Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Social conservatives to RNC chairman Reince Priebus: We could leave the GOP. Seriously, we'd just walk out. We mean it. No, we really mean it. Why are you holding open the door, jackass, we're serious here? Stop pushing, man   (firstread.nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Priebus, GOP, RNC, social conservatives, Log Cabin Republicans, faith-based  
•       •       •

5159 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Apr 2013 at 8:45 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



191 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-11 08:48:11 AM  
No way becuz Merica can only be a two party system!  (If we give them actual choices there's an outside chance we might have to serve the populous as a whole)
 
2013-04-11 08:48:37 AM  
Liberals should do this to the democratic party since they are nothing more than Republicans who call themselves liberal.
 
2013-04-11 08:48:42 AM  
I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.
 
2013-04-11 08:49:08 AM  
Good riddance to Newt's rubbish.
 
2013-04-11 08:49:28 AM  
I'll never get used to this guys name. It sounds like it came out of The Phantom Menace.
 
2013-04-11 08:49:35 AM  
Yeah, yeah.  If the RNC weakens their dedication to malice, they'll pack up and go.. somewhere?
 
2013-04-11 08:49:47 AM  
Rinsed Pubes.
 
2013-04-11 08:49:51 AM  
The social conservatives won't abandon the GOP, and the GOP won't do a goddamned thing to push them out.

They'll just claim they're taking a more libertarian stance because RAND PAUL thinks people should serve a little less jail time for having weed.
 
2013-04-11 08:50:06 AM  
"Chairman Priebus agrees that we must stand up for our conservative principles while we work together to grow our party and win elections and has been traveling the country with that message," said Kirsten Kukowski, an RNC spokeswoman. Furthermore, she said that a resolution re-affirming the platform was currently being drafted, and would likely win approval from the full RNC this Friday.


Tells you all you need to know about he GOP and its "reforms".
 
2013-04-11 08:50:24 AM  
America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.
 
2013-04-11 08:51:06 AM  
Good, GTFO. It would be nice to have a reasonable opposition to the democrats. Maybe then we could actually have a liberal alternative to vote for instead of just center-right and batshiat-donkey-farking-crazy.

/ if you promise never to come back I'll buy you idiots the plain tickets to Afghanistan. If you can get over the fact that you named your religion differently you'd fit in a lot better with the Taliban anyway
 
2013-04-11 08:51:11 AM  
www.peopalove.com
 
2013-04-11 08:53:02 AM  
We'll need the Republican party for as long as a bell-curve has a back side.
 
2013-04-11 08:53:54 AM  
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-11 08:54:22 AM  
You think this is some kind of joke, GOP? You think I'm playing around here? Well, you can just forget about me voting for anyone with an "R" after his name who wasn't astroturfed by the Koch bros. I'm being dead serious: I absolutely cannot and will not vote for anyone with an "R" after his name who wasn't astroturfed by the Koch bros. So, yeah.... better think twice on that.
 
2013-04-11 08:54:33 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.


Remove all the vowels from his name and it RNC PR BS  now tell me he isn't an engineered life form created with the purpose of leading the RNC
 
2013-04-11 08:54:37 AM  
WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else? One idea is, given 10 or 15 key issues or values, candidates declare where they stand and enter the race. Instead of evaluating the candidate partly on party, you evaluate them on what they stand for.

In addition, replace the primaries with a first general election with all candidates on the ballot, followed by a run-off election for races when there is no candidate with a winning majority in the first. Those going to Congress can choose how to caucus. I don't mind partisanship, but the two-party system, I think, leaves us much more polarized.

(Or monarchy. Maybe it's time again.)
 
2013-04-11 08:54:45 AM  
Lol... The fundies aren't going anywhere. The GOP is more than accommodating them with fundamentalist candidates and a far-right platform.
 
2013-04-11 08:54:56 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Liberals should do this to the democratic party since they are nothing more than Republicans who call themselves liberal.


I don't think of myself as a liberal, but I voted Green Party in the last presidential election because their ticket most aligned with my own political ideals, meanwhile voting Democrat was morally unconscionable to me, and voting for a Mitt Romney-Ayn Rand ticket was unfathomable.
 
2013-04-11 08:55:13 AM  
America - Where taxpayers give pensions and healthcare to millionaires for life to decide what to take away from taxpayers that work 6 or 7 days a week just to make ends meet so they can give tax breaks to their wealthy friends that bankrupted the country at least twice while their supporters call us lazy hippies for pointing it out.
 
2013-04-11 08:56:04 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.



Russia Today does not have to make something up to do that.
 
2013-04-11 08:56:29 AM  
If they leave, the party is screwed. If they stay, the party is screwed.
By all means, continue.
 
2013-04-11 08:56:50 AM  
God, the signatories are like a who's-who of the wing-nut Derp Crew.  To lose all of them at once would be a day worth celebrating.
 
2013-04-11 08:56:50 AM  

mytdawg: America - Where taxpayers give pensions and healthcare to millionaires for life to decide what to take away from taxpayers that work 6 or 7 days a week just to make ends meet so they can give tax breaks to their wealthy friends that bankrupted the country at least twice while their supporters call us lazy hippies for pointing it out.


That was beautiful.
 
2013-04-11 08:57:26 AM  
Too late Republicans. The social conservatives are too deeply embedded for you to ever be able to remove them without destroying yourselves entirely.
 
2013-04-11 08:58:04 AM  
I know it'll never happen, but still ...

/pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
 
2013-04-11 08:58:24 AM  

bmongar: Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.

Remove all the vowels from his name and it RNC PR BS  now tell me he isn't an engineered life form created with the purpose of leading the RNC


Like maybe created from nothing by a Sith? What is his midichlorian level?

/Knew I was on to something
 
2013-04-11 08:58:27 AM  
People are constantly evaluating political news with a Dem vs Rep slant.  These days, the far more important battles are within the GOP itself.  Everybody in the party has their knives out, and they're all pointed at each other.  Boner hates Cantor, everybody hates McConnell, etc.  The Tea Party wants control of the GOP, that's where the big fight is.  The Dems are just watching and shaking their heads.
 
2013-04-11 08:58:41 AM  
Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.

Somewhere, buried deep within parts of the country we've long ignored, are hidden pockets of the valuable fuel our party needs to survive. Drill, baby, drill, for that sweet oil of bigotry!
 
2013-04-11 08:58:57 AM  
If you don't hate everything we hate we will totally leave and for a viable third party in a little less than a year and YOU'RE NOT INVITED!
 
2013-04-11 08:59:18 AM  

lolpix: I don't think of myself as a liberal, but I voted Green Party in the last presidential election because their ticket most aligned with my own political ideals, meanwhile voting Democrat was morally unconscionable to me, and voting for a Mitt Romney-Ayn Rand ticket was unfathomable.


No offense, but the Green Party is basically the democrats' Tea Party except they can't get elected. Plus they allowed W. into office.
 
2013-04-11 09:00:15 AM  

www.morethings.com

 
2013-04-11 09:00:19 AM  

bmongar: Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.

Remove all the vowels from his name and it RNC PR BS  now tell me he isn't an engineered life form created with the purpose of leading the RNC


Which is probably why they keep him around even though he is absolutely and comically horrible at his job.

On the other hand, maybe he was engineered to destroy the Republican party.
 
2013-04-11 09:00:51 AM  
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP

And the GOP replied "And go where?" followed by "Now shut up and go make us all sammiches, biatches. "
 
2013-04-11 09:01:04 AM  

Wooly Bully: Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.

Somewhere, buried deep within parts of the country we've long ignored, are hidden pockets of the valuable fuel our party needs to survive. Drill, baby, drill, for that sweet oil of bigotry!


Seriously.  See also: maybe if we just call women whores louder, they'll finally vote for us.
 
2013-04-11 09:02:15 AM  

Wooly Bully: Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.

Somewhere, buried deep within parts of the country we've long ignored, are hidden pockets of the valuable fuel our party needs to survive. Drill, baby, drill, for that sweet oil of bigotry!


Yeah, they absolutely refuse to acknowledge the 5 moderate votes they lose for every vote this policy gains them.
 
2013-04-11 09:02:19 AM  
Oh how ADORABLE! Subby is a libertarian who thinks the GOP could exist without social conservatives!

We got a live one, fellas!
 
2013-04-11 09:03:03 AM  

Wooly Bully: Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.

Somewhere, buried deep within parts of the country we've long ignored, are hidden pockets of the valuable fuel our party needs to survive. Drill, baby, drill, for that sweet oil of bigotry!


For example, they'll send RAND PAUL to Howard University to talk down to black college students
 
2013-04-11 09:05:37 AM  

Outrageous Muff: lolpix: I don't think of myself as a liberal, but I voted Green Party in the last presidential election because their ticket most aligned with my own political ideals, meanwhile voting Democrat was morally unconscionable to me, and voting for a Mitt Romney-Ayn Rand ticket was unfathomable.

