The Republican Party?

[franklin]

I feel the far more interesting question is what is specifically wrong with American politics that we cannot get our best and brightest people to wind up as candidates.

I am so over the the overly-partisan rhetoric and seriously don't care which party I'm voting for... I'd just like at least one good choice, preferably two.

It seems ridiculous to me that we cannot do that in this country.

Democrats haven't had a problem recruiting great candidates. Obama is exceptional. Hillary, Biden, Edwards, Kerry... all bright and qualified.

Republicans have had several great candidates: Mitt, Huntsman (meh), Giuliani, McCain, Newt. The problem is the R party hitched it's horse to the southern evangelicals years ago and now cannot get out the way of that stampede. Also the A.M. radio phenomenon has indoctrinated a large swath of the R party. The only way to change things IMO is for either moderate democrats to join and continue demonizing the Tea Party types (not going to happen) or for a highly charismatic moderate candidate to somehow take over the nomination.

Until something changes significantly we will see jackass after jackass coming out of the R party. Paul Ryan is buying his time.

 

[franklin]

If the Republican party wins next time the presidency is really up for grabs, it'll be because of mark Cuban. I'm gonna bet the farm he will be president in 2024.

If Cuban ran I would hope he wouldn't open his mouth until inauguration. I would dedicate a vote the second he declared.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Yep, I heard the same. I thought it was ridiculous, but seeing how things have played out it sure seems possible. Also, check out what I just stumbled across:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNE_cjSFCXU
Are our politics, both parties, really as corrupt as they look at the moment? I think probably yes.

lol

vast conspiracy vs. Trump is an *******?

hmmmm

 

[JimLes]

I am reminded of a conversation I once had with fishonjazz outside of a bowling alley. He said he liked Sanders, and he wanted to vote for him, but he doesn't really buy all this talk about a revolution. He might be of modest means, but he doesn't want his life to change in any significant manner. He's happy enough. I think that's how most Americans, deep inside, really feel.

I very much agree with this. I think an important distinction is that fish is smart and can tell that what both Sanders and Trump are promising would essentially involve a revolution. It appears that a good majority of those who voted for them are either not smart enough to figure that out or are blissfully pretending it's not true.

It's downright shocking how many people seem convinced that you could deport 10+ million people overnight and it wouldn't have any negative consequences. Or that you could pull out of international trade deals and again, it would not have any negative consequences. Or that you could ban Muslims from entering the country and it wouldn't have any negative consequences. Any one of these things would cause massive, wholesale changes in society, let alone all three at once. It's like the Brexit and its supporters. People actually believing that you can just leave cancel your EU membership like it's a freaking gym and your life goes on like before, except that there's fewer Poles and Romanians on your street and a factory with amazing jobs magically appears in your town.

 

[JazzGal]

Lord save us if what [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] says is true. The GOP holdouts are the only ones left in the world that believe you should earn what you get. If this party dies it will be all socialism collapse world wide. I do not look forward to that.
Why can not the liberals at least acknowledge the need for adults an kids to at minimum work for ANYTHING?

I just don't understand this concept. I know many Democrats, and none of them are expecting a handout. They all have jobs, they all work hard. What they do seem to want more than Republicans is for the people who need help to be able to get help. The people that I've ever known that have received some type of assistance are not lazy and entitled - they have just gone through something terrible and need some help to get back on their feet. They aren't proud of needing assistance, but they are grateful. Why is it that the party that most identifies with "religious" and "Christian" values seem to oppose the very things their religions teach?

Many Republicans seem to have a hard time understanding current world realities and want to govern from a world that does not exist. No, the Democrats are not a perfect party either (which is why I'm independent and frustrated). But at least they are actually trying to do the right things at least some of the time.

 

[franklin]

I just don't understand this concept. I know many Democrats, and none of them are expecting a handout. They all have jobs, they all work hard. What they do seem to want more than Republicans is for the people who need help to be able to get help. The people that I've ever known that have received some type of assistance are not lazy and entitled - they have just gone through something terrible and need some help to get back on their feet. They aren't proud of needing assistance, but they are grateful. Why is it that the party that most identifies with "religious" and "Christian" values seem to oppose the very things their religions teach?

