Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party - - Part 17

[Decepticonus]

I think it was a Woody.

Ewwwww, sir keep that in your pants, please!

 

[Lily Adler]

Woody Harrelson was President?

 

[Decepticonus]

Woody Harrelson was President?

I will not vote for him! White men can't jump
:reads spoilers:
Damn it, never mind.

 

[Marvolo]

How could they be so stupid as to just pull a random guy out of a hat. And even more so, stupid enough to even consider Rick freaking Perry. Even if they can't get a brokered convention, surely Kasich is better suited to representing the GOP than Perry!

Something I read in an article the other day said the GOP leadership may be shunning Kasich because he expanded Medicaid in his state and hasnt fought Obamacare. Perry on the other hand is like every other **** head GOP shrill that thinks the poor shouldnt have access to healthcare, and he has been obnoxiously outspoken against Obamacare. Stealing health care from poor people seems to be too important to them to pick Kasich.

These Republicans are as usual full of ****. They say they want to promote Republican values, but what they really mean is they are promoting lies and the value of stepping on the little guy's back.

But **** em. If they want to go with Perry who made a fool of himself in the 2008 election more power to them. Perry isnt going to beat Hillary.

 

[Decepticonus]

Something I read in an article the other day said the GOP leadership may be shunning Kasich because he expanded Medicaid in his state and hasnt fought Obamacare. Perry on the other hand is like every other **** head GOP shrill that thinks the poor shouldnt have access to healthcare, and he has been obnoxiously outspoken against Obamacare. Stealing health care from poor people seems to be too important to them to pick Kasich.

These Republicans are as usual full of ****. They say they wont to promote Republican values, but what they really mean is they are promoting lies and the value of stepping on the little guy's back.

But **** em. If they want to go with Perry who made a fool of himself in the 2008 election more power to them. Perry isnt going to beat Hillary.

But the poor are allowed access to god and dem guns, so who needs that there healthcare. But yeah, Perry is a ****tard. He has yet to be able to name that last department he would close.

On another note, since we were alluding to the 1912 election and this possible idea of a split in the party due to Trump. What if in a election (not this one) both parties split?

 

[Kelly]

The split itself, does not matter.....what are the reasons behind the split, that is what needs to be looked at, analyzed, discussed, debated...etc.

We try to categorize things, put them in this box or that...those that follow Trump are Fascist, those that follow Sanders are Socialist....why? why are they choosing those paths? Because one group is simply racist, and the other are simply lazy? I don't think so....I think there are other reasons and one big one is a simple distrust of our government. What has caused that distrust? Those are the things I want to know....

 

[Marvolo]

I'd say that distrust was caused by, among other things, the Patriot Act and the Republicans spending the last 16 years, especially the last 8 years, telling anyone that will give them the time of day that the sky is falling and the terrorists, the gays, and Obama are riding America bareback into the maw of Hell.

The regression of intellectualism and the proliferation of 24/7 media aren't helping things either.

And I'm sure the issues with the banks, economy, immigration, racism, intolerance, delusions of persecution and oppression, and a number of other things have fed the feeling that the government isn't looking out for anyone.

 

[Kelly]

I actually think that you are far more correct in the 24/7 media than blaming one party, though I do believe (at least for me) that the Patriot Act was a huge caveat.

 

[SV Fan]

I actually think that you are far more correct in the 24/7 media than blaming one party, though I do believe (at least for me) that the Patriot Act was a huge caveat.

I think Rush Limbaugh and his type of political entertainment is mostly at fault.

 

[Marvolo]

I actually think that you are far more correct in the 24/7 media than blaming one party, though I do believe (at least for me) that the Patriot Act was a huge caveat.

I wouldn't blame the whole GOP. Just the fearmongerers, warmongers, the ones trying to repeal Obamacare over and over and over, and the types like Rubio and Cruz that can't seem to get through a public appearance without blaming Obama for something. Any Democrats that's went along with that mess is equally responsible.

And with that damn 24/7 news cycle every absurd, inflammatory, lie they spout is recorded and disseminated amongst the people. To make matters worse the people that run the 24/7 media have an extreme lack integrity and no dedication to facts and truth.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Didn't the Democrats split into two parties in the 1860 election?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Didn't the Democrats split into two parties in the 1860 election?

The party itself didn't split (literally) but the convention was deadlocked, and then there were separate conventions, which resulted in multiple candidates.

 

[DeadPresident]

I'd say that distrust was caused by, among other things, the Patriot Act and the Republicans spending the last 16 years, especially the last 8 years, telling anyone that will give them the time of day that the sky is falling and the terrorists, the gays, and Obama are riding America bareback into the maw of Hell.

