Prediction the Death of the GOP

1. 0

   Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years ago

   Intelligence Squared, probably the most awesome debating forum in the world is having this debate in April 2013.
   
   http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debate … ter-or-die
   
   The TOP must seize the center or die.
   
   I, of course, already wrote why the Dems would take 2016 as well in my hub of that name.
   
   It's going to be an interesting next four years...
   
   Do you think that GOP is finished? I do. I think that by 2020, they'll just be a memory. The hardcore is just too rigid to adjust.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The GOP may be dead, who cares? What comes out of it is something conservatives will like much better!

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hi RG.
         
         Tell us what you think will come out of it and why?
         

         replyreport
         1. 88

            Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Well, I think if the R's want to come back, they have to change for sure. The country has changed so much. I don't like the labels either. I am fairly liberal, I support abortion, think pot should be legal, and that wealthier people should pay higher taxes. But I've only been married once, so think that makes me consevative on family. NJ is the most densely populated state, so we are used to getting along with all different people and have been for a long time now, the demographics of the state changed much at least 20 years ago. The R's like the tea party have to look around and see how things are different. They can believe what they want. But they can't refuse to teach evolution and science in schools, when it's obvious that the Earth is over 6,000 years ago. They have to get their heads out of the sand.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Jean Bakula, lovely to know... thank you.

               replyreport
   2. 59

      logic,commonsenseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You must live in a real fantasy world!  They have been called dead before and they came back.  Same way with the Dems.  How many years ago was the Democrat party called dead and over?  They are both the same, they just take turns.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Really? I recall telling a Professor Toolley in the days when Hillary was the front runner for presidency that Obama was going to take it. He used to work for Bill Clinton and he didn't believe me. Granted Obama was a nobody at the time, but, um, well, he went on to win.
         
         Also, if you look at my hub, "Why Obama will win 2012," you will see it was written in January 2012 - a long time before all the players revealed themselves.
         
         I'll stick with my capacity for calling trends correctly. I've been doing it for a lifetime. So far, so good.
         
         So let me say that again. As a result of changing demographcis, the internet, the rising anger of the masses, the growing trend  of 'nones, and more, the GOP is a thing of the past. Of course, they could reinvent themselves, and I hope they do. However, I think it may be too late.
         
         I'm happy to wait another four years. My article as to why the Dems will take 2016 stands testimony to my belief that when I call them, I call them right.
         
         Incidentally, I have close to 3000 followers on G+. Publicly, on the day that facebook shares went live, I said that the price would fall within a week. Not a single soul believed me. The rest is history.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hang on a minute....saying Obama was going to beat Hillary was the toss of a coin, a 50-50 deal. So let's consider some facts about the Republicans.
            
            There are two major groups of Republicans, the pragmatists and the ideologues. The pragmatists may swing the party towards taking a more popular position on a few key issues. The ideologues are supported by Fox News entertainment channel (Limbaugh's idea, not mine) and by the billionaire's SuperPacs. But they are losing ground quickly to the pragmatists. Even Rush said the House of Representatives needs to vote for the tax increase on the 2% top earners and let Obama have this small concession.
            
            This leads me to think that the idea of the Republicans fading is just a post-elections fantasy. Think about it. The Republicans are in 29 state governors' mansions and control approximate 25 state legislatures. In those 25 state legislatures, the U.S. Congressional districts were redrawn after the 2010 census. Democrats were grouped together, while Republicans were spread disproportionally (like say 60R/40D). This guarantees a self-perpetuating Republican control of the House of Representatives because the 60/40 districts outnumber the 75% Democratic-grouped districts. So some say that this could last up to 10 years--holding down the House of Representatives. I'd say 4 years might be it, however.
            
            Yet, Sophia, you seem to be talking about presidential elections. Myself, I would compare this to Rome when the civil wars started. The U.S. has its own civil wars every 4 years--where it's OK to hate your neighbor until the election is over. We love this stuff. It's not going way, just the same way as the billionaires who backed Romney are not going away. With unlimited spending, they're going to figure out a Republican comeback. They’ll certainly try to figure out how Obama did his ground war, with its 30,000 full-time volunteers.
            
            I just cannot see that America is going to wake up and do anything other than what it has been doing--shooting itself in the foot every 10 years or so.
            
            By the way, I called the first "W" election in June of 1999. My friends throught I was crazy when I told them he'd destroy the economy.

            replyreport
   3. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      By "the death of the GOP", do you mean like the Democrat Party's recent demise?
      Because there is no more Democrat Party.   It fell at the hand of Obama's "Party", whatever that is.  Socialism, Communism, Radicalism, FarLeftism, something.   It's their fault if they're chicken to re-name it at this time.
      
      Personally, I don't think the GOP is near death at all.   If they (we, as a whole) continue to maintain their current tried-and-true stance on the social issues, and refuse to cave in to propoganda like you've posted here, they'll be around even after Obama and Hillary and the whole shebang finally burn out or get thrown out.   Might take some time, but they have the power to stand if they so choose.  I do hope they choose wisely.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Brenda, wondered when you would join us. I didn't expect anything else from you.
         
         I'm just curious. Do you ever think that you might be wrong, that you have no idea what socialism or communism actually is. I've lived a lot of my life under socialist countries, and people are certainly happier there. And the USA is now number 12 in the most prosperous countries in the world. The top 11 all have socialist policies, and per capita, all their citizens are wealthier than those of the USA.
         
