Who will be the new leaders of the GOP?

1. 61

   mio cidposted 10 years ago

   After the election debacle some GOP politicians are positioning themselves as the new leaders of the party.Among them Chris Christie,Bobby Jindal,Jeb Bush,Mitch Daniels are willing to take on the tea partiers and the right wing extremists ,who will be the voices of the loser faction in the upcoming republican political civil war?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Shadesbreathposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hopefully someone who realizes that you can't legislate morality and will finally concede to the will of the people, including to will of the GIANT minority factions who support various things that the Republicans insist on continuing to make divide us. They need to get religion out of the equation. The nation was moving along very nicely since the demise of the Puritans, albeit slowly through the iterations of it, only barely just shaking off the Victorian thing, etc., but we were moving, and suddenly there came this big wave trying to push us back towards that crap again.
      
      If the GOP would stop trying to restrict personal freedom and start focusing on its strengths, which are supposed to be fiscal responsibility and the reduction of the ridiculously humongous government that is overreaching into our lives in every single tiny way, then they might stand a chance again.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I couldn't have said it better myself.good comment.

         replyreport
2. 83

   kathleenkatposted 10 years ago

   Hopefully Ron Paul. He's a doctor, I want a doctor leader, not some politician with an MBA.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i don't completely dislike Ron Paul,although for a doctor he seems to be lacking in the compassion department

      replyreport
      1. 66

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         'Compassion' is a bit of a loaded term. I assume you're talking about his opposition to the welfare state and foreign aid. Is it compassionate or dis-compassionate to be opposed to unsustainable enterprises?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I suppose what you refer to as the welfare state is the safety net to help the poorest in our society,which being the richest country on earth it is only moral to have in place.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               kathleenkatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Ron Paul is a doctor, and he would probably help anyone sick and suffering.
               
               Giving people free money isn't the same as healing their wounds. Though I don't really know enough about Ron Paul to continue this conversation any further.

               replyreport
            2. 66

               innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               You can call it what you like but it's essentially the same thing.
               
               It's unsustainable. It's probably more compassionate to take a gradual hit than let it continue and crash spectacularly, leaving millions with nothing.
               
               Taking money from people to fund it was an immoral act to begin with. We need a new voluntary aid system.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Like all the other times in all the nations it has collapsed, namely absolutely nowhere, (yes Greece has not collapsed nor will it and it's troubles are due to a decade of intentional economic number fudging).
                  
                  The safety net/welfare state is an essential part of every first world nation in the world and will remain that way precisely because it aids in staying a first world nation, it allows people to survive during periods of economic instability thus speeding recovery after it and increasing stability during those periods (by heading off class wars and peasant rebellions etc.)  which is precisely why every nation with the ability to create such a system has done so and why those nations have seen continued success. It has succeeded in a way that voluntary individual charity  has never done and never will through standardization.
                  
                  The safety net is absolutely essential to nations, the French and Bolshevik revolutions are an excellent example of why, before these systems a combination of drought, flood and war or other assorted disasters struck the poor hard economically immediately causing famine, famine caused anger and anger caused bloody, crippling and reactionary revolutions. The same could have happened in say the recession in the US but instead of millions being laid off and thus being unable to eat and having to take to the streets for food those dispossessed fell on the safety net and thus unrest was prevented. It's a true triumph of modern economics and it's no coincidence that states with this system are incredibly stable compared to those without it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Well said,and right on target.

                     replyreport
            3. 92

               habeeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, but the US is NOT the "richest country on earth." Depending on which source you use, we're #6 or #8. For highest income per capita, the US is #3. For world's largest humanitarian donors, we're #1.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  The first part is correct the second is not, per capita we are about 9th or 10th in foreign aid and in internal aid we give much less than most first world nations

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     habeeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Hi, Josak. According to this site, the US is first in humanitarian donations:
                     
                     http://www.aneki.com/worlds_largest_hum … onors.html
                     
                     I wonder...is that the government alone, or the gov. plus donations from individuals? And I don't think the source I cited is per capita; I think it's the overall amount.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Yeah that includes personal donations too.

                        replyreport
                        1. 92

                           habeeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           I think so, too, and this sort of backs that up:
                           
                           http://www.takepart.com/photos/7-surpri … tarian-aid
                           
                           As for wealth, I've discovered that the rankings depend on what's taken into account. There are sources than rank the US as "wealthiest," but there are many more that don't. Either way, I think we have enough to help those Americans in true need.
                           
                           Josak, I'd like your opinion on something: Should our gov. be spending so much on foreign aid when we have so many needy folk of our own? I look at this in two different ways. First, I think we should "take care of our own" before sending aid overseas. In another way, though, I think MOST of our "poor" aren't anywhere near as "poor" as the needy in some other countries.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Well on foreign aid I think we spend an appropriate amount, some of it to the poorest nations is justified on humanitarian grounds to prevent mass starvation and disease, a lot of the spending however such as in Pakistan and Egypt (not to mention the boatloads we give Israel) is not so much charity as it is an investment or an attempt to establish positive relations and thus trade, alliances and preferential treatment for natural resources, it's a mistake to think of all or even most foreign "aid" as purely charitable so that spending often pays off in a big way. That's my take anyway.

                              replyreport
3. 55

   prettydarkhorseposted 10 years ago

   Although Chris Christie came out big after the Sandy calamity, he is questionable due to the situation in NJ. How reliable is the data from this news - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-best- … 15625.html

   replyreport
4. 60

   SoManyPathsposted 10 years ago

   Well, it could quite possibly be George P. Bush in another 8 to 12 years. He is their best hope. He's bi-lingual and has done some great things in the Ft Worth area. A great career resume in the making.
   I guess he has to prove himself first by be elected a mayor, senator or governor though.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      He very well may be.I personally have nothing against political dynasties,just like there's families of bakers, lawyers,artists,it is possible one may follow the paths of one's predecessors .

      replyreport