The regression of intellectualism and the proliferation of 24/7 media aren't helping things either.

And I'm sure the issues with the banks, economy, immigration, racism, intolerance, delusions of persecution and oppression, and a number of other things have fed the feeling that the government isn't looking out for anyone.

Probably a moderately defensible position to try and argue these days. Or, at least that the government isn't prioritizing its people over extraneous interests.

 

[DeadPresident]

The split itself, does not matter.....what are the reasons behind the split, that is what needs to be looked at, analyzed, discussed, debated...etc.

We try to categorize things, put them in this box or that...those that follow Trump are Fascist, those that follow Sanders are Socialist....why? why are they choosing those paths? Because one group is simply racist, and the other are simply lazy? I don't think so....I think there are other reasons and one big one is a simple distrust of our government. What has caused that distrust? Those are the things I want to know....

The reductive answer is that dishonesty and duplicity as accepted ways of interacting with the populace have resulted in increased skepticism. The media has an agenda, politicians have an agenda, big business has an agenda. Are any of the institutions that were designed to serve the interests of civil society actually prioritizing civil society, or is coincidental benefit to society a secondary effect of individuals serving their own interests?

There's an interesting research organization called Edelman, they have an annual "Trust Barometer" that they publish. It might head in the right direction in terms of the questions you're curious about:

http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer/

 

[Kelly]

In answer to the question you posed....no, I don't believe there is an institution that does any of that.....including organized religion.

 

[Taarna]

I think there will be a bombshell either on gross negligence, or something outrageous said in an email.

Clinton keeps saying she never sent anything labeled top secret. How lawyer like, as she deleted the security clearances of the titles before sending it.

 

[regwec]

I must say that, between Hillary and Trump, you face an extremely unattractive choice. It would appear to be a good year to flirt with a third party.

 

[The Shape]

If portions of either the Democratic or Republican base were to throw their support behind a third party candidate, it would serve as a further guarantee that either Hillary or Trump will win the White House.

Therefore, the rise of a third party candidate at this stage of the election would be completely futile. Things would be different had there been a major third party candidate from the start who had garnered widespread support to rival the support that either Hillary or Trump have.

Like many Democrats, I do not like Hillary at all, but if it's down to her and Trump, the thinking of Democrats should be "anyone but Trump". Voting for a third party to spite the non-Bernie Sanders Democratic nominee (which would help ensure that Trump wins the general election), or voting for Trump because you simply hate Hillary is wrong on so many levels.

 

[regwec]

I imagine that many Republicans who can't abide Trump will do just that, however.

 

[The Shape]

I hope they do, honestly, if it would help ensure that he doesn't win the general election.

 

[Kelly]

If portions of either the Democratic or Republican base were to throw their support behind a third party candidate, it would serve as a further guarantee that either Hillary or Trump will win the White House.

Therefore, the rise of a third party candidate at this stage of the election would be completely futile. Things would be different had there been a major third party candidate from the start who had garnered widespread support to rival the support that either Hillary or Trump have.

Like many Democrats, I do not like Hillary at all, but if it's down to her and Trump, the thinking of Democrats should be "anyone but Trump". Voting for a third party to spite the non-Bernie Sanders Democratic nominee (which would help ensure that Trump wins the general election), or voting for Trump because you simply hate Hillary is wrong on so many levels.

I believe that Dems. WILL vote for Hillary whether they like her or not...
and Reps. who do not like Trump, will simply not vote.

 

[The Shape]

I believe that Dems. WILL vote for Hillary whether they like her or not...
and Reps. who do not like Trump, will simply not vote.

We shall soon see.

 

[terry78]

I have heard staunch republicans say they'd rather not vote or go for a democrat before being forced to vote Trump. Which is something I guess.

 

[Mysteryman]

I have heard staunch republicans say they'd rather not vote or go for a democrat before being forced to vote Trump. Which is something I guess.

Count me as part of that group.
I am a registered independent but my parents were both staunch Republicans.
Only once in the last 16 years have I not voted Republican.
But I don't think either of my parents would have voted for Trump.
Neither will I.

 

[SV Fan]

and Reps. who do not like Trump, will simply not vote.

I think you might find a few Republicans who won't vote or vote 3rd party but when push comes to shove the right wing media will all align and go on the attack and push going out to vote to stop "criminal" Hillary and her "socialist" agenda.

I am guessing Trump vs Hillary will have high turnout because they will make this one of the most negative campaigns against the other person on both sides