         So I guess if socialism makes individual rich, I'm all for it. I mean one even gets more freedom in those countries than in the USA. Then, again, of the 196 countries in the world, 180 have freedom of the speech...
         
         Facts. Facts. FActs...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Neither did I from you.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Of course.
               
               Well, so we'll welcome socialism, communism, and all the other evils that we now live in. In 2016, it's going to be even more entrenched. There are just too few people thinking like you, and they're getting fewer every day.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Are they?  Maybe.  But maybe they're just being silent for now as they watch people determined to live on the rim of disaster.   Maybe a lot of them are off somewhere praying.  Maybe a lot of them are teenagers or pre-teens who haven't yet matured and taken part in politics.   I'm not one to judge a whole generation or future generation by the mistakes of a flood of liberal community organizers.   The young people who are being raised in the liberal environment have consciences and sense that can kick in at any point in time, so I wouldn't count them out yet if I were you.
                  At any rate, indeed "we" are a peculiar people, aren't we?!   And glad to be so.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     It's not a matter of judging, Brenda. It's a matter of taking time to study the maths, the demographics, etc. It's called being informed or being educated.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        No.  It's called common sense and personal accountability.   No amount of liberal education will keep someone from knowing right and wrong, or from the realization of that eventually, even though it does seem to be a dream of the Left to see that fulfilled.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Appeals to common sense are not even a semblance of an argument.  You must explain WHY it's common sense, and give reasons for that claim.  You can't engage in intellectual laziness by simply falling back on "common sense."  You know it's common sense in Saudi Arabia to punish a woman for driving.  It was "common sense" to many that slavery was natural.  Claiming such a thing doesn't really add anything.

                           replyreport
                        2. 0

                           Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Brenda, I didn't have a liberal education. I had an extremely conservative one. I have absolutely no idea why you think people like me don't have a sense of personal accountability. I don't associate with people who don't have the highest integrity or 'a sense of personal acoountablity,' Quite honestly, I don't think I've ever met people who play the system, etc.
                           
                           For me, when I hear people like you say the kind of things you do, it just goes in one ear and out the other ear because most democrats are know are employed, either running their own businesses or employed in professional positions. They include nuclear scientists, geologists, doctors, scientists, teachers, etc. Yes, about 25% are unemployed but not because they aren't looking. They've lost homes and more. It's because they can't find jobs.
                           
                           You know that one of the reasons that Romney and his crowd was so stunned that they lost was because they were surrounded by a strong contingent of people who were just like them. I suspect that the reason you believe what you do is because you're also surrounded by a strong contingent of people who are just like you. You've probably never been to Europe, don't speak more than one language, and haven't associated with people who are highly dissimilar to yourself. When that happens, it's tough to see that the numbers are not as one thinks they are.

                           replyreport
      2. 71

         Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "If they (we, as a whole) continue to maintain their current tried-and-true stance on the social issues, and refuse to cave in to propoganda like you've posted here, they'll be [fading into irrelevancy before the end of 2013]."
         
         There, fixed it for you.
         
         Th eGOP can't be the party of small government at the same time as they're trying to be the party that uses government power to impose a Christian-supremacist morality upon the people (whether those people happen to be Christian or not). The people have noticed the disconnect, and they've fired a lot of the GOP congress reps/senators (the Dems made gains in both houses in the past election).
         
         Notice, too, that Todd "Legitimate Rape" Aikin and Richard "God's Will" Mourdock were soundly defeated. Paul "Lies from the Pit of Hell" Broun kept his seat, but astonishingly, he ran unopposed (though Charles Darwin got 4000 write-in votes, according to the Athens Banner-Herald, which tells me that there are plenty of people in Georgia who disapprove of this joker being on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology).
         
         I hope that the GOP comes to its senses and reinvents itself as an intellectual conservative counterweight to liberal enthusiasm (because it's a Good Thing to have someone put the brakes on and make you closely examine new ideas). But if it doesn't, I really, really hope they keep spouting off the kid of offensive, proudly and willfully ignorant carp that cost so many of them the last election. Makes it easier to tell who the nutjobs are.

         replyreport
   4. 71

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Sophia.  Nice  job. You have generated a lot of interest with this thread.
      
      Although I can not compete with your self-proclaimed powers to predict the future, I dare to say I disagree with all of the post-election, victory-party revelers chanting the “GOP is dead.” I may just be an older white voter but I find I am pretty good at predicting the future by analyzing the past.
      
      In 2012, the GOP received 59 million votes about the same number as in 2008. They lost to President Obama this time around by less than 2.8 per cent (3.7 per cent by another source) of the total popular vote. When I do the math, I figure a swing of 1.5 per cent (or 1.9 per cent if you prefer) would have made Mitt Romney the most popular candidate. {1}{2} I do not consider this an Obama landslide no matter how many ballots went uncounted.
      
      President Obama did better in 2008 by about 7 million votes indicating a lot of his earlier supporters stayed home on Election Day this year. He may have paid a price for pumping up the expectations of the electorate four years ago far beyond his ability to deliver.
      