No offense, but the Green Party is basically the democrats' Tea Party except they can't get elected. Plus they allowed W. into office.


That a perfect comparison if you ignore the fact that the Greens have absolutely zero power within the Democratic Party and have no effect what so ever on the platform or policies of the Party.
 
2013-04-11 09:06:51 AM  
Wow, they served that up on a platter.  The smart move for the GOP is just to send an open letter back saying, "Thanks for all you've done, though it's sad to see you go, we need to modernize the party and at least develop a few policy positions that make sense.  Since this is a civil rights issue, we're starting here because it's a no brainer".

What are these douches going to do?  Join the Dems?  Start their own ineffective third party?   Yes, this action might greatly reduce the chances of the GOP in the next election cycle or two, however long term... it's the only responsible path the party can take.  America is getting more educated and wordly (slowly, I grant you, but still getting there)...  the politics of ignorance are already starting to show cracks.
 
2013-04-11 09:07:37 AM  
Who's ever going to vote for a third party? Well me for one. In the 96 election I was presented with a choice between Bubba, Bob Dole and Ross Perot. You can say I threw away my vote but I voted for Perot. Why? The guy obviously had issues but I still admired his straightforwardness, as opposed to the two clowns running for the big parties. During the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, when excepting the Argo thing, the US government was sitting in a corner furiously fapping, Ross Perot got his guys out. During a time of extreme crisis when he had no power over the situation, he got all of his people home. If there is ever a third party candidate that I like like that again, that person will get my vote. And no, I'm not talking about some a-hole in the vein of Ralph Nader or any of the Paul clan.
 
2013-04-11 09:08:20 AM  
www.empowernetwork.com
 
2013-04-11 09:08:24 AM  

DeltaPunch: You think this is some kind of joke, GOP? You think I'm playing around here? Well, you can just forget about me voting for anyone with an "R" after his name who wasn't astroturfed by the Koch bros. I'm being dead serious: I absolutely cannot and will not vote for anyone with an "R" after his name who wasn't astroturfed by the Koch bros. So, yeah.... better think twice on that.


Fun fact: Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries, was also a co-founder of the John Birch Society.
 
2013-04-11 09:08:33 AM  

Aarontology: Wooly Bully: Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.

Somewhere, buried deep within parts of the country we've long ignored, are hidden pockets of the valuable fuel our party needs to survive. Drill, baby, drill, for that sweet oil of bigotry!

For example, they'll send RAND PAUL to Howard University to talk down to black college students


GOP Bigwhig: We need to work on our minority outreach, fellas. Any ideas?

RAND PAUL: I'll go explain to some black kids that if only they weren't so ignorant of American history, they'd know liberals are the real racists.

GOP Bigwhig: Aren't you the one who said the Constitution guarantees a right to racial discrimination in public accommodations?

RAND PAUL: It does.

GOP Bigwhig: Terrific. Get to it, then.
 
2013-04-11 09:08:47 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: That a perfect comparison if you ignore the fact that the Greens have absolutely zero power within the Democratic Party and have no effect what so ever on the platform or policies of the Party.


They did have power after 2000, then they pissed it away for Howard Dean.
 
2013-04-11 09:09:34 AM  
Conservative groups use "Family" in their names like Congolese death squads use "Liberation" in their names.
 
2013-04-11 09:09:40 AM  

Aarontology: The social conservatives won't abandon the GOP, and the GOP won't do a goddamned thing to push them out.

They'll just claim they're taking a more libertarian stance because RAND PAUL thinks people should serve a little less jail time for having weed.


Curious, where did the whole capitalization of RON and RAND PAUL originate from?
 
2013-04-11 09:12:09 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: That a perfect comparison if you ignore the fact that the Greens have absolutely zero power within the Democratic Party and have no effect what so ever on the platform or policies of the Party.

They did have power after 2000, then they pissed it away for Howard Dean.


Really, the Greens were dictating policies to the Democrats from 2000-2004? Please provide examples.
 
2013-04-11 09:12:15 AM  
Oh! Lets make Howard Dean the chair of the party, that'll give us power!  I bet he's totally not gonna sell us out to make money for him and his brother!
 
2013-04-11 09:14:13 AM  

bugontherug: Aarontology: Wooly Bully: Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.

Somewhere, buried deep within parts of the country we've long ignored, are hidden pockets of the valuable fuel our party needs to survive. Drill, baby, drill, for that sweet oil of bigotry!

For example, they'll send RAND PAUL to Howard University to talk down to black college students

GOP Bigwhig: We need to work on our minority outreach, fellas. Any ideas?

RAND PAUL: I'll go explain to some black kids that if only they weren't so ignorant of American history, they'd know liberals are the real racists.

GOP Bigwhig: Aren't you the one who said the Constitution guarantees a right to racial discrimination in public accommodations?

RAND PAUL: It does.

GOP Bigwhig: Terrific. Get to it, then.


Later..

GOP Bigwig: Well why the hell didn't that work?


Almost Everybody Poops: Curious, where did the whole capitalization of RON and RAND PAUL originate from?


If I'm remembering correctly, it was from the 2004 elections when Fark was inundated with Ron Paul supporters who tended to be much more enthusiastic than either Kerry or Bush supporters, because RON PAUL will save the Constitution. It started out as emphasis, and just kinda snowballed into a meme. When Rand joined the Senate, it was passed along to him.
 
2013-04-11 09:14:40 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Aarontology: The social conservatives won't abandon the GOP, and the GOP won't do a goddamned thing to push them out.

They'll just claim they're taking a more libertarian stance because RAND PAUL thinks people should serve a little less jail time for having weed.

Curious, where did the whole capitalization of RON and RAND PAUL originate from?


RON PAUL'S support has been characterized as "a mile deep but an inch wide." Meaning his followers love him, but he has little appeal to anyone other than them. The capitalization may have originated with actual Paulites showing enthusiastic support. Today, most people do it to poke fun at Paulite fanaticism.
 
2013-04-11 09:14:46 AM  
I'm enjoying watching the death of the Republican party.
 
2013-04-11 09:14:53 AM  
i249.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-11 09:15:03 AM  
The Social Conservatives are no longer able to provide the votes that the GOP needs, and the GOP has never really delivered on their promise to fight for Conservative values.

Seems like a mutually unsatisfying relationship. I don't think this marriage can be saved.
 
2013-04-11 09:16:08 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: The Dems are just watching and shaking their heads

masturbating furiously.

FTFY
 
2013-04-11 09:16:23 AM  

Vodka Zombie: I'm enjoying watching the death of the Republican party.


It's more like a risky lumpectomy procedure to remove a cancerous growth.  Could go either way at this point.
 
2013-04-11 09:18:50 AM  

bugontherug: Almost Everybody Poops: Aarontology: The social conservatives won't abandon the GOP, and the GOP won't do a goddamned thing to push them out.

They'll just claim they're taking a more libertarian stance because RAND PAUL thinks people should serve a little less jail time for having weed.

Curious, where did the whole capitalization of RON and RAND PAUL originate from?

RON PAUL'S support has been characterized as "a mile deep but an inch wide." Meaning his followers love him, but he has little appeal to anyone other than them. The capitalization may have originated with actual Paulites showing enthusiastic support. Today, most people do it to poke fun at Paulite fanaticism.


I do it to poke fun at a Paulite fanaticism.  In addition, I like to use DOCTOR Ron Paul as I've heard that Ron being a doctor lends credence to his views on a myriad of subjects.  I presume that these people don't know that many doctors personally.
 
2013-04-11 09:18:55 AM  
When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.
 
2013-04-11 09:19:40 AM  

SpankyPinkbottom: The Social Conservatives are no longer able to provide the votes that the GOP needs, and the GOP has never really delivered on their promise to fight for Conservative values.

Seems like a mutually unsatisfying relationship. I don't think this marriage can be saved.


Even more interesting is this.  What if the GOP prostrates themselves before the social right at this point?  Do they damn themselves to decades of irrelevant decline to a slow death?

What was once a strength of the Republicans (the social conservatives would provide the votes, the fiscal "conservatives" would provide the money) is becoming a weakness.  If the social conservatives can't generate electoral victories the money will dry up and if the party caves to the social conservatives, in a few years, there won't be enough money in the world to win an election based on their ridiculous platform.
 
2013-04-11 09:21:23 AM  

Aarontology: The social conservatives won't abandon the GOP, and the GOP won't do a goddamned thing to push them out.

They'll just claim they're taking a more libertarian stance because RAND PAUL thinks people should serve a little less jail time for having weed.


I love watching all this saber rattling that will ultimately go nowhere. The GOP and the Retards need each other. To actually split would decimate an already wounded party wandering in the woods.

Smart people understand that if social conservatives create their own faction, Dems will win for at least 20 years. Neither the establishment nor the Tea People/Thumpers are going anywhere on their own.
 
