Why is anyone still a Republican??

I mean, seriously.

Why don't they get it?

I think the time is swiftly approaching when very few people will be Republicans.  The racists and the plutocrats will still be around but the days when they could find common ground in one Grand Old Party are behind us.

drummerboy said:

I mean, seriously.

Why don't they get it?

For the wealthy: Lower capital gains tax, access to cheap labor and cheap money.

For the poor: Jesus and stuff.

I'm really not sure  it used to be mostly an economic/size of government distinction between the parties, but now it's more like religious nuts and bigots on the right-at least the vocal, visible Republicans.  I couldn't belong in to a party where I would be appalled or embarrassed to be associated with a large percentage of the members. I am intrigued to see what happens to it after the election, although I thought this after the last election, too, but they didn't change anything.

They don't get it because they really do believe in the things the Republican Party stands for.

They don't get it because they hate the Democrats so badly their eyes bleed.

They don't get it because they don't know any better.

Certainly not exclusively the reason for the far right-wing stuff, but certainly one of the reasons for its existence and not likely to go away is the very poor education in many of the states that have a lot of the people who love the Republicans, at least the far right-wing types. Think of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and a few other hotbeds of anti-education. If you do not train people for careers in the 21st century, eventually they lose out and quickly.

Technology will only erode more and more careers while creating new ones. The ones that go away are quite often the lesser skilled -- as in much of manufacturing -- and increasingly some of the skilled positions. The new careers, quite often, require a raft of skills including deep familiarity with technology and deep thinking skills. If one's job does not require much in the way of thinking or solving a problem, sooner or later it is gone. Think of call centers, assembly line workers, retail clerks and in our kids lifetimes, taxi cab drivers, truck drivers, lab techs, some civil litigation  lawyers, lawyers who process routine legal documents (home sales, eg). Look at Japan and see robots starting as home health aides and more.

The disenfranchised have gone through this a few times now and their view is no one helps them. Their political leaders know this and do all they can to divert attention away from themselves. A big percentage of the elected officials in those states have undermined education which does keep taxes down, but also keeps the population down. Notice that Gov Christie is really of the same ilk as Gov Jindhal of Louisiana -- he has made it a habit of undercutting education. At some point, the schools will erode and do so seriously. 

At least in the South the Democrats held sway until the Civil Rights movement. When laws were passed to allow African Americans the right to vote and schools were integrated, the old Democratic Party literally split apart and the Southern wing joined the Republican Party. Parties do split from time to time and maybe the Republican Party will split. In 1992 a de facto split occurred when H. Ross Perot ran against Bush the first and Clinton, splitting the conservative vote and allowing a Clinton to win with somewhat less than 50% of the vote. 

Everyone running for President in both parties is somewhat to blame -- after all Cruz is a Senator and led the shutdown of the government which led to serious problems for the military; Rubio is a Senator who seemed to think the same way. Trump continually used his wealth and connections to increase his wealth but virtually no one else's. Go down the list. All are part of the problem in some way but Trump sounds the loudest, says the nastiest stuff, and gets away with it.

Very pessimistic.

Their was at one time honor in the Republican party

Their is no more

I have noticed that many republicans have given up the title and now call themselves libertarians.  They still support most republican ideas and not that many libertarian ones.  And they will always still vote republican but they no longer like the title.  We seem to have some here on this board.

If you are ashamed of how you vote, don't change your title, accept the shame or change your vote.

Jude said:

In 1992 a de facto split occurred when H. Ross Perot ran against Bush the first and Clinton, splitting the conservative vote and allowing a Clinton to win with somewhat less than 50% of the vote. 

It's not the thrust of your thoughtful post but every time I hear or read this greatest of all modern political myths I am constrained to respond. In exit polls as many Perot supporters said that if Perot were not on the ballot they would vote for Clinton as said they would vote for Bush. I think most said that they would have not voted at all. The very basis of Perot's candidacy was opposition to Bush being re-elected.

author said:

Their was at one time honor in the Republican party

Their is no more

There used to be a broad agreement as to what was sort of best for the country. Agreement about the general and proper roles of government, and some desire to make sure that all levels of government were competent.

Nothing like that exists anymore. The left moved to the center and the right fell off the cliff. They work to destroy the government by underfunding, then complain when their success causes the government to malfunction.

LOST said:

Jude said:

In 1992 a de facto split occurred when H. Ross Perot ran against Bush the first and Clinton, splitting the conservative vote and allowing a Clinton to win with somewhat less than 50% of the vote. 

It's not the thrust of your thoughtful post but every time I hear or read this greatest of all modern political myths I am constrained to respond. In exit polls as many Perot supporters said that if Perot were not on the ballot they would vote for Clinton as said they would vote for Bush. I think most said that they would have not voted at all. The very basis of Perot's candidacy was opposition to Bush being re-elected.

