternity care or pediatric care?)....ah yes...Democrats...shuffle the money around...and let the squeeze begin.

 

[Destructus86]

There was a time when Democratic Presidential candidates openly campaigned on raising taxes:

Walter Mondale "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes...and so will I."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07m39CQRJXw

Democrats have gotten smarter on pushing forward tax increases. They won't raise income taxes on middle class folks...oh no. They will place taxes on products and services that they mandate you to buy. Not only insurance penalties...but reinsurance and PCORI taxes that are added on insurance premiums..in addition to higher insurance premiums due to increased mandatory benefits...including ones you can't use (can single man use maternity care or pediatric care?)....ah yes...Democrats...shuffle the money around...and let the squeeze begin.

The Tea Party is the big reason why I will never support Republicans. If they can ditch that nut-job group I think the Republican party would be much better off.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Tea Party and neo-conservatives are only split on spending but it's such a wedge issue that it's causing the Tea Party to attempt a full-blown mutiny (good luck with that).

The Religious Right doesn't make waves in the GOP unless they feel their agenda is being ignored.

That just leaves the Libertarians, the red-headed step child. I don't see them getting gaining much power within the GOP without revamping their stance on social issues which isn't really an option.

Overall I see three major sects (neo-cons, tea party, libertarians) fighting for the soul of the GOP and I don't see any of them budging any time soon.

The GOP is actually far more split than that. You have your Rockefeller Republicans who are economically centrist and socially liberal, your evangelicals, your neo-conservatives (who are currently being treated as the red-headed step child), libertarian Paul Republicans, etc. It's very hard to come up with a coherent strategy with all of those competing factions and thus why we see a lot of Republicans such as Paul Ryan come off as very inconsistent.