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

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    19 Mar '16 15:31
    Some folks here (including myself) have suggested the discontent in the GOP will destroy it. It's not going to happen. Many people from George HW Bush to Rachel Maddow have correctly pointed out that in 1964 Barry Goldwater emerged as the GOP nominee after a (less than) unified convention and lost badly, but the GOP did not disappear, they came back to win back the White House in 1968,1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988. Donald Trump has thrown a monkey wrench into the GOP machine, and they are struggling a bit, but the conservative agenda is not going away. The liberal and conservative ways of thinking have a way of surviving, no matter how dire their situations seem at the time.

    The more it changes, the more it stays the same, and the hand just rearranges the players in the game.
  2. Standard member vivify
    rain
    19 Mar '16 17:12
    Claims that the GOP will destroy itself is just rhetoric from Republicans trying to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular choices of its members; most recently being the support of Trump. However, Republicans will NEVER abandon their party. It's just like how every Republican candidate has nothing but the most derogatory opinions of Trump (shameful, con-artist, etc.), yet all stated that they will still band together and vote him into office, if he wins the nomination.
  3. 19 Mar '16 18:34
    Originally posted by vivify
    Claims that the GOP will destroy itself is just rhetoric from Republicans trying to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular choices of its members; most recently being the support of Trump. However, Republicans will NEVER abandon their party. It's just like how every Republican candidate has nothing but the most derogatory opinions of Trump (sham ...[text shortened]... l stated that they will still band together and vote him into office, if he wins the nomination.
    In the end, political parties do have to answer to the voters.
  4. 19 Mar '16 18:42
    Originally posted by bill718
    Some folks here (including myself) have suggested the discontent in the GOP will destroy it. It's not going to happen. Many people from George HW Bush to Rachel Maddow have correctly pointed out that in 1964 Barry Goldwater emerged as the GOP nominee after a (less than) unified convention and lost badly, but the GOP did not disappear, they came back to win b ...[text shortened]... t changes, the more it stays the same, and the hand just rearranges the players in the game.
    like disband, shut down the lights ? of course not. they will struggle though.
  5. 19 Mar '16 19:01
    Originally posted by bill718
    Some folks here (including myself) have suggested the discontent in the GOP will destroy it. It's not going to happen. Many people from George HW Bush to Rachel Maddow have correctly pointed out that in 1964 Barry Goldwater emerged as the GOP nominee after a (less than) unified convention and lost badly, but the GOP did not disappear, they came back to win b ...[text shortened]... t changes, the more it stays the same, and the hand just rearranges the players in the game.
    The powers that be need two puppets so that they can claim the puppets have been chosen by the people.
  6. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    20 Mar '16 06:49
    Originally posted by vivify
    Claims that the GOP will destroy itself is just rhetoric from Republicans trying to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular choices of its members; most recently being the support of Trump. However, Republicans will NEVER abandon their party. It's just like how every Republican candidate has nothing but the most derogatory opinions of Trump (sham ...[text shortened]... l stated that they will still band together and vote him into office, if he wins the nomination.
    I think claims of the GOP destroying itself is hope.
    Hope from anybody with a sense of humour and a longing for payback.
  7. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    20 Mar '16 09:51
    Originally posted by normbenign
    In the end, political parties do have to answer to the voters.
    No. They answer to the money.
  8. 22 Mar '16 21:52
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    No. They answer to the money.
    If you are suggesting bribery, bring on the evidence. I'll be on board with you. If you are grousing that political advertising is too expensive, then talk to your newspaper, radio and television outlets about their ad rates.

    People still have to vote. Unless you have proof of collusion or cheating, can it.
  9. 22 Mar '16 22:08
    Originally posted by normbenign
    If you are suggesting bribery, bring on the evidence. I'll be on board with you. If you are grousing that political advertising is too expensive, then talk to your newspaper, radio and television outlets about their ad rates.

    People still have to vote. Unless you have proof of collusion or cheating, can it.
    Making something legal with flimsy unenforced or unenforceable restrictions is the way around bribery.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics

    quote:

    " As the rules are currently written, these PACs are able to circumvent restrictions preventing them from directly coordinating with campaigns, even though they’re often run by members of candidates’ inner circles. Sometimes those efforts are literally laughable (remember #McConnelling?) as campaigns and PACs hide their unofficial coordination in plain sight, such as through public announcements of their plans for television ad buys or through out-of-the-way Twitter accounts.

    Most advocates say the Supreme Court made a good-faith effort to promote transparency and prevent coordination in its Citizens United ruling.

    But the contradiction between the court’s stated desire for transparency – eight justices joined the portion of Citizens United that upheld federal disclosure requirements – and its definition of corporations as people protected by the First Amendment created a loophole that campaigns and PACs are all too happy to use to their advantage. "