2013-04-11 09:21:55 AM  

bugontherug: Oh how ADORABLE! Subby is a libertarian who thinks the GOP could exist without social conservatives!

We got a live one, fellas!


The GOP is only Fundies and Libertarians?

You know, I was a former Republican who ran away from the party BECAUSE of Fundies and Libertarians.  There are people in this country who don't hate gays, don't want to go back to The Articles of Confederation, believe in economic conservatism, small government and some degree of social freedom.  Its really awful that people like me are lumped in with the borderline bigoted actions of the "Religious Right" when I honestly would love to see them all thrown at the sun.

Democrats/Liberals, I get that the RNC has been HURR DURR for the last.....10-20 years.  I've seen it, I was paying attention too.  But like in a courtroom, politics in the US is an adversarial system and when the opposition party is an unorganized grabastic piece of amphibian shiat, it isn't helping anything.  If the RNC could piss off the fundies enough to make them leave, Republicans can actually be a viable choice and have some good ideas if the party didn't have a bunch of hooting idiots drowning everyone out.
 
2013-04-11 09:25:28 AM  

dickfreckle: Smart people understand that if social conservatives create their own faction, Dems will win for at least 20 years. Neither the establishment nor the Tea People/Thumpers are going anywhere on their own.


Don't forget though, if the GOP jettisons their nutjob wing, it'll be tough going at first, but eventually they can go to a more libertarian platform that (for some reason) seems to excite a large portion of the US to the state of giddy school girls.
 
2013-04-11 09:25:41 AM  
The conservatives additionally expressed their anger at what they said was an insinuation that they had treated gays and lesbians unkindly.
"The fact that the party is strongly committed to traditional marriage has not prevented their involvement through GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans," they wrote. "We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally."


Except for the part where the GOP didn't allow those groups to attend CPAC, but everything's cool otherwise.

Not feeling sympathy for the GOP at this point.  They created this mess.  They cultivated this mess.  They grew this mess.  It's too bad they grew virulent, poisonous kudzu.
 
2013-04-11 09:26:43 AM  

Rapmaster2000: I like to use DOCTOR Ron Paul as I've heard that Ron being a doctor lends credence to his views on myriad subjects.


Like economic theory.
 
2013-04-11 09:26:54 AM  

Jodeo: WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else?


You may be interested in what good 'ole New Zealand did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representatio n
 
2013-04-11 09:27:31 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: You know, I was a former Republican who ran away from the party BECAUSE of Fundies and Libertarians. There are people in this country who don't hate gays, don't want to go back to The Articles of Confederation, believe in economic conservatism, small government and some degree of social freedom. Its really awful that people like me are lumped in with the borderline bigoted actions of the "Religious Right" when I honestly would love to see them all thrown at the sun.

Democrats/Liberals, I get that the RNC has been HURR DURR for the last.....10-20 years. I've seen it, I was paying attention too. But like in a courtroom, politics in the US is an adversarial system and when the opposition party is an unorganized grabastic piece of amphibian shiat, it isn't helping anything. If the RNC could piss off the fundies enough to make them leave, Republicans can actually be a viable choice and have some good ideas if the party didn't have a bunch of hooting idiots drowning everyone out.


As much as that would be awesome, that's about as likely as everyone getting a unicorn
 
2013-04-11 09:28:59 AM  

Wooly Bully: Holding the line against same-sex marriage, the letter argues, would allow Republicans to make better inroads, for instance, into more traditionally-minded corners of the African American community.

Somewhere, buried deep within parts of the country we've long ignored, are hidden pockets of the valuable fuel our party needs to survive. Drill, baby, drill, for that sweet oil of bigotry!


It seems a tough ask to find AAs so bigoted against gays they don't mind voting for a party that is bigoted against themselves just to help hurt gay people.
 
2013-04-11 09:29:01 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Really, the Greens were dictating policies to the Democrats from 2000-2004? Please provide examples.


Their boy Howard Dean wasn't in office until 2005, where they lucked into a shiatty run of luck with Bush.  But instead of pushing for real liberals in 2006, they caved and voted for the Demopublicans in all these house seats. Seats they lost four years later because a real liberal would have had the balls to keep that seat.
 
2013-04-11 09:29:01 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: bugontherug: Oh how ADORABLE! Subby is a libertarian who thinks the GOP could exist without social conservatives!

We got a live one, fellas!

The GOP is only Fundies and Libertarians?

You know, I was a former Republican who ran away from the party BECAUSE of Fundies and Libertarians.  There are people in this country who don't hate gays, don't want to go back to The Articles of Confederation, believe in economic conservatism, small government and some degree of social freedom.  Its really awful that people like me are lumped in with the borderline bigoted actions of the "Religious Right" when I honestly would love to see them all thrown at the sun.

Democrats/Liberals, I get that the RNC has been HURR DURR for the last.....10-20 years.  I've seen it, I was paying attention too.  But like in a courtroom, politics in the US is an adversarial system and when the opposition party is an unorganized grabastic piece of amphibian shiat, it isn't helping anything.  If the RNC could piss off the fundies enough to make them leave, Republicans can actually be a viable choice and have some good ideas if the party didn't have a bunch of hooting idiots drowning everyone out.


FTFY.  They crossed that "border" long ago.
 
2013-04-11 09:29:34 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: The GOP is only Fundies and Libertarians?


At this point, the answer is pretty much Yes.

The Fundies and Libertarians have been successful in purging the other elements from the party. Those who haven't been actively purged have been forced to adopt the Fundie/Libertarian/Tea Party positions as a matter of self preservation.

Richard Lugar lost his primary this last cycle because he wasn't conservative enough. Think about that. There was a time when the Republicans might have been able to fight a successful battle to remove the Social Conservatives. That time is past.
 
2013-04-11 09:30:11 AM  
Outrageous Muff: No offense, but the Green Party is basically the democrats' Tea Party except they can't get elected. Plus they allowed W. into office.

Perhaps, but they want to overturn Citizens United, end the Drug War, get out of Middle East politics, scale down Homeland Security, regulate industries capable of disrupting our national and even world economy, and do away with the for-profit prison system. These are issues I care about. And frankly, I'm tired of politics being about gays, God and abortion. It's exhausting. But the Greens came down on the better side of those arguments for me too.  I cared about health care too, but then my health insurance costs and copays doubled overnight. So I figure voting for a third party devoted to issues I care about, rather than for the strongest party who pays them lip service in between "Greatest Nation on Earth" speeches,  is the ethical thing for me to do, even if a few W's get elected in the process.
 
2013-04-11 09:31:13 AM  

dickfreckle: I love watching all this saber rattling that will ultimately go nowhere. The GOP and the Retards need each other. To actually split would decimate an already wounded party wandering in the woods.

Smart people understand that if social conservatives create their own faction, Dems will win for at least 20 years. Neither the establishment nor the Tea People/Thumpers are going anywhere on their own.


Exactly. It's the very reason why the Tea Party isn't an actual political party, but a faction of the GOP.


Rapmaster2000: I do it to poke fun at a Paulite fanaticism. In addition, I like to use DOCTOR Ron Paul as I've heard that Ron being a doctor lends credence to his views on a myriad of subjects. I presume that these people don't know that many doctors personally.


My doctor is all the authority I need for my info on reforming Medicare. Or he was until he got busted for defrauding Medicare out of a couple hundred grand.
 
2013-04-11 09:31:20 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: DeltaPunch: You think this is some kind of joke, GOP? You think I'm playing around here? Well, you can just forget about me voting for anyone with an "R" after his name who wasn't astroturfed by the Koch bros. I'm being dead serious: I absolutely cannot and will not vote for anyone with an "R" after his name who wasn't astroturfed by the Koch bros. So, yeah.... better think twice on that.

Fun fact: Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries, was also a co-founder of the John Birch Society.


As well as the Silver Brigades.
 
2013-04-11 09:32:35 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: Really, the Greens were dictating policies to the Democrats from 2000-2004? Please provide examples.

Their boy Howard Dean wasn't in office until 2005, where they lucked into a shiatty run of luck with Bush.  But instead of pushing for real liberals in 2006, they caved and voted for the Demopublicans in all these house seats. Seats they lost four years later because a real liberal would have had the balls to keep that seat.


So in other words the Greens had no power what so ever, unlike the Tea Party.
 
2013-04-11 09:34:44 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: The GOP is only Fundies and Libertarians?


"Only?" No. "Overwhelmingly?" Yes.

You know, I was a former Republican who ran away from the party BECAUSE of Fundies and Libertarians.

This really seems to support my thesis, more than it supports the thesis apparently implied by your opening rhetorical question.

If the RNC could piss off the fundies enough to make them leave, Republicans can actually be a viable choice and have some good ideas if the party didn't have a bunch of hooting idiots drowning everyone out.

