What would happen if Congress were 100% Republican?

1. 91

   crankaliciousposted 11 years ago

   What would happen if Congress were 100% Republican?
   
   I mean this as a serious question. Consider it a thought experiment. If you want, you can spout the usual political dogma of your party, but give it some real thought and then respond. Try not to give pat answers. And I'll ask this same question, but politically reversed, so feel free to answer that one too.

   replyreport
2. 59

   El Solo Loboposted 11 years ago

   It would drastically speed up the crumbling of our country into a vile, uncaring wasteland of 'survival of the fittest', Christian extremists who would make the Taliban look like Boy Scouts...a throughly deplorable, dangerous and life-draining place.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Do you have some evidence that can back up  those assertions?

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What specific proposed policies would bring about these draconian outcomes. Be specific on policies and outcomes. Cite sources.

      replyreport
   3. 75

      AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Christian extremists who would make the Taliban look like Boy Scouts" - where the blazes do you get this stuff from ? No wonder you're a lone wolf . . .

      replyreport
3. 58

   taburkettposted 11 years ago

   The nation would begin to rebuild under a solid structured economic system of checks and balances.  The working individuals would once again be respected for their hard labors and feel the restoration of their careers.  A True Fair Tax system would be initiated whereby everyone would pay the same under a consumption tax of 1% leveraged against all commercial transactions regardless of parties involved.  All foreign gross deposits under the True Fair Tax would be considered a commercial transaction with each being charged an additional 10% fee to cover losses due to external operations concerning funds generated within the USA.  Excess funds earned by the USA would be returned to the individual citizens at the end of each year based on a reverse scale calculated on earnings reported for the individual.  This means that the lowest earners would receive a larger percentage than those at the top.  Additionally, this means only earners would receive any return from the governments annual income.  The nation would then be operated as a business rather than a charity.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly what country R U talking about? This surely is not the case in the USA. UR description of what the GOP would turn this country into is mere fantasy & wishful thinking.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      d.william. productive discussion, not accusations.. how is what taburkett says FANTASY and WISHFUL thinking? I think Crank is looking or facts to back up assertions.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There R no facts in those assertions - just wishful thinking.  If  U agree with him, U tell me where the facts R in those comments.

      replyreport
   4. 91

      crankaliciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's nice to have facts, but this is conjecture. The whole question asks for a prediction and nobody can accurately predict the future or a situation that hasn't happened. However, you can make predictions based on past evidence.

      replyreport
   5. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      past evidence would only indicate that neither party will do anything 2 change anything unless they R paid for it by those who will be affected by those changes.  Both parties R equally corrupt & useless in making  changes that benefit the people

      replyreport
   6. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      d. william, "If a fetus can't live on its own it is not a viable en". That's your opinion to which you're entitled. So, it's not VIABLE, That doesn't mean it's not a life. Now, psychics have the scientific proof? So much for global warming theories.

      replyreport
   7. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      as usual U miss the point. Gov has no business deciding anything of a "moral", or religious nature & UR opinion is in the minority thank God

      replyreport
   8. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Dwilliam. Please show an example of goberemr legislating morality that is not in Comsritution that was a success.

      replyreport
   9. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      sorry i am not familiar with the word "goberemr", so i cannot answer that question

      replyreport
   10. 60

       teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       d.williams, That was a typo: the word was government. Some feel that legislation (laws) are a form of morality. Yet they legislate BEHAVIOR (stopping at a stop sign, not murdering, paying taxes.) But morality? What you feel is right vs. wrong?

       replyreport
   11. 74

       d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       that which harms others must be addressed.abortion as birth control-NO. Abortion after rape,incest,severe birth defects-the woman's choice. No blanket policies s/b made.Banning all 20wk aborts is wrong at any level.Sex/love/marriage non gov issues

       replyreport
   12. 60

       teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       D.William. sex/love/marriege not gov issues? If someone petitioning government for rights they deem Constitutional, it is a governmental  issue. example, ERA. (to Constitution)

       replyreport
   13. 74

       d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       now there is the crux of that problem. Equal rights should never need to be "voted" on. This country was built on diversity. No ONE group should decide who has rights and who has not that is why it was specified in the bill of rights

       replyreport
   14. 60

       teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       d.william, i'm still mystified at HOW the GOP would get rid of ROE, when ROE is the law of the land? It would take a Costitutional amendment to overturn it, and that my friend, is a hard sell.

       replyreport
4. 60

   teamrnposted 11 years ago

   Serious thought; government would govern, considering only how any issue or resolution of that issues would benefit the people they are governing. An xample, the FEDERAL government would NOT be involved in the arts. What does funding for the arts have to do with running the country? Funding for the arts would be left up to the states,  regional or local government of private citizens.. But funding the arts?  While I'm all appreciateve of the arts, the have no business being funded by the feds; that makes what is beautiful partisan.
   