      Finally, Sophia, I am well aware of the demographic trends and the projections calling for the combined Hispanic, Asian, and African populations in the U.S. to out number all other racial/ethnic groups by 2050. {3} However, I consider all of the chatter about the GOP having to re-define itself simply naivete. The parties may designate the candidates but they do not select the presidents. Campaign handlers are generally mercenaries without ideology and they are among the best marketers in the world. They are well paid to package and sell the candidate to the voting public like a new brand of cereal. I have no doubt they will be successful again in the future with a GOP candidate if given the right ingredients and enough money. As you say, “the hardcore is just too rigid to adjust” but I’m saying they can be convinced to be less vocal!
      
      A great thread, Ms. Angelique.
      
      {1} http://www.politico.com/2012-election/m … dent/2012/
      (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un … ote_margin
      {3} http://www.pewhispanic.org/2008/02/11/u … 2005-2050/

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Quilligrapher, thank you for a well worded response using deductive logic and drawing on factual information. I appreciate that.
         
         Oh, yes, and I do try and write posts that generate interest....  http://bestebookstories.blogspot.com/20 … words.html
         
         I don't predict the future. I use existing trends and demographics and extrapolate what the result will be. I've discussed this in my hub, "Why the Dems will win 2016." I wrote that the day after Obama won, when people hadn't yet discussed the causes as to why Romney lost.
         
         What you have omitted from your deduction is that the biggest section of people who voted for Romney are older white men. I would say that this generation was the basis of victory for most of its lifespam. With women now producing more graduates, there is a shift in perspective. Women have tended to lean towards the Democrats.
         
         Like you, I don't think this has anything to do with the presidential candidate (I think that's what you said). I do, however, see an increasing resentment as the class war (which you may or may not believe exists) grows in strength. Also, with climate change, as more and more storms destroy property, more and more people will become destitute. There are many factors, allof which I mentioned in my above article. Put them together, and I think the swing will remain with the Democrats.
         
         I do think, however, that the Democrats will swing more towards the center...

         replyreport
2. 82

   peoplepower73posted 11 years ago

   Sophia:  I watched the entire one hour of the Sean Hannity Show Friday night.  I noticed a big change in his format.  The whole show was about good cop/bad cop and Sean played the bad cop part.  He actually had democrats and republicans on his show that disagreed with him and made him look like the bad guy.  It's almost as if they were playing the fair and balanced game. 
   
   He criticized Obama for stating that, earlier this year, he drew a red line when it came to getting involved with Syria and now that red line has been crossed and he has done nothing about it.  His guest on both sides argued with him to say that is what he said then, but it O.K. to change your mind to not get us involved.
   
   This was just one of the scenarios that was played out.  It's as if they were trying to reach out to the other side to say, see we are not so bad.  I'm going to have to watch the show many more times to see if this is the new format.  I could definitely sense a change in direction.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There will be infighting. However, it's too little, too late. The demographics of the USA have changed. The younger generation coming up have liberal values. They're not into the winner takes all, might is right, etc. They see the world as 'the brotherhood of man.'
      
      You might also like to read this article.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … class.html
      
      The bottom line is that the culture of dominance and 'might is right' mind-set with religious dogma is dying, and there's nothing that can be done about it. The young will not support these old school thoughts.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      brimancandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The main reason Obama is not getting involved in Syria, is because he does not want to make the same mistakes that Bush did. Bush went against a good portion of the world when we invaded Iraq. People told him there would be pending disaster, yet he did it anyways.
      
      Now, a good portion of the Arab/Muslim world sees America as an invader, and are up in arms, ready to attack us if we so chose to once again rage war on their land.  A world that once though of us as a friendly nation with all the humanitarian objectives of Clinton, now sees us once again as war mongers. Thanks to Bush.
      
      The United States is not the only country that wants to avoid another war. In this case of Syria, it would get very ugly fast.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well, yeah, but it's an oversimplification to blame W entirely. He had a lot of help in the stampede to the invasion of Iraq. Not that I'm excusing W--he absolutely led us into disaster. But if Congress hadn't allowed itself to be fooled by his sexed-up 'intelligence,' we might have avoided invading Iraq (and all the unintended consequences thereof).

         replyreport
3. 86

   rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

   I wish I could find this article I read a couple of weeks ago.  It was about the differences between a real Republican and the far right GOP we see at this time.  I don't see the death of the GOP, but I do see a radical change coming if the true Republicans want to save their party.  The far right extremism has no future in America.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      RebekahELLE, I hope you're right. Maddow pointed out in a recent show that the Democrats rule California in everything but name. They have all the power. Then she pointed out some other states that were held captive by Republicans. She pointed out that in order for fair government to remain, there had to be balance between the two forces because otherwise both can just ride roughshot over everyone and everything. She's right.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I agree completely.  There has to be a balance of power.  That is the purpose of the 3 branches of the government when they're operating effectively, that one party would not have too much power.
         
         When I have more time, I'll try to track down the article.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I'd like that. Thank you.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I found it with a quick google search, how to spot a fake republican  I think it showed up as a link in something I read from my FB feed.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  RebekahELLE, that is an absolutely excellent article, and based on that, I can understand why some conservatives have said to me that I'm not a liberal but a conservative. However, I know many liberals who think exactly that.
                  
                  I've taken the liberty of posting the article to the progressive community on G+ 
                  
                  
                  
                  Thanks.
                  