If the GOP pissed off the fundies enough to make them leave, a few GOP moderates might come back to the fold. What you and subby don't understand though is that social conservatism exists specifically because the Ayn Rand agenda supported by the GOP's real base of corporatist billionaires is politically inviable.

Thus, they cultivated social conservatism to draw off support from otherwise massively Democratic constituencies. It is hard to believe today that the agriculturus was once regarded as a cornerstone of the New Deal coalition. There's reason why the Republican Party finds socialist Jesus in agricultural subsidies--well two. One is to keep rural white voters on their side, and the other is to appease big agribusiness.

This is what liberals mean when they refer to the kinds of social issues that motivate social conservatives as "wedge issues." They were fabricated to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party and its supporters. It worked very well, but now the GOP is dependent on social conservatives. They are nothing without them. They cannot and will not intentionally alienate them anytime soon.
 
2013-04-11 09:38:08 AM  

lolpix: Outrageous Muff: No offense, but the Green Party is basically the democrats' Tea Party except they can't get elected. Plus they allowed W. into office.

Perhaps, but they want to overturn Citizens United, end the Drug War, get out of Middle East politics, scale down Homeland Security, regulate industries capable of disrupting our national and even world economy, and do away with the for-profit prison system. These are issues I care about. And frankly, I'm tired of politics being about gays, God and abortion. It's exhausting. But the Greens came down on the better side of those arguments for me too.  I cared about health care too, but then my health insurance costs and copays doubled overnight. So I figure voting for a third party devoted to issues I care about, rather than for the strongest party who pays them lip service in between "Greatest Nation on Earth" speeches,  is the ethical thing for me to do, even if a few W's get elected in the process.


My mother told me I had a twin who went missing in my infancy.

Is it you?
 
2013-04-11 09:39:58 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Richard Lugar lost his primary this last cycle because he wasn't conservative enough. Think about that. There was a time when the Republicans might have been able to fight a successful battle to remove the Social Conservatives. That time is past.


I'm a libby libby liberal progressive and even I realize that Lugar was a decent politician and was responsible for removing thousands of nuclear weapons from this planet and most likely also helped to create legislation that slowed the proliferation of both traditional weapons but also nuclear weapons to other nations on this planet. And in that regard, I honestly really respected the man and could almost give him my vote.

So when the GOP decided it was time to go all Space Marine and purge the unclean I was honestly shocked when they kicked Lugar out.
  

Philip Francis Queeg: So in other words the Greens had no power what so ever, unlike the Tea Party.



They changed the overton window and pushed that third rail politic shiat that helped keep the dems in the wilderness for years. Thankfully we've grown a spine since then.
 
2013-04-11 09:40:57 AM  

lewismarktwo: populous


Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!
 
2013-04-11 09:41:14 AM  

boxster: Rapmaster2000: I like to use DOCTOR Ron Paul as I've heard that Ron being a doctor lends credence to his views on myriad subjects.

Like economic theory.


I listen to DOCTOR RON PAUL on economics right after I have Dr. Paul Krugman deliver my baby.
 
2013-04-11 09:46:27 AM  
The signatories to this week's letter were:

Gary Bauer, President, American Values
Paul Caprio, Director, Family-Pac Federal
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List - QUE?!?
Dr. James Dobson, President and Founder, Family Talk Action
Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition
Tom Minnery, Executive Director, CitizenLink
William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Sandy Rios, VP of Government Affairs, Family-Pac Federal
Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle ForumRev.
Louis P. Sheldon, Founder, Traditional Values Coalition
Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association


......one would think Susan B Anthony would be for gay rights.
 
2013-04-11 09:48:29 AM  
"We respectfully warn GOP Leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support,"
-FTA

Trying to save a group by placing principles ahead of its survival is probably the wrong approach.

//That said, you could be treating the "principle" as if it was the "group".
 
2013-04-11 09:51:22 AM  
Thats a pretty good list of the biggest Pieces of Shiat in America.
 
2013-04-11 09:51:38 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So in other words the Greens had no power what so ever, unlike the Tea Party.


No, I'm saying they wasted it on the party candidates instead of pushing their own, better candidates like the Tea Party did. Real liberals would have kept those seats.
 
2013-04-11 09:53:01 AM  

Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.


Social conservatives may have a skewed veiw of morality, but Randians have none at all.  Without the social conservatives, the Republicans would just be money grubbing sociopaths.  I think that is much more terrifying.

Even if the party splits and Democrats win most elections for a few decades, it won't matter.  For some reason, conservatives set the policy conversation in this country, regardless if they are in power or not.  Whoever "wins" the GOP civil war is going to set the country's agenda.
 
2013-04-11 09:53:29 AM  

SuperNinjaToad: ......one would think Susan B Anthony would be for gay rights.


The SBA List's primary stated purpose is to get pro-life women elected.  Go figure.
 
2013-04-11 09:55:06 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: So in other words the Greens had no power what so ever, unlike the Tea Party.

No, I'm saying they wasted it on the party candidates instead of pushing their own, better candidates like the Tea Party did. Real liberals would have kept those seats.


The Tea Party candidates are better candidates? Are you farking joking?
 
2013-04-11 09:58:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The Tea Party candidates are better candidates? Are you farking joking?


To their base they are.  Instead of electing pussy moderates in the primary like the democrats did, the Tea Party elected strong willed candidates.  Liberals need to elected strong willed candidates instead of a cowardly LINOs they do.
 
2013-04-11 10:00:43 AM  

dickfreckle: My mother told me I had a twin who went missing in my infancy.

Is it you?


I'm not sure. I'll ask mom.
 
2013-04-11 10:01:24 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: The Tea Party candidates are better candidates? Are you farking joking?

To their base they are.  Instead of electing pussy moderates in the primary like the democrats did, the Tea Party elected strong willed candidates.  Liberals need to elected strong willed candidates instead of a cowardly LINOs they do.


Strong willed candidates that got destroyed in the general election and ensured that the Democrats retained control of the Senate.
 
2013-04-11 10:03:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Strong willed candidates that got destroyed in the general election and ensured that the Democrats retained control of the Senate.


I'm not talking about the Senate. I'm talking about the House, where dozens of Tea Party candidates won over the democratic candidate.
 
2013-04-11 10:03:56 AM  

Outrageous Muff: To their base they are. Instead of electing pussy moderates in the primary like the democrats did, the Tea Party elected strong willed candidates. Liberals need to elected strong willed candidates instead of a cowardly LINOs they do.


Yes because purging moderates always does the party well
 
2013-04-11 10:05:10 AM  

Jodeo: WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else? One idea is, given 10 or 15 key issues or values, candidates declare where they stand and enter the race. Instead of evaluating the candidate partly on party, you evaluate them on what they stand for.


You can't replace the two-party system on its own. You have to change the voting system: if every seat in Congress is elected by plurality vote, with one seat per district, then you're practically guaranteed two macro-parties.
 
2013-04-11 10:05:44 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: Strong willed candidates that got destroyed in the general election and ensured that the Democrats retained control of the Senate.

I'm not talking about the Senate. I'm talking about the House, where dozens of Tea Party candidates won over the democratic candidate.


The same house where many of those same Congressmen lost their seats in the next election when their constituents realized how utterly bat shiat crazy they were?

Is Alan West really the model of candidate you want?
 
2013-04-11 10:06:06 AM  

Outrageous Muff: the Tea Party elected strong willed candidates.


LMAO!
 
2013-04-11 10:06:21 AM  
bugontherug:
If the GOP pissed off the fundies enough to make them leave, a few GOP moderates might come back to the fold. What you and subby don't understand though is that social conservatism exists specifically because the Ayn Rand agenda supported by the GOP's real base of corporatist billionaires is politically inviable.

Thus, they cultivated social conservatism to draw off support from otherwise massively Democratic constituencies. It is hard to believe today that the agriculturus was once regarded as a cornerstone of the New Deal coalition. There's reason why the Republican Party finds socialist Jesus in agricultural subsidies--well two. One is to keep rural white voters on their side, and the other is to appease big agribusiness.

This is what liberals mean when they refer to the kinds of social issues that motivate social conservatives as "wedge issues." They were fabricated to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party and its supporters. It worked very well, but now the GOP is dependent on social conservatives. They are nothing without them. They cannot and will not intentionally alienate them anytime soon.


Honestly, I haven't voted for the past four elections.  I would love a party that represents my views but given the way politics is structured in this country, I only have two options.  Should I just give up on the idea of a viable 2nd party and vote Democrat or continue not voting?  The Democratic party doesn't support my views, I can't in good conscience vote for them.  There is a large population of "Right-Wingers" that aren't libertarians or fundies, if anything they outnumber the libertarians and fundies.  Like you mentioned, the party has been hijacked by people with money and irrationally strong beliefs.  If the Democratic party was hijacked by an Alex Jones type character with a lot of money, wouldn't you fight and support a return to what the party used to be about?