   Anything the federal government does, would be done strictly according to our founding documents, the Bill of Rights, the amendments. If it isn't clearly written in the docs, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T TOUCH IT. Period.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Can YOU back up your visions with facts? More wishful thinking by the right wing misinformed

      replyreport
   2. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My vision is for government-follow founding documents. That is not a vision, that is what the government is supposed to do according founding docs... Where does Constitution call for funding of the arts, Healthcare? Article 1, sec 8. http://tenthamen

      replyreport
   3. 78

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The facts are that the federal government, by the Constitution's specific enumerated powers and the limitations of the Bill of Rights, specifically the 10th, does NOT have authority to be involved in most things it is involved with.

      replyreport
   4. 91

      crankaliciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It would be fun if you all answered the other question I asked about Democrats being 100%.

      replyreport
   5. 78

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My answer would change very little. While the speed of decline of our Republic would be faster under (D) it is still in the wrong direction under (R). Only a true Constitutional Conservative movement will make a difference.

      replyreport
   6. 91

      crankaliciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree about the speed of decline. The Dems cannot work together at all. The Repubs would be much more unified in what they wanted to accomplish.

      replyreport
   7. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know what assertions I made that need backing up. I state what I felt would work. If its not spelled out in the Constitution government doesn't touch it. 'Tiebreakers', or questionable calls  are up to the SCOTUS..

      replyreport
   8. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Republican voters have an unfavorable view of their party in Congress, according to a new survey from Public Policy Polling.
      
      The poll found that overall, only 24 percent of voters approve of the job congressional Republicans are doing, compared with

      replyreport
   9. 80

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That must mean Republican voters are more intelligent, perceptive and realistic than Democratic voters.

      replyreport
   10. 60

       teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Ralph, GOP voters don't think their reps do a good job; the sooner Dem voters realize the same thing about their party, the sooner we'll oust them all.. Neither House is lily white, Who is at the heart of many of the scandals? Think.

       replyreport
5. 74

   d.williamposted 11 years ago

   I see you have chosen to hide the response of anyone who sees this possibility as disastrous, i suspect mine will be hidden as well.
   But to answer your question as an independent:  Given the current trend of the GOP/tea party....
   1)  to eliminate unions,
   2)  take reproduction rights away from women and give the government the right to dictate what women need,
   3)  their fight to reverse insurance coverage for those who need it the most,
   4)  freely giving away the regulatory necessities on corporate America to run rough shod over the environment,
   5)  the current bill the house just passed to make college education out of the reach for all but the wealthy,
   6)  write into state a federal laws to legalize the discrimination of a minority group (the gay community)
   6) promoting religion in public places and politics
   7) and more:
   there is little positive that can be said of the destructive nature of having a country run by the Republican party in its current form. 
   This country works best when it is run with a centrist position. 
   Extremes in any direction would prove to be a calamity for the average American people.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      crankaliciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I haven't hidden anything. One comment got hidden due to negative feedback. I'll see if I can change that setting.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Total lack of fact-based evidence. 2.This woman doesn't feel reproductive rights (whatever that is) are threatened by the GOP
      3. Fight to decrease insurance coverage??? HOW?
      4. GOP believes some regs are necessary, but not strangulation.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      check Ur facts before making comments.the house just passed a law making abortions illegal after 20weeks. GOP states R passing laws that ban contraceptives & abortions 4 any reason. Loose regs with loopholes R worse than none. Ur views R in minor

      replyreport
   4. 78

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      d.williams, that is the protection of life, not to  "take reproduction rights away from women" Women have the choice to engage in sex and procreate. They can also (as men do) have the responsibility to only engage if they are ready for a baby.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      d.williams: So, House just passed a las making abortions illegal after 20 weeks. I don't have a problem with that, as I don't plan on aborting a pregnancy. So why would I have a problem with the GOP platform? Goaded into argument...Don't tread on me.

      replyreport
   6. 70

      Sychophantasticposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, typical Republican attitude there teamrn: "don't care, not having an abortion." Kind of like Rob Portman with gay rights. "I'm against it until I find out my son is gay. Now I'm for it." It's easy to be against things until they affect you.

      replyreport
   7. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      when we  allow gov to take away rights just because they don't affect us directly,we R opening doors 2 other rights being removed. I may not believe in abortions, but i  will fight for a woman's right to choose. this must never be gov's decision

      replyreport
   8. 78

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How is it a right to take an innocent life? The right is the right to decide to engage in the action that leads to pregnancy or not. We throw around the word "rights" without understanding what it means. Same with liberty and freedom.