                  RebelahELLE, I have also just found this. Stunning article.
                  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/opini … ation.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I thought you would find the article interesting. I read the oped by Maureen Dowd. As usual she doesn't hold back. It is a good piece.  You would probably enjoy the investigative writings by Matt Taibbi on Rolling Stone, and also Greg Pallast. Pallast has his own website and social media profiles.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Well the progressives on G+ liked it as well, so maybe there is center ground after all.
                        
                        Thanks for the referrals. I'll take a look at them.

                        replyreport
4. 60

   Xenonlitposted 11 years ago

   This is a very good question to ask. The GOP is already attempting to change its game, but must convince the party's most gullible followers to change direction and take a more inclusive approach to society.
   
   After getting people worked up and polarized, I don't know if the party will be able to pull it off. People have reasonably long memories. The current party leadership has made statements and taken positions that are difficult to forget.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Here's the thing. They've let slip what they really think about poor people, and that is not going to be forgotten. The winner takes all attitude is also not admire. This is, ultimately, a class war, not a war between the left and the right.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years ago

   What I find interesting about the above article is what Anne Coulter says,..
   
   "‘Perhaps the reason elections maven Michael Barone was so shockingly off in his election prediction this year was that… Barone has been assuring us for years that most of these Third World immigrants pouring into the country would go the way of Italian immigrants and become Republicans. They're hardworking, they have family values,’ she wrote. ‘Maybe at first, but not after coming here, having illegitimate children and going on welfare.’
   
   You have to ask yourself what it is about the United States that makes hardworking people suddenly become welfare queens...

   replyreport
6. 0

   Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years ago

   
   
   How Republicans are perceived to be the problem... Various polls...

   replyreport
7. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   To me, what is dead is the ability of the GOP to appeal to bigots (people against gay rights), or issues like attacking Christmas or the "lack of religiosity" of a candidate in order to win elections. 
   
   Public opinion is changing, and Democrats have carved out a mold of legitimizing the religious left in this country, where many people no longer see them as "not real christians".  The only reason the GOP still wins anything is because they get the older white vote (50 and older).  They are basing their entire existence on this group, and its influence is on the wane. 
   
   The future demographics show a much more brown, tolerant America.  If the GOP doesn't stop demonizing hispanics, and doesn't start taking women's and gay rights seriously, they are going to become delegitimized as a viable alternative party.
   
   To me, they already are.  But for other people, they are a little slower to come to the party.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      thank you Sooner, you share my opinion on that.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sophia,
         I was on another forum and mentioned MSNBC and got mocked as "one of the 3 people who watch it." Isn't it sad that the GOP is made up of old, white, men who are angry for some reason? I don't know why, most of them are rich. At first I thought they were going to cooperate with Obama this time around, but they seem to be getting more defiant. I watch Fox with my son as a goof once in a while, (he's a teacher) and noticed even Bill O'Reilly was being nice about 6 months ago. He is, after all, a good Catholic, who was brought up to help the needy and reach out to the unfortunate. The powers that be must have told him to amp it up against the D's, because he did a whole 180 really fast. I don't hear the prominent and more sane R's speaking out, now is the time, unless they want the crazy ones to take over their party. The fact they were so surprised Romney lost is shocking to me. I live in NJ, and with all his money, Romney didn't even visit or offer any assistance when we had Hurricane Sandy. We have many homeless people and a donation for food kitchens would have been nice for those who had no Thanksgiving and will have no Christmas. I heard Ann needed another new car. Americans won't stand for this. The only person I know who listens to the radio shows is my best friend's Mom, and she's in her late 70's.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Jean Bakula, I think I understand why they're so angry. They used to be highly thought of, and their egos used to be buttered up because they were the great Tarzan He-man. These people could also be applauded for belittling others and they got a great deal of applause for belittling and mocking others. In another time and another place, that kind of behaviour was okay for the current 'older white males.'
            
            It's not anymore. Not because it's politically incorrect so much as it's immoral, unethical, unkind, and just plain ugly.
            
            It's unfortunhate that when people have been top of the food chain for a long time, it takes a while for it to sink in that they aren't anymore. Ergo, the shock when Romney lost...

            replyreport
8. 72

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   There will be a surge in those that label themselves conservative rather than republican.  The republican party no longer represents the values that are held by most conservatives.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Renee Abbottposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps there will be a new party formatting. I do not see the end of the G.O.P. Independent voters are sought out more lately, which I am one. I am not in awe with the Democrats. I use to be a far left democrat, but have shifted big time. I cannot support a lot of what the people wish now. I do not believe they are right, and majority often means people who follow like sheep. It will be an interesting 4 years for sure.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I've never really labeled myself a liberal despite neo-conservatives calling me one. I am all for the common good.
         
         I remember about two decades ago discussing the ethics of a dentist with AIDs continuing to work with patients. Because there is blood involved (teeth pulled, etc.) and because there are sharp instruments involved, the patient could become infected.
         
         The entire room argued with me that the dentist had to continue working because that was his livelihood and he was under no ethical obligation to tell patients that he had AIDS (or was HIV positive).
         
         In other words, when the rights of an individual endanger the lives and common good of the group, I am absolutely and utterly not a liberal.

         replyreport
9. 76

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Well, we've located two of the three people who watch MSNBC. Me and Jean Bakula.
   What are the chances?
   