There was a time when the party wasn't borderline bigoted[1] and backwards.  There was a time that people didn't sneer at you when you identified as a Republican.  No one else but the RNC is to blame for that change, but I want to go back to that.

[1]- I say borderline bigoted because I think its quite harsh to paint an entire party with the opinions of a few crazy ass members.  I know its easy to point and laugh at the Huffington Post article about the next dumb thing a Republican said (I do it too) but the entire party isn't this way.
 
2013-04-11 10:08:46 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: People are constantly evaluating political news with a Dem vs Rep slant.  These days, the far more important battles are within the GOP itself.  Everybody in the party has their knives out, and they're all pointed at each other.  Boner hates Cantor, everybody hates McConnell, etc.  The Tea Party wants control of the GOP, that's where the big fight is.  The Dems are just watching and shaking their heads grabbing the next handful of popcorn to eat.


FTFY.
 
2013-04-11 10:09:33 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The same house where many of those same Congressmen lost their seats in the next election when their constituents realized how utterly bat shiat crazy they were?

Is Alan West really the model of candidate you want?


At least Alan West was forceful, a coward and a war criminal, but forceful. Nancy Pelosi is nothing more than a corporate puppet.
 
2013-04-11 10:10:16 AM  

dickfreckle: Smart people understand that if social conservatives create their own faction, Dems will win for at least 20 years.


The reality of political parties has never worked like that.

The Whigs blew apart in 1856. By all rights, that should have meant the Democrats would run things well into the next century. Except the Republican party formed from the remnants of that and of disaffected Democrats. They would win 10 of the next 12 elections -- and both Democrat wins were Grover Cleveland.

Power vacuums fill quickly in a two-party system. If the present form of the Republican party implodes, something new will take up the mantle, and likely reshuffle somewhat from various factions of the Democrats -- who are far from a monolithic entity themselves. A simple refocus onto fiscal conservatism alone would likely break up the rural-urban split that defines the present relationship.
 
2013-04-11 10:12:24 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: The same house where many of those same Congressmen lost their seats in the next election when their constituents realized how utterly bat shiat crazy they were?

Is Alan West really the model of candidate you want?

At least Alan West was forceful, a coward and a war criminal, but forceful. Nancy Pelosi is nothing more than a corporate puppet.


I'm sure you will take it as a compliment when I tell you that you are as stupid, shortsighted and counterproductive as a Tea Party member.
 
2013-04-11 10:12:32 AM  

SuperNinjaToad: The signatories to this week's letter were:

Gary Bauer, President, American Values
Paul Caprio, Director, Family-Pac Federal
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List - QUE?!?
Dr. James Dobson, President and Founder, Family Talk Action
Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition
Tom Minnery, Executive Director, CitizenLink
William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Sandy Rios, VP of Government Affairs, Family-Pac Federal
Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle ForumRev.
Louis P. Sheldon, Founder, Traditional Values Coalition
Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association

......one would think Susan B Anthony would be for gay rights.


Susan B. Anthony was brought up a Quaker.  I'm sure she would be all for that. Not saying she would be right mind ya, I have no issues if 2 people want to get married and you know be happy and protected under the laws of our land but to make statements that a Victorian era Quaker would approve is kinda pushing it.
 
2013-04-11 10:14:48 AM  

This text is now purple: Power vacuums fill quickly in a two-party system. If the present form of the Republican party implodes, something new will take up the mantle, and likely reshuffle somewhat from various factions of the Democrats -- who are far from a monolithic entity themselves. A simple refocus onto fiscal conservatism alone would likely break up the rural-urban split that defines the present relationship.


This is true, but you also have to factor in the monumental shift in social issues that pull those center left and center right dems into the coalition. There is also a growing Latino population that increasingly leans left as well.

The GOP is fastly becoming a regional congressional party, and not a national one.
 
2013-04-11 10:16:23 AM  
Republicans are spending a lot of time lately telling me about how they're holding the door open so the Social Conservatives can leave. Usually when Republicans spend a lot of time telling me something, it turns out to be a lie. Of course, if the GOP finally stands up to the Social Conservatives that will prove me wrong, so in a sense that would be "sticking it to a Lib" (hint hint).
 
2013-04-11 10:16:40 AM  

Xythero: Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.

Social conservatives may have a skewed veiw of morality, but Randians have none at all.  Without the social conservatives, the Republicans would just be money grubbing sociopaths.  I think that is much more terrifying.

Even if the party splits and Democrats win most elections for a few decades, it won't matter.  For some reason, conservatives set the policy conversation in this country, regardless if they are in power or not.  Whoever "wins" the GOP civil war is going to set the country's agenda.


Talking loudest does not mean that they are winning an argument.  Point and case....gay marriage.
 
2013-04-11 10:16:51 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm sure you will take it as a compliment when I tell you that you are as stupid, shortsighted and counterproductive as a Tea Party member.


At least I'm a true liberal isn't of one that just pretends to be one.
 
2013-04-11 10:17:06 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Too late Republicans. The social conservatives are too deeply embedded for you to ever be able to remove them without destroying yourselves entirely.


Please sit down Mr. GOP. I have some bad news. To put it bluntly, the cancer is inoperable.
 
2013-04-11 10:17:54 AM  

lolpix: Outrageous Muff: No offense, but the Green Party is basically the democrats' Tea Party except they can't get elected. Plus they allowed W. into office.

Perhaps, but they want to overturn Citizens United, end the Drug War, get out of Middle East politics, scale down Homeland Security, regulate industries capable of disrupting our national and even world economy, and do away with the for-profit prison system. These are issues I care about. And frankly, I'm tired of politics being about gays, God and abortion. It's exhausting. But the Greens came down on the better side of those arguments for me too.  I cared about health care too, but then my health insurance costs and copays doubled overnight. So I figure voting for a third party devoted to issues I care about, rather than for the strongest party who pays them lip service in between "Greatest Nation on Earth" speeches,  is the ethical thing for me to do, even if a few W's get elected in the process.


Ah, so  not only do I get to blame the likes of you for 8 years of W, I can also tell you to "F off" because you're not serious about getting candidates to move me into voting for Green.

Good to know.
 
2013-04-11 10:18:30 AM  

Zagloba: Jodeo: WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else? One idea is, given 10 or 15 key issues or values, candidates declare where they stand and enter the race. Instead of evaluating the candidate partly on party, you evaluate them on what they stand for.

You can't replace the two-party system on its own. You have to change the voting system: if every seat in Congress is elected by plurality vote, with one seat per district, then you're practically guaranteed two macro-parties.


Before you can have a more sophisticated electoral system, you need a more sophisticated electorate.  There is hope.
 
2013-04-11 10:19:36 AM  

TalenLee: America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.


Are there any countries that let people vote for candidates directly (as opposed to voting for a party that will choose who to put into office, later) using a voting system other than first-past-the-post?  Which countries and which systems?

I am NOT talking about the parlimentary system, since (if I understand correctly) no voter gets to vote for a specific person for Prime Minister under that system.
 
2013-04-11 10:22:18 AM  
In totally unrelated news, the following announced 13 new talk shows, all with 7 figure salaries for their hosts, based on the novelty of dissing the mainstream Republican party, all funded by mysterious donors who will be crippled if they ever have to pay taxes.


Gary Bauer, President, American Values
Paul Caprio, Director, Family-Pac Federal
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List - QUE?!?
Dr. James Dobson, President and Founder, Family Talk Action
Andrea Lafferty, President, Traditional Values Coalition
Tom Minnery, Executive Director, CitizenLink
William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Sandy Rios, VP of Government Affairs, Family-Pac Federal
Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle ForumRev.
Louis P. Sheldon, Founder, Traditional Values Coalition
Tim Wildmon, President, American Family Association
 
2013-04-11 10:22:50 AM  

Citrate1007: Even if the party splits and Democrats win most elections for a few decades, it won't matter. For some reason, conservatives set the policy conversation in this country, regardless if they are in power or not. Whoever "wins" the GOP civil war is going to set the country's agenda.

Talking loudest does not mean that they are winning an argument. Point and case....gay marriage.


He didn't say they set the policy. He said they set the policy conversation.
 
2013-04-11 10:22:57 AM  

bmongar: Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.

Remove all the vowels from his name and it RNC PR BS  now tell me he isn't an engineered life form created with the purpose of leading the RNC


mindblown.jpg
 
2013-04-11 10:27:38 AM  
"We respectfully warn GOP Leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support,"

Well, actually the influx of "Social COnservatives" and "religious right" was a move to reinforce the base with a voting block that was easily lead and riled up. Basically it consisted of Southern Demacrats and religious fiundamentalists...  basically the same group of people who could see and hear everything people like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart did, you know corruption in Christs name, taking money from the poor to line their own pockets, talk to a 900 foot jesus and claim that if you were not able to raise a few million dollars from pensioners and Social security collectors among others because they believed you actually talked to 900 foot jesus, and so on...     so basically, the GOP in the 80's invited the hard religious conservatives because they were easy dupes with a completely dedicated ignorant but stalwart and stubborn base to draw from. However, the leaders of that group hunger for power, so in that the cracks were formed.

so anyway, the religious right is actually anathema to what the actual Republican party was supposed to be about. Excusing the Religious right from the GoP would actually be more of a return to the core values of the party, and could possibly bring back legislators akin to Olympia Snow who acted pragmatically and responsibly, and were actually able to help govern the country.
 