      replyreport
   9. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      when scientists/doctors cannot prove when sentient life begins, the gov has no business in making that decision. Psychics tell us that the spirit enters the body just before, or just after birth. If a fetus can't live on its own it is not a viable en

      replyreport
   10. 70

       Sychophantasticposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Mitch, I generally like your comments, but you're misguided on the abortion thing. Taking or not taking a life is irrelevant to the debate. What's relevant is access to safe medical procedures for all women, many of whom will get abortions anyway.

       replyreport
   11. 78

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Taking or not taking a life is never "beside the point". When we cheapen life by making it ok to end simply for "convenience" we are on a bad path. Life is the point.

       replyreport
   12. 60

       teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Syncop, I don't believe I said that, but it was near Midnight. I am prochoice  but, personally against -abortion x for life, health of Mom. Bu,t I am for a woman's right to choose. I just don't feel that is a pathway to what  should be our.

       replyreport
   13. 70

       Sychophantasticposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thankfully, I'm well off, so if I need an abortion, I can just go outside the U.S. and have one. Screw the poor women who'll be forced into the back alley.

       replyreport
   14. 65

       Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The GOP, unfortunately, is painting itself into an ever-smaller corner by alienating a majority of women, African-Americans, Latino-Americans and young voters, not to mention the LGBT community. Big mistake. Unfortunate for the Party and the country.

       replyreport
   15. 60

       teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Ralph, Tea Party aren't extreme. They have principle and since when is standing on your principles///your beliefs rooted in Constitutional through, extreme?

       replyreport
6. 80

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   Single party rule has been tried many times all around the world. It never has worked well, not for long. Just as with businesses, competition is the only thing that keeps political parties from building monopolies and raping the people. A congress that was 100% retardican would be as corrupt and tyrannical as one 100% demwit. We are safest when the balance between them is the closest, so our objective should be an even split, or at the very least to keep one house of congress in the hands of one, the second under control of the other, and presidents relatively powerless so they are unable to tip the scale to either.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      El Solo Loboposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What we have now, and have had for some time, is single party rule. The rhetoric can sometimes be wildly different, but when you look at actual legislation, I see virtually no difference at all.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That the major parties follow similar patterns of behavior when in power does not mean there is only one party. Were it true there is, we would never see what the pundits like to call "gridlock" in Washington. They go at one another like mad dogs.

      replyreport
7. 78

   Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

   There is little difference between most Republican and the Democrats. Both Parties, as a group, are interested in power and control. The interesting question would be what if Constitutional Conservative were in control? There is a marked difference between being a Republican and being a true conservative that believes in the constitution, free-market capitalism (not to be confused with corporatism, which both parties embrace), liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, a small federal government, low fair/flat taxes...

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Few people really understand that Republican and conservative are two entirely different things.  One is a political party affiliation that requires working toward party goals at the expense of conservative values.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Like relief says, Republicans make up a political party and CONSERVATIVES share an ideology. Conservatism is an ideology;

      replyreport
8. 65

   Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

   That would be a most unfortunate development if the unfavorable experience of many other countries whose politics is dominated by a single party which tends to ignore the interests and views of minorities. Our country has benefited from having two moderate parties which have been willing to reach reasonable accommodations in the public interest. This has not been true for example in the UK where until recently politics has been polarized between a socialist party and a conservative party which pulled in different directions---nationalizing basic industries vs. privatizing them. This was not conducive to economic progress. Likewise, countries like Italy where coalition governments composed of multiple parties have not proved to be very stable and successful.
   
   Our system which in the past had two strong parties is threatened by the takeover of the Republican Party by radical Tea Party extremists who are replacing moderate Republicans in Washington and in state legislators and who are unwilling to compromise with Democrats on practical solutions in the public interest. This does not bode well for the future of the Republican Party or the country, in my opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph, GOP does paint itself into corners, Bigger yes, is the fact that it doesn't defend itself against inaccuracies that the MEDIA portrays, i.e.GOP isn't going to overturn Roe-ROE IS THE LAW OF THE LAND Scare tactics by media:to alienate women.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      U R delusional. If the GOP ruled,  Roe vs Wade would be gone as their 1st priority 2 open  the door 2 total control over women repro rights. We would be muslim world #2 - Keep women barefoot, uneducated, pregnant & at home. U watch 2 much Fox new

      replyreport
   3. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      GOP does disagree with ROE,would change it if they could, but they know that they can't. IT MUST BE AMENDED and that's a hard sell. Why would GOP want control over women's choices? HOW AND WHY? I don't watch FOX. Why does GOP want barefoot, uneducate

      replyreport
   4. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      U certainly R out of touch with the daily news. I follow the bills that R introduced in the House as well as the Senate. They R far removed from being people friendly.  2 many examples 2 cite here. 2012= 1500 bills against women introduced in HofR

      replyreport
   5. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Those evil GOP members, "what can we do today to screw our wives, daughters, mothers, sisters?" Really. Who determines what is 'women-friendly?' Huff-Post?