Thank you for saying this, but it's one of those zombie myths that will be here for eternity.

drummerboy said:

I mean, seriously.

Why don't they get it?

Get what?

drummerboy said:
There used to be a broad agreement as to what was sort of best for the country. Agreement about the general and proper roles of government, and some desire to make sure that all levels of government were competent.

Nothing like that exists anymore. The left moved to the center and the right fell off the cliff. They work to destroy the government by underfunding, then complain when their success causes the government to malfunction.

Why would anyone want to fund incompetence?

Jude provides a very good analysis.

I think there's genuine alarm in the GOP that their previous policies, while mild compared to present ones, weren't palatable to a changing demographic in the country. 

They grabbed a nativist racist tiger by the tail and then embraced and fed it. Now it's all grown up and threatening to eat them.

The GOP needs an intervention by saner members of the group to explain that this direction leads nowhere and that they have to cut the tiger loose and go in another direction. 

GL2 said:

They grabbed a nativist racist tiger by the tail and then embraced and fed it. Now it's all grown up and threatening to eat them.

The GOP needs an intervention by saner members of the group to explain that this direction leads nowhere and that they have to cut the tiger loose and go in another direction. 

 

I like the tiger analogy.

But where are the saner members?  I mean, look at McConnell!  Will he really be successful in taking his party over the obstructionist cliff in regards to SCOTUS hearings?  How does he even get away with saying that Obama is in the lame duck part of his presidency?

Well, I sit corrected. From Wikipedia:

"Analysis

The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton, but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton. A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.55% of Perot's 18.91% of the vote, 66.36% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points. Furthermore, Perot was most popular in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate. He gained relatively little support in the Southern states and happened to have the best showing in states with few electoral votes. Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. Perot's anti-NAFTA stance played a role in his support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues."

The second to last sentence raises the same issue that we see with Trump: "Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party systems." A generation later we have a more intense group of disaffected voters. 

ffof said:

I like the tiger analogy.

But where are the saner members?  I mean, look at McConnell!  Will he really be successful in taking his party over the obstructionist cliff in regards to SCOTUS hearings?  How does he even get away with saying that Obama is in the lame duck part of his presidency?

Because the "Liberal" media lets them get away with it.  Has anyone in the media challenged the republicans when they quote the Biden rule?  I agree that he said it and should not have, but no one implemented it and stopped nominees from getting a vote.  but all I hear from the media is, "see both sides do it".  I have seen Clinton and Sanders grilled on their comments when they do an interview but when republicans continue to spew their talking points of the "Failed Obama administration" or this "Disastrous Presidency", are they ever challenged?  Does anyone ever ask how it is a disaster?  Does anyone challenge them on how it has been the obstructionism that has made things ineffective?  They just allow the meme of failed presidency go unchallenged.  This is not a liberal media, it is a corporatist media that looks out for corporate interests.  

jeffhandy said:

 I have seen Clinton and Sanders grilled on their comments when they do an interview but when republicans continue to spew their talking points of the "Failed Obama administration" or this "Disastrous Presidency", are they ever challenged?  Does anyone ever ask how it is a disaster?  Does anyone challenge them on how it has been the obstructionism that has made things ineffective? 

Every right-winger will say the opposite, that the media treats Clinton and Sanders with kidd gloves but constantly attacks conservatives.  We live in different worlds. 

jeffhandy said:

ffof said:


I like the tiger analogy.

But where are the saner members?  I mean, look at McConnell!  Will he really be successful in taking his party over the obstructionist cliff in regards to SCOTUS hearings?  How does he even get away with saying that Obama is in the lame duck part of his presidency?

Because the "Liberal" media lets them get away with it.  Has anyone in the media challenged the republicans when they quote the Biden rule?  I agree that he said it and should not have, but no one implemented it and stopped nominees from getting a vote.  but all I hear from the media is, "see both sides do it".  I have seen Clinton and Sanders grilled on their comments when they do an interview but when republicans continue to spew their talking points of the "Failed Obama administration" or this "Disastrous Presidency", are they ever challenged?  Does anyone ever ask how it is a disaster?  Does anyone challenge them on how it has been the obstructionism that has made things ineffective?  They just allow the meme of failed presidency go unchallenged.  This is not a liberal media, it is a corporatist media that looks out for corporate interests.  

Thanks for saying this. I can't watch any of the cable news channels anymore  because they all fail to call their guests/politicians out on some of the bold lies and hyperbole they spew. Problem is that they need to feed the 24/h news cycle, so embarrassing their guests with the facts will end up hurting them. So they all play nice. 

lord_pabulum said:

drummerboy said:

I mean, seriously.

Why don't they get it?

Get what?

drummerboy said:
There used to be a broad agreement as to what was sort of best for the country. Agreement about the general and proper roles of government, and some desire to make sure that all levels of government were competent.