2013-04-11 10:30:59 AM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: Strong willed candidates that got destroyed in the general election and ensured that the Democrats retained control of the Senate.

I'm not talking about the Senate. I'm talking about the House, where dozens of Tea Party candidates won over the democratic candidate.


The districts elected batshiat crazy Tea Partiers in the general election and you think "real liberals" would have been able to compete there?

Newsflash:  the reason why moderate and conservative Democrats are nominated in places like South Dakota and Nebraska is that they're the only Democrats that have a chance in hell of winning a general election there.  A liberal Democrat isn't going to beat Steve King in Iowa.  His district is as conservative as it gets.
 
2013-04-11 10:31:44 AM  

This text is now purple: dickfreckle: Smart people understand that if social conservatives create their own faction, Dems will win for at least 20 years.

The reality of political parties has never worked like that.

The Whigs blew apart in 1856. By all rights, that should have meant the Democrats would run things well into the next century. Except the Republican party formed from the remnants of that and of disaffected Democrats. They would win 10 of the next 12 elections -- and both Democrat wins were Grover Cleveland.

Power vacuums fill quickly in a two-party system. If the present form of the Republican party implodes, something new will take up the mantle, and likely reshuffle somewhat from various factions of the Democrats -- who are far from a monolithic entity themselves. A simple refocus onto fiscal conservatism alone would likely break up the rural-urban split that defines the present relationship.


The Democrats were laboring after the Civil War under the handicap of having been the rebel's party. Very few Union veterans were going to vote for them, and most voters were veterans. Special circumstances that don't apply today.

I think the Democratic Party might splinter between Social Democrat and Modern Whig wings, if there were no wingnut Republicans to unite them against craziness. But I don't think the Republicans are going to break up any more than Kim Jong Un is going to invade South Korea. While most politicians sell out to corporate money in order to stay in office, the core Republican value is embracing corporate rule, and blaming all social ills on laziness. That's a powerful combination of money and prejudice that's going to continue to create a united "conservative" movement.

You're going to see a shrinking Republican base, because they're older than Democrats. If Democrats continue to run from the center a la Clinton and Obama, they'll continue to dominate. California is the bellwether; there's a supermajority in both houses of the legislature, and a Democratic governor. Expect to see more of that in other states.
 
2013-04-11 10:33:16 AM  
"The fact that the party is strongly committed to traditional marriage has not prevented their involvement through GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans"

Oh, you mean those guys you wouldn't let attend CPAC? I can't help but notice that no one from either of those organizations co-signed your letter.
 
2013-04-11 10:37:08 AM  
If the Republicans want to actually be a viable entity in the future it's time they told their ignorant douchebag loudmouth party-members to take a walk. They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name. These old fogey sourpuss soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur Republicans coerce the up-and-coming Republicans into fighting losing battles over meaningless issues. Let the dickbags leave. You might go through a lean period for a bit because of the money that will go with them, but believe me, in no time at all you'll be enjoying newfound riches as your party heals and begins to grow again.

Stop tilting at windmills and get your heads on right, damn. Grow the hell up and stop acting like a bunch of babies.
 
2013-04-11 10:45:49 AM  

jgbrowning: Jodeo: WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else?

You may be interested in what good 'ole New Zealand did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representatio n


Which can work in a parliamentary system, because legislators must form a majority coalition.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but a multi-party system would be a disaster for Congress.  You think you have gridlock now?  Imagine six, eight, ten parties.  Each has anywhere from 10 to fifty seats, each has its own purity tests and all the usual party bs. Try to get that many factions to agree on, say, a package of spending cuts.

You'd never get another budget passed.  Yeah, I know, not like they're getting passed now, but it would be far harder to get agreement on anything.
 
2013-04-11 10:48:20 AM  

lewismarktwo: No way becuz Merica can only be a two party system!  (If we give them actual choices there's an outside chance we might have to serve the populous as a whole)


I'm fine with a two party system that marginalizes social conservatives
 
2013-04-11 10:51:23 AM  

lewismarktwo: No way becuz Merica can only be a two party system!  (If we give them actual choices there's an outside chance we might have to serve the populous as a whole)


The two party system has nothing to do with the number of choices. It's got to do with the mathematics of voting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
 
2013-04-11 10:56:18 AM  

The Snow Dog: If the Republicans want to actually be a viable entity in the future it's time they told their ignorant douchebag loudmouth party-members to take a walk. They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name. These old fogey sourpuss soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur Republicans coerce the up-and-coming Republicans into fighting losing battles over meaningless issues. Let the dickbags leave. You might go through a lean period for a bit because of the money that will go with them, but believe me, in no time at all you'll be enjoying newfound riches as your party heals and begins to grow again.

Stop tilting at windmills and get your heads on right, damn. Grow the hell up and stop acting like a bunch of babies.


1) continued intolerance will result in the gradual demise of the GOP party
2) the GOP cannot become more tolerant without splitting
3) a split in the GOP will result in a long term political losses

It is easy to see why voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering is currently the best strategy the GOP has.
 
2013-04-11 10:59:20 AM  

The Snow Dog: If the Republicans want to actually be a viable entity in the future it's time they told their ignorant douchebag loudmouth party-members to take a walk. They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name.


...so the ten bad apples are poisoning the one good one?  Good to know.

/This is not an "isolated incident". It's endemic to the Republican Party.
 
2013-04-11 11:03:05 AM  

pciszek: TalenLee: America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.

Are there any countries that let people vote for candidates directly (as opposed to voting for a party that will choose who to put into office, later) using a voting system other than first-past-the-post?  Which countries and which systems?

I am NOT talking about the parlimentary system, since (if I understand correctly) no voter gets to vote for a specific person for Prime Minister under that system.


My wife is going to vote this Sunday for the next Liberal party leader in Canada.  She can then vote for the Liberal party.  Pretty much as close as you can get to picking the equivalent of a Canadian "President".

Of course Canada is just 1/10th the size of the US so it would be hard to do the same thing.
 
2013-04-11 11:05:08 AM  
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
 
2013-04-11 11:05:23 AM  
Well if that isn't a succinct list of douchebaggery, then I do not know what is.
 
2013-04-11 11:12:04 AM  

The Snow Dog: They hog the limelight and give the rest of the party a bad name.


The rest? What rest? I have no idea what the nutjob-to-normal ratio among rank and file Republicans is, but among the people they elect to office it's approaching 1 to 0.
 
2013-04-11 11:12:08 AM  
media.tumblr.com

and

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-11 11:12:20 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: I would love a party that represents my views but given the way politics is structured in this country, I only have two options.  Should I just give up on the idea of a viable 2nd party and vote Democrat or continue not voting?


Get involved with, and vote in, primary campaigns.

As a poll worker I see firsthand how painfully low turnout is in primary elections, so I bet activists can make a difference. (That's how the inmates are taking control of the GOP asylum; maybe it can be used for good).

Voting for sane candidates in GOP primaries, and/or actual liberals in Democratic primaries, could be useful.

There are also more elections than President (another pet peeve of poll workers). Inattention to gubernatorial and State legislative elections in 2010 is going to hurt us all for the next 10 years.
 
2013-04-11 11:14:29 AM  
While their points can be debated against, the republican party can run, and win, on its economic, international, and military policies. However, they will lose EVERY TIME if they keep holding onto their social policies.
 
2013-04-11 11:14:34 AM  
Also:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-11 11:14:51 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.


One of this week's Doonesburies has a guy taking a call from Reince Priebus and asks his secretary "who?" She replies "GOP chairman" and he says "Oh, *that* Reince Priebus". Cracks me up.
 
2013-04-11 11:14:57 AM  

Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.


This.  There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years.  This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.
 
2013-04-11 11:16:35 AM  

skozlaw: Good, GTFO. It would be nice to have a reasonable opposition to the democrats. Maybe then we could actually have a liberal alternative to vote for instead of just center-right and batshiat-donkey-farking-crazy.

/ if you promise never to come back I'll buy you idiots the plain tickets to Afghanistan. If you can get over the fact that you named your religion differently you'd fit in a lot better with the Taliban anyway


Moran...the Democrats in this country are Republican "lites", almost all of them skew to the right of center in the political spectrum.

Learn to learn noob.
 
