Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Dec '09 01:23 / 1 edit
    I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or taxing. If one of the core issues within the Republican party is not to do these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Dec '09 02:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or ...[text shortened]... these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
    So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or taxing.

    a) How would you define "large"?

    b) It's one thing if the GOP were one of 10 parties. Then it could afford to be parochial in that way. As one of the 2 major parties in a system, you cannot enforce that kind of litmus test... well, not if you want to win back majority of the government anyway...
  3. 08 Dec '09 02:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or ...[text shortened]... these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
    It kind of confirms what I've always perceived. That the Democratic Party is the "large tent" that welcomes diverse ideas an opinions, and the Republican party is the small but militant tent.

    Both have advantages and disadvantages. The Democratic Party is more welcoming and appealing to the masses, while the Republican Party gets its power from uniformity. If the Repubs only have 40 Senators you can bet your behind all 40 will be in lock-step with tactical votes and manouvers.
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    08 Dec '09 06:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or ...[text shortened]... these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
    I think republicans should be screened.
    Line them up against a wall, screen them and shoot em'.

    But, why stop at just republicans?
  5. 08 Dec '09 09:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Has anyone heard of this?
    I thought that the whole point of a party system was to get people with common core issues together. In my opinion, the lumping of core issues into two large groups is one of the failings of the party system. It is not easy to support one issue from one party and another issue from the other party.
    It may even be a barrier to parties changing their policies. Once a policy is labelled republican, can the democrats never support it?
    I have also met Americans who say they can never switch parties whether they support the policies or not. Once republican always republican.
  6. 09 Dec '09 11:58
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I think republicans should be screened.
    Line them up against a wall, screen them and shoot em'.

    But, why stop at just republicans?
    Why indeed;they should include you.
  7. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    09 Dec '09 12:20
    Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
    Why indeed;they should include you.
    Oh you just drip wit.
    I'm sure your parents are proud they squirted you upon this planet.
  8. 09 Dec '09 12:29
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Oh you just drip wit.
    I'm sure your parents are proud they squirted you upon this planet.
    You remind me that 'squirt' is a fitting appellation for you.
  9. 09 Dec '09 12:40
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    [b]It kind of confirms what I've always perceived. That the Democratic Party is the "large tent" that welcomes diverse ideas an opinions, and the Republican party is the small but militant tent.
    Indeed. In fact, most Republicans I know could just as easlity be a democrat.
  10. 09 Dec '09 12:42
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Both have advantages and disadvantages. The Democratic Party is more welcoming and appealing to the masses, while the Republican Party gets its power from uniformity. If the Repubs only have 40 Senators you can bet your behind all 40 will be in lock-step with tactical votes and manouvers.[/b]
    The Dems are more welcoming? Try telling that to Fox news and those threatened by such things as the Fairness Doctrine. And while your at it, try telling that to the future violators who fail to sign up for health care. Now I forget, will they be imprisoned or simply have their houses taken away? Details, details.
  11. 09 Dec '09 12:43
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I think republicans should be screened.
    Line them up against a wall, screen them and shoot em'.

    But, why stop at just republicans?
    Can't we shoot the Dems as well? :'(
  12. 09 Dec '09 12:43
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or taxing.

    a) How would you define "large"?

    b) It's one thing if the GOP were one of 10 parties. Then it could afford to be parochial in that way. As one of the 2 major parties in a system, you cannot enforce that kind of litmus test... well, not if you want to win back majority of the government anyway...[/b]
    You could say that they need to balance their budget, otherwise, not campaign money next go round.
  13. 09 Dec '09 12:45
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    [b]I thought that the whole point of a party system was to get people with common core issues together.
    The whole problem is that for a very long time now, there has been very little difference between the two parties. Just look at "W" and his twin Obama. Both are headed in the same direction on a great many issues.
  14. 09 Dec '09 13:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    The Dems are more welcoming? Try telling that to Fox news and those threatened by such things as the Fairness Doctrine. And while your at it, try telling that to the future violators who fail to sign up for health care. Now I forget, will they be imprisoned or simply have their houses taken away? Details, details.
    Try telling that to Fox news and those threatened by such things as the Fairness Doctrine.

    The overwhelming majority of Democrats, including President Obama (who has veto powers) opposes the fairness doctrine. It's a non-issue right wing pundits push down your throat becuase they know you will close your eyes and swallow.

    And while your at it, try telling that to the future violators who fail to sign up for health care.

    While I also disagree with a mandate - your statement is dishonest. The proposed penalty is a tax. Fines and (in extreme cases) jail time are what could happen to anyone who doesn't pay their taxes.

    And BTW, great job at parroting the right-wing sensationalist talking points.
  15. 09 Dec '09 18:13
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper


    The overwhelming majority of Democrats, including President Obama (who has veto powers) opposes the fairness doctrine. It's a non-issue right wing pundits push down your throat becuase they know you will close your eyes and swallow.
    But support of it comes from the left. In fact, I saw a Dem from the Senate the other day compare talk radio to obscenity and therefore should be banned from the air waves. Personally, I think the majority favor it but publically deny it due to the fact the issue is such a hot potato. Instead, Obama simply bans Fox news from the White House in addition to censoring questions that are asked before they are asked. There is more than one way to skin a cat.