Nothing like that exists anymore. The left moved to the center and the right fell off the cliff. They work to destroy the government by underfunding, then complain when their success causes the government to malfunction.

Why would anyone want to fund incompetence?

Right because the GOP does not fund incompetence. They only fund those things they think are beneficial, aka more defense and more wars. Now that really shows competence doesn't it?

LOST said:

jeffhandy said:

 I have seen Clinton and Sanders grilled on their comments when they do an interview but when republicans continue to spew their talking points of the "Failed Obama administration" or this "Disastrous Presidency", are they ever challenged?  Does anyone ever ask how it is a disaster?  Does anyone challenge them on how it has been the obstructionism that has made things ineffective? 

Every right-winger will say the opposite, that the media treats Clinton and Sanders with kidd gloves but constantly attacks conservatives.  We live in different worlds. 

You are right, and because the right has been yelling this for decades, the media bends over backwards to try not to give the appearance of being liberal.  This means not challenging the right and showing that they can be tough on the left.

We are the government.  We the people.   Not funding the government to adequate levels is not funding ourselves.   

My point is there has been incompetence through all levels of government.  And we all fund it.  For example, here in New Jersey there was a 'Transportation Trust Fund' that has been raided by politicians regardless of party affiliation for other than transportation needs - and of course there is the broken public pension system.  This is not an issue of destroying government through 'underfunding' - we all fund incompetence no matter what party has power over spending. 

I don't like funding unnecessary wars, feeding special interests or paying government to continue to kick the can down the road for the next generation to fix e.g.  social security, health care and infrastructure.

lord_pabulum said:

My point is there has been incompetence through all levels of government.  And we all fund it.  For example, here in New Jersey there was a 'Transportation Trust Fund' that has been raided by politicians regardless of party affiliation for other than transportation needs - and of course there is the broken public pension system.  This is not an issue of destroying government through 'underfunding' - we all fund incompetence no matter what party has power over spending. 

I don't like funding unnecessary wars, feeding special interests or paying government to continue to kick the can down the road for the next generation to fix e.g.  social security, health care and infrastructure.

So what is the answer? Privatizing? Is there no incompetence in private business? 

The answer certainly isn't the governance we've seen in the last 16 years.  Some things could be privatized, the Postal Service or the Port Authority for example

GL2 said:

The GOP needs an intervention by saner members of the group to explain that this direction leads nowhere and that they have to cut the tiger loose and go in another direction. 

 

^^This.  The cold turkey will be their continued shut out of the White House and the probable reduction of their membership in Congress.  They are strapped to an orange bomb set to implode in November. Even if they manage to wrest the nomination from The Donald, the public specter of a party in disarray melt-down will dampen public support.  What's left on the GOP bench is wanting, to say nothing of the Trumpets set to "riot" if their reality show huckster is shown the door at the convention.  It promises to be a show of shows.  

Politico:  Trump puts GOP House Majority in Jeopardy

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-gop-house-majority-jeopardy-221004

lord_pabulum said:

My point is there has been incompetence through all levels of government.  And we all fund it.  For example, here in New Jersey there was a 'Transportation Trust Fund' that has been raided by politicians regardless of party affiliation for other than transportation needs - and of course there is the broken public pension system.  This is not an issue of destroying government through 'underfunding' - we all fund incompetence no matter what party has power over spending. 

I don't like funding unnecessary wars, feeding special interests or paying government to continue to kick the can down the road for the next generation to fix e.g.  social security, health care and infrastructure.

yes. there is incompetence in government. 

unlike every other organization of human beings - never any incompetence there.

And as the Republicans play the race card in vitriolic terms:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/why-white-voters-wont-be-enough-to-put-donald-trump-in-the-white-house/ 

Somehow the Republicans have to appeal to minority voters and I do not see how.

Jude said:

And as the Republicans play the race card in vitriolic terms:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/why-white-voters-wont-be-enough-to-put-donald-trump-in-the-white-house/ 


Somehow the Republicans have to appeal to minority voters and I do not see how.

If you know you can't get the minority vote you can always try to suppress it.

drummerboy said:

lord_pabulum said:

My point is there has been incompetence through all levels of government.  And we all fund it.  For example, here in New Jersey there was a 'Transportation Trust Fund' that has been raided by politicians regardless of party affiliation for other than transportation needs - and of course there is the broken public pension system.  This is not an issue of destroying government through 'underfunding' - we all fund incompetence no matter what party has power over spending. 

I don't like funding unnecessary wars, feeding special interests or paying government to continue to kick the can down the road for the next generation to fix e.g.  social security, health care and infrastructure.

yes. there is incompetence in government. 

unlike every other organization of human beings - never any incompetence there.

So you admit Democrats are just as incompetent as Republicans

Your logic is faulty, to put it mildly.