2013-04-11 11:17:23 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: The Southern Logic Company: I would love a party that represents my views but given the way politics is structured in this country, I only have two options.  Should I just give up on the idea of a viable 2nd party and vote Democrat or continue not voting?

Get involved with, and vote in, primary campaigns.

As a poll worker I see firsthand how painfully low turnout is in primary elections, so I bet activists can make a difference. (That's how the inmates are taking control of the GOP asylum; maybe it can be used for good).

Voting for sane candidates in GOP primaries, and/or actual liberals in Democratic primaries, could be useful.

There are also more elections than President (another pet peeve of poll workers). Inattention to gubernatorial and State legislative elections in 2010 is going to hurt us all for the next 10 years.


As a Californian, state proposition elections always have a bigger effect on day-to-day happenings than the presidential election. Prop 13, Prop 187, Prop 8, etc usually bring out the big guns, though.
 
2013-04-11 11:18:17 AM  
Ya know... There are a LOT of inbred "pro-family" voters.... A LOT of them... if they leave the Republicans in a huff, and their own party that advocates against aborting their inbred cranially malformed flipper babies.. which goes no where except in local elections... SOMEONE is going to mine those votes. It might be the republicans again, or it might be the Dems.

They USED to be Democrats, then the republicans stole them... They might poison your well again. All for some stinking votes.
 
2013-04-11 11:19:20 AM  

dustygrimp: This. There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years. This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.


Most of the technocrats have already moved on over to the bigger Dem tent.
 
2013-04-11 11:24:41 AM  

Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one noone on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one Noone who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one noone cares to tow toe the line around here!


ftfy.  Pet-peeve.
 
2013-04-11 11:25:26 AM  

Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!


www.artfulgamer.com

 
2013-04-11 11:36:22 AM  
Forget about it Jake; It's the GOP.

3.bp.blogspot.com

It's their party now.
 
2013-04-11 11:45:25 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: [1]- I say borderline bigoted because I think its quite harsh to paint an entire party with the opinions of a few crazy ass members.  I know its easy to point and laugh at the Huffington Post article about the next dumb thing a Republican said (I do it too) but the entire party isn't this way.


Yeah, but those "few crazy ass members" aren't anonymous bloggers, they're party leaders.
 
2013-04-11 11:46:38 AM  

Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!


Something something for all intensive purposes
 
2013-04-11 11:48:50 AM  
I know its easy to point and laugh at the Huffington Post article about the next dumb thing a Republican said (I do it too) but the entire party isn't this way.

Maybe not, but nearly everyone they elect to office is.
 
2013-04-11 11:56:05 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!

Something something for all intensive purposes


Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.
 
2013-04-11 11:56:40 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.


Actually the RT guys are like the Maytag repairman, throwing cards into a hat, listless, on the verge of suicide.
 
2013-04-11 11:59:41 AM  

dustygrimp: Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders' agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.

This.  There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years.  This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.


See, I knew they were not actually serious about governing, winning the presidential election when Huntsman was almost completely ignored outright and a dope like Perry was propped up as a legitimate choice. 1 man had serious cred as a diplomat and governer, the other is a clown running on liking prayer and guns who could barely put a thought together if he happened to be chewing gum at the same time.

The last two election cycles for President, the GoP has, IMO, run looking to lose. The choices were so poorly put together, that it almost seemed they did not want to win. It certainly makes the choice of Palin seem competent if they were running to lose, the same with Romney. With people like Bachmann and Perry getting pushed to the forefront, it sure didn't look like they were advertising sensible governing, more like ads for reality tv shows.
 
2013-04-11 12:00:09 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.


We should have a grammar party. Please RSVP.
 
2013-04-11 12:02:40 PM  

pciszek: TalenLee: America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.

Are there any countries that let people vote for candidates directly (as opposed to voting for a party that will choose who to put into office, later) using a voting system other than first-past-the-post?  Which countries and which systems?

I am NOT talking about the parlimentary system, since (if I understand correctly) no voter gets to vote for a specific person for Prime Minister under that system.


There are numerous types of alternative vote, approval vote, instant run off voting, and ranked voting systems around - all of those can be used to avoid two party metastasis as they avoid the issue that voting your first preference often acts as a passive vote in favor of your least preferred option whenever your first choice doesn't win or come second.

Australia I seem to remember as using AV, I don't remember if there are many others at the top level.

Parliamentary systems you are effectively voting for who is the Prime Minister, as that is a part of the party platform/manifesto before you vote, so effectively you are voting for both your local candidate, and implictly that will carry over to voting for the PM elect of that same party (of course in some cases that could mean you are forced to vote for a local MP that you don't like in order to support a potential PM you do, or vice versa).
 
2013-04-11 12:05:48 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Is there no-one noone on Fark who can spell this word?

www.parsec-santa.com


OK, maybe he can spell.

As for:

Vodka Zombie: tow toe the line


denver.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-04-11 12:10:16 PM  

PapaChester: Well if that isn't a succinct list of douchebaggery, then I do not know what is.


Before I even read the list, I knew there would be multiple groups with the word "family" in their name (this usually denotes a right-wing hate group).  I was not disappointed.
 
2013-04-11 12:25:38 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!

Something something for all intensive purposes

Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.


[twitch]
 
2013-04-11 12:38:34 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dustygrimp: This. There were a lot of people who would have voted Romney in this last cycle if it didn't mean rolling back the civil rights movement 60 years. This potential departure of the Social conservaties kinda scares the crap out of me.

Most of the technocrats have already moved on over to the bigger Dem tent.


Doesn't mean they can't move back.
 
2013-04-11 12:46:39 PM  

xria: Parliamentary systems you are effectively voting for who is the Prime Minister, as that is a part of the party platform/manifesto before you vote, so effectively you are voting for both your local candidate, and implictly that will carry over to voting for the PM elect of that same party (of course in some cases that could mean you are forced to vote for a local MP that you don't like in order to support a potential PM you do, or vice versa).


Plus, it would be impossible for someone to run independently on a "Both parties are bad, so vote for me instead" platform.  Not that you can practically do that in the US either, but independent candidates can at least screw things up for the major parties.
 
2013-04-11 12:46:53 PM  
The Southern Logic Company:The GOP is only Fundies and Libertarians?

I suppose there are also a number of party members that pay no attention to policies and vote Republican out of habit. But anyone that sees what the GOP does and supports it, yes they are either "Fundies" or "Libertarians"

The Southern Logic Company:There are people in this country who don't hate gays, don't want to go back to The Articles of Confederation, believe in economic conservatism, small government and some degree of social freedom.

Yes, they are called "Democrats" and they have been for a very, very long time.

The Southern Logic Company:Democrats/Liberals, I get that the RNC has been HURR DURR for the last.....10-20 years.

You're off by a few decades there. The GOP has been actively courting racists, religious zealots and economic cannibals ever since Nixon. Slowly everyone else has either left the party in disgust or been forcibly kicked out.
 
2013-04-11 12:55:25 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Moran...the Democrats in this country are Republican "lites", almost all of them skew to the right of center in the political spectrum.


In the future, if you don't understand something, you should ask for clarification.
 
2013-04-11 12:56:58 PM  

Hillbilly Jim: I'll never get used to this guys name. It sounds like it came out of The Phantom Menace.


Hmmm...

Member of a capitalistic merchant cabal whose goal is to either reduce government meddling with corporate interests, or else co-opt the government and use state power to promote corporate interests?  Yep.

Enters into alliance with persons who might help them achieve their goals, whom they privately disdain as sad devotees of an ancient religion?  Yep.

Ultimately undone by said association with religious fanatics, who find their lack of faith disturbing, and destroy the Trade Federation in an internal power struggle, as part of their plan to impose a despotic theocracy?  Yep.

Lucas/Jar Jar 2016

/Looking forward to Clint Eastwood ranting at an empty chair, with a transparent, wavering holObama sitting in it
 
2013-04-11 12:59:39 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Which is probably why they keep him around even though he is absolutely and comically horrible at his job.



Better him than Michael Steele, no?
 
2013-04-11 01:08:21 PM  

James!: If you don't hate everything we hate we will totally leave and for a viable third party in a little less than a year and YOU'RE NOT INVITED!


So there,

Rinsed Pubis.
 
2013-04-11 01:18:48 PM  

Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!



You're point is mute. FARKers don't care about grammer.
 
2013-04-11 01:18:53 PM  
These same people were the core of the Democratic party until the forties, when the Democratic party included support for the Civil Rights movement in its platform. They left, and formed the Dixiecrats, which had all the clout you can imagine, and wound up being welcomed by the Republican party. Wonder where they'll go next
 
2013-04-11 01:19:08 PM  
Ah, so by catering to their every whim, the GOP is ACTUALLY asking them to LEAVE? It ALL makes PERFECT SENSE!!
 
2013-04-11 01:19:29 PM  
This is the self deportation you are looking for.
 
2013-04-11 01:23:02 PM  

Lord_Baull: Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!