      replyreport
   6. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ur paraphrasing is incorrect & inappropriate. Apparently the new GOP/tea party is attempting to redefine women's rights, not the press, or the liberals

      replyreport
   7. 60

      teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph, "tends to ignore the interests and views of minorities." in the context of your post can only mean that you believe GOPs are ignoring minority views and needs. "There must be two sides to every story..." Compromise only up to GOP. Harry Reid?

      replyreport
9. 75

   AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years ago

   For D. William:
   1) to eliminate unions,  GOOD - THEY CLEARLY HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR USEFULNESS
   
   2) take reproduction rights away from women and give the government the right to dictate what women need, AND WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN CHILDREN, NOT TO MENTION THE RIGHTS OF THE FATHERS WHO FREQUENTLY HAVE NO SAY IN THE MURDER OF THEIR CHILDREN?
   
   3) their fight to reverse insurance coverage for those who need it the most,  OH YEAH, AS IF OBAMACARE WERE A BIG SUCCESS  - ALL IT HAS DONE IS DRIVE COSTS UP
   
   4) freely giving away the regulatory necessities on corporate America to run rough shod over the environment, AND OBAMA ISN'T DOING THIS NOW?  OPEN YOUR EYES.  AND "GLOBAL WARMING" IS A SHAM.
   
   5) the current bill the house just passed to make college education out of the reach for all but the wealthy, NEVER HEARD OF IT.
   
   6) write into state a federal laws to legalize the discrimination of a minority group (the gay community) GIVING EXTRAORDINARY RIGHTS TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHOSE DISITNGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC IS ABERRANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS NOT "CIVIL RIGHTS," IT'S THE ADVANCEMENT OF MORAL TURPITUDE AND DECADENCE.
   
   6) promoting religion in public places and politics AGAIN, GOOD.  DISPLAYING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IS NOT "ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION," IT IS BEING FAITHFUL TO THE PRINCIPLES THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON.
   
   7) NOW, WHAT WAS YOUR POINT AGAIN?

   replyreport
   1. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      UR silly arguments R indicative of the current mentality in the U.S. They R superfluous, bigoted & without much merit, but especially ill conceived. If the GOP ruled where do U think the oven/gas chambers should B built? Ur hatred is apparent.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Sychophantasticposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      6. Homsexuality is determined by God and is not a choice, but I guess you know better than God. 1. And yes, because clearly corporations all have the workers' best interests in mind. We don't need unions.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Alex has a severe case of the "Tea Party Syndrome." http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/The- … ou-have-it

      replyreport
   4. 70

      Sychophantasticposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "global warming is a sham". I guess science must also be a sham too. It's the sun that revolves around the earth, right?

      replyreport
   5. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      wow synch, U R in the same category as Alex. bigoted & ill informed. God has made no such statements 2 me, or 2 you. the words U worship R ancient man's only in a book created by fallible men.  you use god's name to judge by your own limitations.

      replyreport
   6. 70

      Sychophantasticposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      D.william, you got I was defending your point of view, right? Homosexuality is not a choice, which means it's god given, if you believe that God determines all things.

      replyreport
   7. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      sorry synch. since ur comments were directly under mine, i thought U were referring to the #'s in my comments & agreeing with this one. my bad.

      replyreport
   8. 75

      AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Boys and girls here we have again a typical "progressive" mindset - if you disagree with their worldview (such as it is), you are "bigoted," "hateful," etc.  When your arguments have no merit, you resort to name-calling.

      replyreport
   9. 74

      d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      there is nothing wrong with disagreeing, it's when hateful,hurtful& irrational ideas R being mandated by law that there's a problem. Ur response 2 my comments R ill conceived there is no doubt about that. Ur ideas R a bit dated, & inane

      replyreport
   10. 65

       Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Alex, how are we supposed to characterize hateful diatribes, as sweet and enlightened?

       replyreport
   11. 60

       teamrnposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Alex, I agree. There was a time and place for unions and possibly still its, but  irresponsibility reigns  (retirement promises that were made years ago are CONTRACTS-one reason California is in deep doggy-do) Me, me, me. What about country? Hatred?

       replyreport
   12. 75

       AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Hateful diatribes?  You mean like a CBS reporter comparing the Tea Party to "radical Muslims in Iran?"  Or Chris Matthews saying if you support the NRA you must be a racist?

       replyreport