Many Republicans seem to have a hard time understanding current world realities and want to govern from a world that does not exist. No, the Democrats are not a perfect party either (which is why I'm independent and frustrated). But at least they are actually trying to do the right things at least some of the time.

I think it's a caricature of the thinking of liberal democrats. I agree with you almost completely. I can't stand the rantings from people I know who claim that [hard working] dems want a welfare state. It's obnoxious. The difference I see is the standardized poor pity me responses that mirror the hard *** conservative republican pull yourself up by your boot straps views. I wish we could get rid of both, but politics is what it is.

 

[franklin]

I very much agree with this. I think an important distinction is that fish is smart and can tell that what both Sanders and Trump are promising would essentially involve a revolution. It appears that a good majority of those who voted for them are either not smart enough to figure that out or are blissfully pretending it's not true.

It's downright shocking how many people seem convinced that you could deport 10+ million people overnight and it wouldn't have any negative consequences. Or that you could pull out of international trade deals and again, it would not have any negative consequences. Or that you could ban Muslims from entering the country and it wouldn't have any negative consequences. Any one of these things would cause massive, wholesale changes in society, let alone all three at once. It's like the Brexit and its supporters. People actually believing that you can just leave cancel your EU membership like it's a freaking gym and your life goes on like before, except that there's fewer Poles and Romanians on your street and a factory with amazing jobs magically appears in your town.

Dalamon, our politicians essentially acknowledge this and you can see it by our policy decisions. Anything upheaving is automatically a non-starter. We have a slow moving system by design. For all those wanting a third party, a 29,000 party system like in Europe, you are going to get constant upheaval just like in European nations. You will not have economic stability like in the US. You will constantly be changing governments and having situations similar to when the Tea Party attempted to shut down government.

I realize it is popular to bitch for change, however (if it ain't broke don't fix it).

 

[Red]

Agreed.
I remember reading a conspiracy theory about how trump and hillary were going to be the two candidates and then trump would intentionally lose to her. Then, as president, she would try to enact policies to help trump in the business world.

And I remember hearing that conspiracy theory before the primaries even began

It's ironic that a guy who loves conspiracy theorizing as much as Trump does is the subject of several conspiracy theories himself. But, with his behavior being what it is at times, inevitable I guess. A short compilation of some theories involving Trump:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-guide-to-the-conspiracy-theories-about-donald-trump/

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I just don't understand this concept. I know many Democrats, and none of them are expecting a handout. They all have jobs, they all work hard. What they do seem to want more than Republicans is for the people who need help to be able to get help. The people that I've ever known that have received some type of assistance are not lazy and entitled - they have just gone through something terrible and need some help to get back on their feet. They aren't proud of needing assistance, but they are grateful. Why is it that the party that most identifies with "religious" and "Christian" values seem to oppose the very things their religions teach?

Many Republicans seem to have a hard time understanding current world realities and want to govern from a world that does not exist. No, the Democrats are not a perfect party either (which is why I'm independent and frustrated). But at least they are actually trying to do the right things at least some of the time.

Do you think that setting up a system where women in poverty are effectively marrying the government rather than their children's fathers is a positive thing? Do you feel good about the subsidies that have enabled so many men to abandon their families and so many children to grow up without a father figure? Do you think impoverished American neighborhoods are on the right track? Do you think more social programs are the key to improving the situation?

To me it seems like racial tensions are far higher today than when Obama took office. At the same joblessness in those same neighborhoods is way up (government stats try to hide this by removing people from unemployment roles for all sorts of reasons). I believe the government programs that you see as "trying to do the right thing" are actually doing the wrong thing. What these people need are jobs, not handouts.

 

[JazzGal]

Do you think that setting up a system where women in poverty are effectively marrying the government rather than their children's fathers is a positive thing? Do you feel good about the subsidies that have enabled so many men to abandon their families and so many children to grow up without a father figure? Do you think impoverished American neighborhoods are on the right track? Do you think more social programs are the key to improving the situation?