   
   I predict the power brokers behind the Tea Party that took over the GOP are already plotting their next move. They will figure out an angle to pull Latinos, the fastest growing voter bloc, into their camp. Not honestly. Surreptitiously. Same way they conned a whole bunch of not rich white people into their camp by using the religious right argument (along with fear and loathing and jingoism and all the rest).
   
   Unless they decide they're happy with the money they've made under Obama and will certainly make under Hillary. Maybe they'll just quietly go about the business of making money.
   I doubt it, though.
   
   Two of the scariest pieces of evidence I learned of this year.
   If you haven't seen the Koch Brothers documentary, you can get it streaming.
   Fair warning: NOT for the faint of heart. 
   
   http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 … rats-party
   http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Here's the good news, MM. The Democrats are developing a backbone. They're not going to let anyone push them out of the way. I think a lot of them have had about a gutful of the lies, the manipulation, the abuse of funding, the propaganda, and whatever else the GOP has been chucking at this country for the past 20 or 30 years.
      
      The internet is exposing a lot.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Very true.
         Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide now that we have the internet.
         Just imagine if all of that money, power and influence were put to a positive use.
         Holding my breath that Citizens United will be overturned and the obscene dark money will NOT be used to fund Super PACs next time around.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Absolulely, but then, again. Money didn't buy Romney the last election... I think the internet is exposing a lot. I know that I belong to an incredibly active progressive group on G+. It's vast, educated, financially stable, and we expose, expose, expose...

            replyreport
10. 92

    habeeposted 11 years ago

    Interesting topic. An old friend of ours, a staunch Republican, paid us a visit today. This guy is wealthy, well educated, and very fiscally conservative. He's one of the smartest people I know and is not a far right Tea Party-type. We hadn't seen him in a while, and the conversation turned to the election. He said he voted for Romney as the lesser of two evils but agreed with me that the GOP is going to have to do some major changes unless they want to die out forever. Like me, he's pretty moderate/liberal on social issues like gay marriage, legalizing pot, and abortion. If someone like him can see this, maybe there's hope for the party.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Habee, I hope you're right. As Rachel Maddow pointed out, when one party has all the power, corruption happens. People start out saints, but power somehow, twists them...

       replyreport
       1. 82

          peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I read a book called the Righteous Mind, Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion: by a moral Psychologist Jonathan Haidt.  He states everybody has a moral matrix  with six sets of values: Care/harm; liberty/oppression; fariness/cheating; loyalty/betrayal; authority/subversion; and sanctity/degradation.
          
          In liberals, the first three are the strongest. In libertairians, the second two are the strongest; and in conservatives, the are all equal.
          
          The most sacred value for liberals is care for victims of oppression. The most sacred value for libertarians is the individual in the society, and the most sacred value for conservatives is preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community.
          
          He claims that these are actually part of our DNA and when people think their set of values is being fulfilled, it produces serotonin that make them feel better.  So they will argue and fight for those values that make them feel better. I did a book review of his book.  When I get into arguments with my friends and family, I can see these values come into play.  But it seems like emotions override the logic.  Maybe this explains why.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Well, I had to actually struggle to see where I fitted. Firstly, I have no respect for either authority or 'subversion.' I simply believe all people are equal and independent and noone has any right to tell someone else what to do. People can choose whether to listen to someone and work with someone, but that is not authority. As for subversion, that means to destroy things, and I don't believe in that either.
             
             So that cuts that one out.
             
             When it comes to the others, I also have issues with them.
             
             My 'moral' and 'ethical' basis is based on determining logical outcomes - those outcomes which will ensure the longest and most comfortable survival for the greatest number of people over the longest period of time.
             
             if that means some people are going to suffer for the greatest many to survive, then so be it. That is decidedly not a liberal value which, somehow, manages to think that everybody must be cared for. It's simply not possible in a world where the grand laws of physics states that the best adapated to the environments survives.
             
             I don't think cheating works because it causes devision in society. However, if the survival of society was dependent on someone cheating, then it's a moot point as to whether cheating was right or wrong.
             
             Then, again, I'm an INTJ. We think differently to the majority.
             http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
             http://www.personalitydesk.com/intj

             replyreport
             1. 82

                peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                He is not implying that you fit neatly into a box.  It's a continuum of all six of the values. Some values are just stronger than others.  It's not about personality.  It's about morality. I took the Myers/Briggs test when I was working at Toshiba and I'm an ENTJ, but that's about my personality, not my morality.  There is a difference.  I would say from everything that I have read in your posts, you are a liberal, even though you believe in survival of the fittest.  I do as well and I'm a liberal. But I still care for those who are oppressed and I know I can't help everybody. Morality is based on making hard decisions that don't always have the best outcomes for all.  They also vary by culture.  I find eating dogs is appalling, but in some cultures, it's very well accepted.  Does that make it morally right our wrong?

                replyreport
11. 86

    rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

    Here's a good link to Matt Taibbi.  He is an established writer and isn't just some guy writing a blog.  He does his homework and writes very good commentary also.
    He's also the author of a number of books.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you, RebekahELLL.
       
       In one of this articles, he says, "Unless you assimilate, unless you change, the future is ours, because we have the numbers."
       
       He is right. The Dems do have the numbers, and that's not going to change.
       
       Also he says that solutions have been proposed that they offer up a Latino/ethnic candidate and this will appease them and get peole to vote Republican again.
       
