Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party - Part 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
At this point, they seem like they be more effective as two smaller parties that basically shape the agenda Progressive agenda. Democrats were, at least under Obama, still willing to bend over backwards to compromise instead of jamming an actual Progressive agenda down their throats.

I think Democrats are more use to losing over the past 40 years so they are more pragmatic. Give them 15-20 years of winning I am guessing the base will get more rowdy expecting to get better results on all the promises.

I can't speak for all Democrats but generally we hate war and wall street and the Democrats have failed in that regard, but I put up with both if it means wins in other areas. In the case of foreign policy Dems are slightly better then Republicans, but it wouldn't be hard for a Republican to use that against Democrats in the future, especially with somebody like Rand Paul. In the case of Wall Street I am not even sure if the Dems are any better then Republicans but once again they don't really give Dems any better options other then wanting to give fat cats tax breaks
 
Last edited:
I mean, it feels like we should have 3 parties going on now, but the Republicans are fighting so hard to hold onto past greatness(ironic) of Reagan and Lincoln even though they've been acting like a smaller party for at least the past decade since the Tea Party rose up.

At this point, they seem like they'd be more effective as two smaller parties that basically shape the Progressive agenda. Democrats were, at least under Obama, still willing to bend over backwards to compromise instead of jamming an actual Progressive agenda down their throats.
There appears to be wishful thinking from third party members hoping the party will fracture and the Libertarians, Green, and Constitutional parties will reap the spoils.
 
There appears to be wishful thinking from third party members hoping the party will fracture and the Libertarians, Green, and Constitutional parties will reap the spoils.

If all three want to become legitimate parties I think they have to moderate there policies. Sure it's nice having groups that are true believers on any one issue you agree with but some of their policies are downright scary
 
I'd imagine Trump will be doing this:

trump_0_1447064799.gif
 
I think Democrats are more use to losing over the past 40 years so they are more pragmatic. Give them 15-20 years of winning I am guessing the base will get more rowdy expecting to get better results on all the promises.

I can't speak for all Democrats but generally we hate war and wall street and the Democrats have failed in that regard, but I put up with both if it means wins in other areas. In the case of foreign policy Dems are slightly better then Republicans, but it wouldn't be hard for a Republican to use that against Democrats in the future, especially with somebody like Rand Paul. In the case of Wall Street I am not even sure if the Dems are any better then Republicans but once again they don't really give Dems any better options other then wanting to give fat cats tax breaks

I think the world in general is moving in a progressive agenda. Similar to the Industrial Revolution vs. Agricultural society. So instead of shaping the agenda moving forward, they are fighting the Civil War pt 2.

Republicans thinking banning abortions in Mississippi will ban abortions everywhere or do much of anything? Go across the border to a northern state or Canada or Mexico.

Start a war in Iraq and its ramifications will simply stay in Iraq?

The Flint, MI thing is hilarious to me. Republicans don't want to raise the minimum wage. They didn't want to compromise on smaller payments so now they are paying billions in pipe replacement, medical assistance for lead poisoning, and customers are still refusing to pay for the dirty water.
 
If all three want to become legitimate parties I think they have to moderate there policies. Sure it's nice having groups that are true believers on any one issue you agree with but some of their policies are downright scary

I think the Rep. will just co-op the name and push the original members out.

I would love for the Whig party to come back!!!
 
Aren't they already back or you mean in a viable capacity?
 
I think the Rep. will just co-op the name and push the original members out.

I would love for the Whig party to come back!!!

Sadly, they exist but they're just a hair to the left of die hard conservative right-wing republicans.
 
So how does Trump or Cruz handle a mass shooting if elected? Cruz is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment....so what happens if he's elected and a series of mass shootings happen? And many of the ones causing the shooting are not Muslims, but American born Christians like the Denver Theater Shooter (James Holmes), the South Carolina Church Shooter (Dylan Roof) and Adam Lanza?

How does Cruz or Trump deal with that?

How do they also handle the looming threat of natural disasters as well?
 
So how does Trump or Cruz handle a mass shooting if elected? Cruz is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment....so what happens if he's elected and a series of mass shootings happen? And many of the ones causing the shooting are not Muslims, but American born Christians like the Denver Theater Shooter, the South Carolina Church Shooter (Dylan Roof) and Adam Lanza?

How does Cruz or Trump deal with that?

How do they also handle the looming threat of natural disasters as well?

He'll blame the victims, or say it's because we took God out our society.
 
What is Trump's stance on the Second Amendment?
 
He'll blame the victims, or say it's because we took God out our society.

If that is the case, Cruz will have a short run as President....four years.

Sooner or later, it needs to be dealt with as it's gotten out of hand.
 
Donald trump will make the 2nd Amendment the greatest it has ever been in this country up till now

So in other words, him or Cruz would do nothing when a mass shooting occurs under their watch (which it will).
 
So in other words, him or Cruz would do nothing when a mass shooting occurs under their watch (which it will).

In other words I have no clue what his stance on the 2nd amendment and gun control is, just that he will somehow make it great. lol

v6lmrr.png
 
Last edited:
Trump is calling for Rubio to suspend his campaign.
 
Rubio is also another supporter of the Second Amendment....but I think he would handle the situation differently than Trump or Cruz would if there was a mass shooting under his watch.
 
Anyone else wonder if Mitt Romney's little speech actually ended up helping Trump?
 
Anyone else wonder if Mitt Romney's little speech actually ended up helping Trump?

Looks like it helped Cruz. Cruz over performed compared to polls, Rubio underperformed. The polls actually have a pretty accurate estimate for Trump
 
Last edited:
Anyone else wonder if Mitt Romney's little speech actually ended up helping Trump?
I don't think so. I think if Romney had decided to run, he'd actually be the most equipped to beat Trump. He did win a Republican nomination before, even though losing the general.
 
I don't think so. I think if Romney had decided to run, he'd actually be the most equipped to beat Trump. He did win a Republican nomination before, even though losing the general.

I remember Romney being a very underwhelming candidate, who the party's base grudgingly accepted as the nominee that the establishment forced on them. He's basically the anti-Trump.

I don't know if he would gain any traction.
 
I must be a masochist, but I'm loving the anti-Trump campaign from Romney/Rubio slightly backfiring. I know Trump as president would be horrible, but his success is causing so much discord that I relish in it.

tumblr_mkftv7A8uZ1qb5qxmo1_500.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"