To me it seems like racial tensions are far higher today than when Obama took office. At the same joblessness in those same neighborhoods is way up (government stats try to hide this by removing people from unemployment roles for all sorts of reasons). I believe the government programs that you see as "trying to do the right thing" are actually doing the wrong thing. What these people need are jobs, not handouts.

I am certainly not suggesting that Democrats have a great solution to poverty and lack of personal responsibility. So far it appears that no one with the right power can do so. What I was discussing was the notion that keeps being presented that liberals are lazy and have no interest in taking care of themselves. It is a ridiculous stereotype that I do not see is supported by evidence.

Refusing to pass Medicaid expansion in Utah because of Obamacare dislike frustrates me. I am appalled that our Republican legislature puts party politics ahead of the lives of its poorest and sickest citizens. Is that the right thing to do?

And what do people mean when they say that racial tensions are greater since Obama took office? Does it mean that a black man shouldn't be president? Does it mean that he shouldn't speak on or be concerned about black issues? Or does it mean that the barely-concealed racism of many has now been unleashed toward a common target and then been extended? My experience has been the latter. People in my life who I knew had racial prejudice issues but who tried to keep them somewhat hidden have felt much freer to express that hatred in the past 7.5 years. It's the popular thing to do. And it is horrifying. So what exactly are you accusing Pres Obama of doing, other than being black?

And yes, I realize that I stereotype conservatives and am a hypocrite.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I am certainly not suggesting that Democrats have a great solution to poverty and lack of personal responsibility. So far it appears that no one with the right power can do so. What I was discussing was the notion that keeps being presented that liberals are lazy and have no interest in taking care of themselves. It is a ridiculous stereotype that I do not see is supported by evidence.

Refusing to pass Medicaid expansion in Utah because of Obamacare dislike frustrates me. I am appalled that our Republican legislature puts party politics ahead of the lives of its poorest and sickest citizens. Is that the right thing to do?

And what do people mean when they say that racial tensions are greater since Obama took office? Does it mean that a black man shouldn't be president? Does it mean that he shouldn't speak on or be concerned about black issues? Or does it mean that the barely-concealed racism of many has now been unleashed toward a common target and then been extended? My experience has been the latter. People in my life who I knew had racial prejudice issues but who tried to keep them somewhat hidden have felt much freer to express that hatred in the past 7.5 years. It's the popular thing to do. And it is horrifying. So what exactly are you accusing Pres Obama of doing, other than being black?

And yes, I realize that I stereotype conservatives and am a hypocrite.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

Really good post

 

[Red]

So, I guess the Breitbart alt right has now taken over the Republican Party's Presidential ticket....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ust-took-over-the-gop/?utm_term=.4d6089a9e6ca

"Constitutional conservatives can’t stand the alt-right. Conservatives — real conservatives — believe that only a philosophy of limited government, God-given rights and personal responsibility can save the country. And that creed is not bound to race or ethnicity. Broad swaths of the alt-right, by contrast, believe in a creed-free, race-based nationalism, insisting, among other things, that birth on American soil confers superiority. The alt-right sees limited-government constitutionalism as passé; it holds that only nationalist populism on the basis of shared tribal identity can save the country. It’s a movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism."

Stephen Bannon is no friend of establishment Republicans....

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ft_elevates_gop_leaders_archenemy_131536.html

"Donald Trump’s shake up of his campaign staff on Wednesday has further spotlighted the tensions between party officials and their presidential nominee, elevating an archenemy of Republican leaders to the top of the business mogul’s campaign.

In hiring Breitbart News chief Stephen Bannon as chief executive of his campaign, Trump has plainly rejected calls within the party to temper his controversial approach in order to broaden support in the general election. With Bannon, Trump is instead embracing the tactics, style and nationalist/populist themes that propelled him to victory in the primaries.


And his hiring will likely add fresh context and urgency to the question of whether the party should shift resources away from the presidential race to down-ballot contests."