       He's kidding, right? The tone of his article said that he didn't agree with that. I think.
       
       Nobody can be that stupid that they think that the masses are so stupid that they will fall for a candidate just because he's the same ethnicity as they are, can they?
       
       You see, what is missing over here is a complete understanding that we're all human and that that the social contract is that we all work together fo the common good.

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          "Nobody can be that stupid "
          
          The GOP can absolutely be that stupid. They genuinely think people voted for Obama just because he's a black guy: according to the GOP's party line, white people voted for Obama to prove that they're not racists, and black people voted for him because they are racists.
          
          They also genuinely believe that Obama is 'coming for our guns,' when in fact he signed a law that expands gun rights, allowing concealed carry in our national parks.
          
          They also genuinely believe that Obama's a communist (in a country where the top 2% has gotten something like 90% of the benefit of the ongoing economic recovery!). If he's a communist, he's the crappiest communist ever.
          
          The dems' victory couldn't have anything to do with their approval for health care reform, their understanding that cutting taxes and deregulating isn't helping, or that  their disgust with Romney's (and the rest of the GOP's) obvious contempt for everyone who isn't wealthy, white, straight, male, and Christian.
          
          But the GOP is really, really good at ignoring reality--and if the discussions I've had with conservatives on this site are any indication, so are their base. Luckily, their base are, for the most part, a dwindling demographic. The GOP needs to adapt or die.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

             You may have noticed fewer votes for your president this time around, after 4 more years of incompetency there will be even less! People will grow tired of being subservient and will fight back in the form of votes. The GOP doesn't need to adapt we simply need to hide and watch.

             replyreport
             1. 71

                Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                "we simply need to hide and watch."
                I wish they would. Maybe if the GOP would stop filibustering everything that moves (even one of their own dang bills!) Congress could get something accomplished.

                replyreport
             2. 77

                wba108@yahoo.composted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I think the GOP will prevail in 2016. Unless the president dramatically changes course, which i'm praying he will, the country is headed for a disaster! Either way, if a change is not implemented, the American poeple will feel the pain of their own foolish decisions and realize that we're on an unsustainable course of increasing government and declining freedom. When the poeple realize their mistake, which I believe they will, the GOP will again prevail. Also in 2016 the group of young new talent in the GOP will be in a position to challedge the Democrats and prevail.

                replyreport
                1. 71

                   Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   "... the American poeple will feel the pain of their own foolish decisions and realize that we're on an unsustainable course of increasing government and declining freedom."
                   You mean the increasing government that makes women get trans-vaginal ultrasounds? That stops consenting adults from marrying? That tries to deny people access to birth control?
                   
                   Yeah, the American people already realized that the parto of "small government" actually has nothing to do with making government smaller. That's part of why the GOP lost.

                   replyreport
                   1. 77

                      wba108@yahoo.composted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Nice to you you again Jeff !

                      replyreport
                2. 0

                   Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   Well, then they'll vote for Hillary or Elizabeth Warren.
                   
                   Here's the thing. It's not about big government or small government. It's about effective or efficient government for the common good.
                   
                   I'm surprised that you haven't heard that size has nothing to do with it.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over Hillary, easily.  I just don't think Warren is going to run in 2016.  I could be wrong though.
                      
                      I want the Democrats to nominate an atheist black woman for president, and the Republicans to nominate an arabic Jewish woman.  That would give us some real diversity.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         You've just made me laugh.
                         
                         I want someone suitable elected that has a brain, isn't dominated by outmoded ideology, and actually has some ethics.
                         
                         That said, I don't think Warren will run either, but I don't like Hillary. Hillary goes by the book she was taught a long time ago. She isn't really a thinker. Warren is.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            Hillary is also part of the corporate establishment.  Warren probably is also, but not to the same degree. 
                            
                            I just find it amusing when conservatives complain about liberals being anti-business, when corporate profits are at record highs, and the banks were all bailed out, while people who were given bad mortages, or students with a lot of debt, are left out to dry.  I mean, if that is the definition of a liberal in today's American, liberalism is dead.

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                               I think it just makes people with small egos somewhere inside them feel good to demolish anyone who hasn't got their money or status. They measure themselves by those things and it doesn't occur to them that they're severely lacking in brains and character. Very sad.

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                  True story.  Most people are content to be servile to the preferences of their temporal masters! (John Stuart Mill)

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 0

                                     Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                     And it's that servility that I don't get. Milgram did some research on that after WWII to try to understand why the Germans went along with Hitler. He found that 94% of humanity will follow the people with the most authority and power - despite knowing that authority and power were doing wrong.
                                     
                                     Put that statistic together with the sociopaths that are willing to do anything and everything to get people to follow them, and there is no hope for humanity. We're done.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 0

                                        Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                        That's what is most troubling about the Milgram experiments.  Most of the participants knew what they were doing was wrong, but they continued to do it just because the authority was there instructing them to do so.
                                        
                                        It just scares me that people are so willing to follow whoever is in charge without even blinking an eye.  I don't think Americans would've resisted HItler anymore than the Germans if the same thing had happened here.

                                        report
                                        1. 0

                                           Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                           Of course. Group think. Terrifies me.