But Bannon sure is a hero to the alt right:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/artic...ht-rejoices-at-trump-s-steve-bannon-hire.html

 

[Red]

I would think the best thing that could happen, for the future of the GOP, is to see Trump lose in a landslide. I can't imagine the GOP surviving as a viable national party if the alt right emerges emboldened by the results to feel they somehow represent an important voice for the GOP. The alt right Trumpettes will need to be purged. Once and for all. There is simply nothing about the alt right that can enjoy widespread national appeal. At least I cannot imagine the GOP expanding it's appeal by going in the direction Trump has apparently settled on in selecting Stephen Bannon as the CEO of his campaign. We'll see, the Trump campaign should grow even more looney as a result of Trump's decision to double down. How that can possibly help the GOP escapes me. The appointment of Bannon represents the take over of Trump's campaign by the far right echo chamber that is Breitbart News. Hard to visualize conspiracy theories and white nationalism as enjoying enough widespread appeal to put Trump in the Oval Office.

The Republican Presidential candidate retreats into the bubble:

https://www.salon.com/2016/08/17/re...d-trump-turns-his-campaign-over-to-breitbart/

 

[Miggs]

Wait, who's the resident racist around here? Jamezzz or Joebags?

 

[Stoked]

Wait, who's the resident racist around here? Jamezzz or Joebags?

Depends on who you ask.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I am certainly not suggesting that Democrats have a great solution to poverty and lack of personal responsibility. So far it appears that no one with the right power can do so. What I was discussing was the notion that keeps being presented that liberals are lazy and have no interest in taking care of themselves. It is a ridiculous stereotype that I do not see is supported by evidence.

Refusing to pass Medicaid expansion in Utah because of Obamacare dislike frustrates me. I am appalled that our Republican legislature puts party politics ahead of the lives of its poorest and sickest citizens. Is that the right thing to do?

And what do people mean when they say that racial tensions are greater since Obama took office? Does it mean that a black man shouldn't be president? Does it mean that he shouldn't speak on or be concerned about black issues? Or does it mean that the barely-concealed racism of many has now been unleashed toward a common target and then been extended? My experience has been the latter. People in my life who I knew had racial prejudice issues but who tried to keep them somewhat hidden have felt much freer to express that hatred in the past 7.5 years. It's the popular thing to do. And it is horrifying. So what exactly are you accusing Pres Obama of doing, other than being black?

And yes, I realize that I stereotype conservatives and am a hypocrite.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

I voted for Obama in his first term. I believe that this country needs black presidents and female presidents and brown presidents and red presidents and white presidents. But I think these presidents owe it to their consistencies to unite our nation, not divide it. I can point out example after example of where Obama has done the opposite. In numerous police/black situations he has jumped to judgement against the police. I have never seen him jump to judgement in favor of the police. His lens seems to be purely racial. He has accused police of wrongdoing when he did not have the facts, and the result has been increased racial tension.

Your experiences with racist people has been different than mine. First of all, the vast majority of people I know do not seem to be racist. They do not appear to judge people by their color. When someone expresses a racist thought I have seen people be critical of it and attempt to educate the offensive person.

I understand that racial minorities can face challenges, and I have immense respect for those who put their energy and effort into succeeding. That goes for people who strive for success regardless of any challenge. Life is not fair. It will never be fair. Fortunately there are many different routes to success. A person who has huge disadvantages in one area might have important advantages in another.

I do not believe that we can overcome racial challenges by focusing on them. Instead we must concentrate on creating an environment conducive to success. People need jobs. They ought to be rewarded or punished based upon their actions, not their skin color. I believe that most of the people who were recently rioting in Milwaukee, for instance, would not have been behaving very differently if they had a good job.

I agree with you that the problems are very complex. They will take a long time to solve. IMO we are currently heading in the wrong direction. And I would vote for a black president who had values like Alan West in a heartbeat. Our country desperately needs that sort of leadership.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Wait, who's the resident racist around here? Jamezzz or Joebags?

I' interested in knowing what statements I've made that you believe are racist. I don't believe that I'm racist, but if I'm blind to something like that I definitely want to improve.