                                           report
                   2. 77

                      wba108@yahoo.composted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      For me its about a constitutionally limited government, which upholds the founders vision of self government and free markets. The government is not supposed to run the economy, only to create a stable envirnoment from which commerce will thrive. The founders created a governing mechanism whose guiding principle was, a government of the poeple, enforced by a division of power and definite limits of government! The government was not created for efficiency, as a matter of fact it was inefficient on purpose for the sake of preserving individual freedoms. The notion that the government was created for the common good rather than for protecting inalienable rights, is a collectivist notion.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         The founders were ordinary mortals albeit good men (well, some of them, even if they were slave owners) who understood their own times. Just because they wrote a document a few hundred years ago doesn't mean that what they wrote is infailliable.
                         
                         I'm sorry, but personally, I can't buy into this 'founder' stuff. I see people as mere mortals, and my brain is as good as any.
                         
                         Free markets destroy because they enable people to cheat, steal, lie, manipulate, create slaverly, etc.
                         And as I said, the size of government has nothing to do with it. Nowhere do I see that the founders wrote that governments must be small. Or am I mistaken.

                         replyreport
                         1. 71

                            Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            They also didn't make any rules about who may marry whom, or any of the so-called "family values" that the GOP keeps yelping about.
                            
                            If the GOP would forget about gay mariage, abortion, and birth control, and focus instead on fiscal issues, maybe they could earn people's votes back.

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                               Yup.

                               replyreport
12. 71

    Jeff Berndtposted 11 years ago

    Funny you should mention this.
    
    I just got into a discussion of why and how the GOP lost so much ground in the last election in the comment section of someone's hub.
    
    I cited a lot of the things mentioned here, including the stupid stuff that many GOP candidates said about rape, the conflict between being the party of 'small government' and using the gov't's power to stop people from getting married, having acces to birth control, etc, and the hostility the GOP has shown toward hispanics, blacks, women, educated people, etc.
    
    There's also the fact that the GOP's plans to fix the economy are based on the idea that "trickle-down" economics actually works, and that deregulation will stimulate the economy--these two ideas (cut taxes and deregulate) have led us into the recession that we're now climbing out of! Why would we want to go back to the policies that caused the last crash!?
    
    The GOP could turn itself around--become respectable again--if it would just say, "Okay--if we're going to be about "small government," then we have to stop trying to use governmental power to control people's private lives. We still don't think it's a good idea to marry someone of the same sex, or to be promiscuous, or have an abortion, but we have come to realize that it isn't the government's job to make you follow our advice. We're going to focus on making our economy both robust and sustainable, and that means making both our taxes and our regulations make sense, based on what's really happening in the real world--not based solely on what ought to be true."
    
    If they could do that, and act on it, they'd get a lot of people to vote for them again.
    
    Of course, the people in the discussion dismissed all of these points entirely--not with good, logical arguments against them, but by calling names and pretending that none of the above is true. If this is indicative of what the GOP will do in the near future, I think we can expect the Libertarians to start making gains in 2014, and the GOP to be more or less irrelevant by 2016.

    replyreport
    1. 88

       Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Jeff, you have raised intelligent points which are logical. No sane person should be disagreeing with you. The R's have ruined their party, and are desperate. They are still fighting the Civil War, and can't understand how they were unable to unseat a black man from the Presidency. It's simple. They tried so hard to supress voters that the voters made damn sure they voted, if they had to stand in line 10 hours to do it! They will swear up and down the D's are the ones who keep bringing up racism, but they can't stand Obama because he's black. They are the ones who got us in this mess. As you said, it's been proven that "trickle down" economics don't work. The scary stuff they said about rape is awful. In this day and age can anyone really be so uninformed about women they think her body "shuts down" when she's being raped so she won't get pregnant? And I think that man was married? He should have at least some knowledge of women's bodies. They may make a comeback, but will have to completely change their ideas and live in the 21st century. And from what they are saying, they are still not willing to compromise. There's no reason why the richest people can't go back to paying the same tax rates they paid under both Reagan and Clinton. I have heard many wealthy people say it's only fair for them to pay more taxes, and that it's the most sensible way to help get our country in the right direction. We still have to cut costs. As you say, their arguments are not backed with facts, I guess it's fear of a changing world. They are people in their 70's who grew up in all white neighborhoods in the 1950's, when life was a lot more innocent. Or they are so immature, they are still in their 70's, and always vote R because their parents did. They never learned to speak or think for themselves.

       replyreport
13. 82

    peoplepower73posted 11 years ago

    Watch Sean Hannity's show from last night. (12/10, 2012) and it will give you a better understanding as to what the Republican strategy is about: 
    http://www.hannity.com/videos/?uri=chan … 91/1706728

    replyreport
    1. 82

       peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I forgot to say, It's only a five minute clip. It's not the whole one hour show.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Hannity is ridiculous.  Yeah, it is Obama's "arrogance" that is preventing a deal. LOL.

          replyreport
14. 77

    MickeySrposted 11 years ago

    I think the survival of the GOP depends more on if our culture still has an ache for freedom and an appetite for truth - which, just now, it seems unlikely to have. To remain a viable other choice (again, just now) the GOP does seem to urgently need to move to the left, to take the left wing position the Democrats have abandoned for an extreme left, historically progressive position - but this is not strictly because the citizenry has shifted so far from right to left, but because entertainment and politics have coalesced into a single source of coolness . . . people are preoccupied with imagining they should be famous, that 'fair' means 'equal', and that being cool has long surpassed being legitimately right.
    
    If (through the disaster that we're heading toward) the media becomes exposed as being as agenda-driven as they are, not reporting events but asserting a course, and if the liberal road map plunges into the canyon it's setting it's course for, then enough folks may be left in the GOP to provide an authentic conservative voice that enough citizens may (getting over the 'hipness' delusion of liberalism's inability to actually provide help those who need help) be able to recognize as, not racism, not Cro-Magnonlike ignorance, not mean uncaring, etc, but as the workable, functional course for men to enjoy the most freedom and security for the most people.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "people are preoccupied with imagining they should be famous, that 'fair' means 'equal', and that being cool has long surpassed being legitimately right."
       
       You've got that right. It irritates me no end.

       replyreport
       1. 82

          peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I just read in the paper today, that the head of the RNC< Reince Priebus, asked a group of five respected party leaders to examine how the GOP can better talk to voters, raise money, from donors and learn from democrats tactics.  The members include:
          Ari Fleischer - Bush's Press Secretary
          Sally Bradshaw - Jeb Bush's  top adviser
          Henry Barbour - GOP Strategist and nephew of Haley Barbour
          Zori Fonalleda  - RNC member from Puerto Rico
          Glen McCall - RNC - member from South Carolina
          
          I wrote a hub on Group Thinking and how it can get you into to trouble by not bringing in outside ideas and I think that's just where this team is headed.  Group think by the Neocons is what caused us to invade Iraq because the group convinced themselves that it was the right thing to do.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Yup, I also wrote a hub on Group Think. It is the one thing that terrifies me about people who can't think for themselves. it's frightening what they can do when they form rat packs. They destroy and do it all the name of holiness.

             replyreport
15. 86

    rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

    Millions of votes that would have gone for the President were not counted, mostly from African-Americans, Latinos and Asians. Ballots that weren't counted are also tallied and the numbers are sickening.  The GOP tried hard to buy this election and it didn't work.  If all ballots had been counted, it would have been a landslide, and the House of Representatives may have looked different than it currently does.  Voter suppression also affected parts of key states.  Let's face it, the GOP had a lousy candidate.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       brimancandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Buying Elections seems to be a republican thing. Or do we forget how Bush got his first presidency, by taking it to court. Not only against Gore, but also against Kerry in Ohio.
       
       There was talk of Lawyers heading to Ohio, Florida, and South Carolina to fight the president in this last election. Until they discovered that even if Romney had won  those court battles, he still would have lost.
       
       I think there should be a new law put in place, that nobody that makes over a Million dollars a year can run for president. Or any other office.

       replyreport
16. 86

    rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

    That may not (entirely) be the case. The non-count tally is still not complete.  There is an investigation taking place with the data taken from the Elections Assistance Commission that (so far) over 9 million votes went uncounted/were destroyed. Most of these ballots were from non-whites.   Interesting interview with Greg Palast, an investigative reporter/ journalist now working with the BBC News.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That is interesting... Do you have any idea when the facts will be on the table?

       replyreport
       1. 86

          rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No, I don't know.  But I follow Greg Palast on Twitter and FB.  I'm certain once he has completed his work, he will publish an article and give interviews.  This is news that usually doesn't make it to main stream news, so you have to know where to look.  Even it it did make 'msn', many would still not accept it as trustworthy.   His book Billionaires and Bandits hit the NYT bestseller list prior to the election.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             Thank you RebehkahELLE. I will most certainly do that. If this guy is conservative, he's the first conservative I've met that actually speaks sense. Thank you.

             replyreport
          2. 82

             peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I really like Thom Hartman.  I used to listen to him on KTLK, but for some reason, he was taken off the air and replaced by a local L.A . talk show.  I've heard the Federal Election Commission   is understaffed and therefore very slow in processing election violations.  I don't know if that is by design or not.

             replyreport
17. 86

    rebekahELLEposted 11 years ago

    Palast is not a conservative.  He is well educated from some of the best universities.  He holds a MBA and has written extensively on corporate and election fraud.  His past writings are interesting and worth reading.  He is also an excellent speaker. 
    
    Yes, I like him too.  I have a few sources that I like to check with certain news topics, and both of these men are people that I trust and enjoy reading and listening to.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       So I'm curious. I've often said I'm not a liberal but I get called a liberal the moment I point out the same sort of things he does. I'm curious.

       replyreport
       1. 86

          rebekahELLEposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not a huge believer in labels.  I don't think they properly identify, especially in politics.  The traditional definitions of Democrat and Republican have swayed so much that I don't give too much importance to what someone may call themselves. I don't call myself either because I value qualities inherent in both parties, but I lean left. 
          If you read more of his writings, you will see clearly that he is exposing the powers of the right wing and their immense influence on corporate/political/social America.
          He investigates what we most often do not hear covered with our national media. He's also on the Keystone XL Pipeline story which is hugely important to our country to know the truth.  That's a whole different thread!

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             I will most certainly do that. I liked what he said because it reflected a lot of what I think. I'm basically center, taking bits and pieces from all political parties.

             replyreport
    2. 0

       Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Who is saying this man is conservative?  I just checked out his website, and he sounds like anything but.

       replyreport
18. 60

    jwaningposted 11 years ago

    very cool!

    replyreport