 

[green]

I voted for Obama in his first term. I believe that this country needs black presidents and female presidents and brown presidents and red presidents and white presidents. But I think these presidents owe it to their consistencies to unite our nation, not divide it. I can point out example after example of where Obama has done the opposite. In numerous police/black situations he has jumped to judgement against the police. I have never seen him jump to judgement in favor of the police. His lens seems to be purely racial. He has accused police of wrongdoing when he did not have the facts, and the result has been increased racial tension.

Your experiences with racist people has been different than mine. First of all, the vast majority of people I know do not seem to be racist. They do not appear to judge people by their color. When someone expresses a racist thought I have seen people be critical of it and attempt to educate the offensive person.

I understand that racial minorities can face challenges, and I have immense respect for those who put their energy and effort into succeeding. That goes for people who strive for success regardless of any challenge. Life is not fair. It will never be fair. Fortunately there are many different routes to success. A person who has huge disadvantages in one area might have important advantages in another.

I do not believe that we can overcome racial challenges by focusing on them. Instead we must concentrate on creating an environment conducive to success. People need jobs. They ought to be rewarded or punished based upon their actions, not their skin color. I believe that most of the people who were recently rioting in Milwaukee, for instance, would not have been behaving very differently if they had a good job.

I agree with you that the problems are very complex. They will take a long time to solve. IMO we are currently heading in the wrong direction. And I would vote for a black president who had values like Alan West in a heartbeat. Our country desperately needs that sort of leadership.

Can you name one bill/law/policy/doctrine the Republicans have actually come together with Democrats to pass? One where there was thoughtful discussion, shrewd negotiating, and a result that was beneficial to the country?

I mean, since it's the dems that are causing all this divide in the country, there should be a lot of examples of republicans coming forward with good ideas and just being shot down.

Like, for instance, what is going on with the supreme court justice? Who has the republican party vetted, discussed, interviewed, etc?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Can you name one bill/law/policy/doctrine the Republicans have actually come together with Democrats to pass? One where there was thoughtful discussion, shrewd negotiating, and a result that was beneficial to the country?

I mean, since it's the dems that are causing all this divide in the country, there should be a lot of examples of republicans coming forward with good ideas and just being shot down.

Like, for instance, what is going on with the supreme court justice? Who has the republican party vetted, discussed, interviewed, etc?

This seems like an odd response to my post. I don't understand why the conversation should take such a left turn. Can you think of a single instance where Obama came out in support of the police when he commented on some sort of an interaction that involved a black person? Do you recall anything he's said or done expressing concern about the tremendous amount of violence (including black on black murders) going on in black communities? According to many reports cops are reducing their presence in poor black communities because of safety concerns and also because when there is interaction that gets publicity it is negative. I doubt that most law abiding residents living in those neighborhoods think that reduced police presence is a good thing.

 

[Siro]

This seems like an odd response to my post. I don't understand why the conversation should take such a left turn. Can you think of a single instance where Obama came out in support of the police when he commented on some sort of an interaction that involved a black person? Do you recall anything he's said or done expressing concern about the tremendous amount of violence (including black on black murders) going on in black communities? According to many reports cops are reducing their presence in poor black communities because of safety concerns and also because when there is interaction that gets publicity it is negative. I doubt that most law abiding residents living in those neighborhoods think that reduced police presence is a good thing.

“Regardless of motive, the death of these three brave officers underscores the danger that police across the country confront every single day,” Obama said. “And we as a nation have to be loud and clear that nothing justifies violence against law enforcement. Attacks on police are an attack on all of us and the rule of law that makes society possible.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-police-baton-rouge-225686

"I have, and Michelle has, police officers in our family, and we know what a tough job they have, and we want to make sure that when incidences happen, however they look, that we have to take a breath and see exactly what has occurred," Obama said.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...cally-condemn-rhetoric-toward-police-officers

“What is true for a lot of African American men is there’s a greater presumption of dangerousness that arises from the social and cultural perceptions that have been fed to folks for a long time,” Obama said, then adding, “but black folks and Latino folks also carry some assumptions. You may see a police officer who’s doing everything right, and you already assumed the worst rather than the best in him, and we have to guard against that as well.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...sters-and-police-in-questions-about-shootings

Just because he has a nuanced approach that acknowledges the problem with police-commnity relations doesn't mean he's anti-police.