You're point is mute. FARKers don't care about grammer.


For all intensive purposes, we do!
 
2013-04-11 01:23:58 PM  

Lord_Baull: Vodka Zombie: Which is probably why they keep him around even though he is absolutely and comically horrible at his job.

Better him than Michael Steele, no?


Strip clubs and everything, you've gotta admit the Republicans won more elections when Michael Steele was in charge than this Riced Prius guy.

www.caradvice.com.au

 
2013-04-11 01:24:52 PM  

LemSkroob: While their points can be debated against, the republican party can run, and win, on its economic, international, and military policies.



Aren't you precious!
 
2013-04-11 01:27:12 PM  
"We respectfully warn GOP Leadership that an abandonment of its principles

It's cute they think politicians give a flying shiat about principles beyond vote harvesting.

/Democrats don't actually care about the environment that much either - it's just another core constituency.
 
2013-04-11 01:28:25 PM  

h0tsauce: Wonder where they'll go next


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
NNNYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 
2013-04-11 01:29:00 PM  
Kirsten Kukowski

Hey, I got my comedy 'Ks' back!
 
2013-04-11 01:29:26 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Gaseous Anomaly: Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.

We should have a grammar party. Please RSVP.


GRAMMAR PARTY!

legacy-cdn.smosh.com

Because "Party on, dudes" is not the same as "Party on dudes"
 
2013-04-11 01:35:19 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Because "Party on, dudes" is not the same as "Party on dudes"


photogallery.indiatimes.com
"It ith where I'm contherned!"

 
2013-04-11 01:44:35 PM  

h0tsauce: These same people were the core of the Democratic party until the forties, when the Democratic party included support for the Civil Rights movement in its platform. They left, and formed the Dixiecrats, which had all the clout you can imagine, and wound up being welcomed by the Republican party. Wonder where they'll go next


Back to their roots.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-11 01:44:59 PM  
Bullshiat. Evangelicals, by FARKING DEFINTION, are ignorant, irrational sheep who do what they're told, when they're told. They know their betters and well damn well snap too and vote straight ticket GOP for the foreseeable future.
 
2013-04-11 01:50:17 PM  
OK, great, you might separate yourselves from sedentary asshole social conservatives.  You still have the "fark you I got mine" sociopath contingency weighing you down.

The GOP cannot be a viable party unless it completely reinvents itself and rebuilds from the ground up.
 
2013-04-11 01:51:05 PM  
It's a shame that fiscal conservatism is just as big of a failure as social conservatism.  I really would like to see them divorced though, so that fiscal conservatives could stop hiding their failure behind the skirts of religious wackjobs.
 
2013-04-11 01:57:32 PM  

Newbaca: It's a shame that fiscal conservatism is just as big of a failure as social conservatism.  I really would like to see them divorced though, so that fiscal conservatives could stop hiding their failure behind the skirts of religious wackjobs.


I don't have a problem with fiscal conservatism.  I don't think the fundamental idea of keeping government spending low is a bad one.  The idea of telling the poor to go fark themselves so that the rich can keep their precious tax cuts, and slashing the safety net while overfunding the holy fark out of the military, however, is a pretty abominable one.
 
2013-04-11 01:58:51 PM  

Citrate1007: When they do, the GOP will be a force to be reckoned with.  Honestly, the conservative "greed is good" motto that gave us the '80s is waiting to happen again it is just that too many people fear the bible pounders'  god botherers agenda to allow the GOP to take the wheel again.

 
2013-04-11 02:01:44 PM  

Zerochance: OK, great, you might separate yourselves from sedentary asshole social conservatives.  You still have the "fark you I got mine" sociopath contingency weighing you down.

The GOP cannot be a viable party unless it completely reinvents itself and rebuilds from the ground up.


I suggest they come back as a Social Credit party.  Very popular 60 years ago in Canada amongst Christian Canadians in the West.

Advocate an ownership society my minimizing Government involvement in social support by (this is the counter-intuitive part) by giving every adult citizen a monthly tax-free stipend.  No eligibility.  No application. You can be employed, retired, a millionaire, poor, disabled.  Doesn't matter.

Adopt Libertarian policies on all social issues.  Make 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions a crime something equivalent to misuse of medical services.  However, robust sexual education in all schools and have paid birth control and morning after pills available to all.

Like police/fire, advocate single-payer health care for emergency care only (that's how single-payer started in Canada).
 
2013-04-11 02:24:47 PM  

MisterRonbo: jgbrowning: Jodeo: WHAT IF we replaced the two party system with something else?

You may be interested in what good 'ole New Zealand did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representatio n

Which can work in a parliamentary system, because legislators must form a majority coalition.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but a multi-party system would be a disaster for Congress.  You think you have gridlock now?  Imagine six, eight, ten parties.  Each has anywhere from 10 to fifty seats, each has its own purity tests and all the usual party bs. Try to get that many factions to agree on, say, a package of spending cuts.

You'd never get another budget passed.  Yeah, I know, not like they're getting passed now, but it would be far harder to get agreement on anything.


This would be preferable to the system we have now where only supply side economic solutions are discussed. By both sides. Which are bad.
 
2013-04-11 03:34:17 PM  

Lord_Baull: LemSkroob: While their points can be debated against, the republican party can run, and win, on its economic, international, and military policies.


Aren't you precious!


what? smaller government and spending less is something that many people get behind. grouping that with 'gays and browns are evil and woman got us thrown out of eden!" is what keeps people away.
 
2013-04-11 03:37:15 PM  

mytdawg: America - Where taxpayers give pensions and healthcare to millionaires for life to decide what to take away from taxpayers that work 6 or 7 days a week just to make ends meet so they can give tax breaks to their wealthy friends that bankrupted the country at least twice while their supporters call us lazy hippies for pointing it out.


4.bp.blogspot.com

1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2013-04-11 03:47:55 PM  

Outrageous Muff: lolpix: I don't think of myself as a liberal, but I voted Green Party in the last presidential election because their ticket most aligned with my own political ideals, meanwhile voting Democrat was morally unconscionable to me, and voting for a Mitt Romney-Ayn Rand ticket was unfathomable.

No offense, but the Green Party is basically the democrats' Tea Party except they can't get elected. Plus they allowed W. into office.


Green Party is a separate party while the Tea Party is made up of off people who are registered Republican, Vote Republican and run as Republicans. Not really the same thing then is it>
 
2013-04-11 03:48:24 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: The Southern Logic Company: You know, I was a former Republican who ran away from the party BECAUSE of Fundies and Libertarians. There are people in this country who don't hate gays, don't want to go back to The Articles of Confederation, believe in economic conservatism, small government and some degree of social freedom. Its really awful that people like me are lumped in with the borderline bigoted actions of the "Religious Right" when I honestly would love to see them all thrown at the sun.

Democrats/Liberals, I get that the RNC has been HURR DURR for the last.....10-20 years. I've seen it, I was paying attention too. But like in a courtroom, politics in the US is an adversarial system and when the opposition party is an unorganized grabastic piece of amphibian shiat, it isn't helping anything. If the RNC could piss off the fundies enough to make them leave, Republicans can actually be a viable choice and have some good ideas if the party didn't have a bunch of hooting idiots drowning everyone out.

As much as that would be awesome, that's about as likely as everyone getting a unicorn


That's easy in North Korea!
 
2013-04-11 03:53:46 PM  

Dog Welder: The conservatives additionally expressed their anger at what they said was an insinuation that they had treated gays and lesbians unkindly.
"The fact that the party is strongly committed to traditional marriage has not prevented their involvement through GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans," they wrote. "We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally."

Except for the part where the GOP didn't allow those groups to attend CPAC, but everything's cool otherwise.

Not feeling sympathy for the GOP at this point.  They created this mess.  They cultivated this mess.  They grew this mess.  It's too bad they grew virulent, poisonous kudzu.


And it was only back in 95 or 96 when Bob Dole wouldn't even except money from the Log Cabin Republicans.
 
2013-04-11 04:34:49 PM  

Jodeo: (Or monarchy. Maybe it's time again.)


Who died and left HIM in charge?
Oh, right.
 
2013-04-11 04:37:53 PM  

bmongar: Phil Moskowitz: I still don't believe anyone named Reince Priebus actually exists. This was something made up by Russia Today to make the GOP look like twats.

Remove all the vowels from his name and it RNC PR BS  now tell me he isn't an engineered life form created with the purpose of leading the RNC


Apparently his name is also an anagram for Repub Niceries and Insecure Bi Rep.
 
2013-04-11 05:00:57 PM  
Just passing a law to ban abortion isn't going to stop abortion. You need three things :

(1) Love Education - More than sex ed, teaching how to pick a good partner, and this means talking about your own life and your own sexual mistakes (by which I mean dating / romance stories). Too many children see sex as something isolated from their 'normal' life. Chastity demands not abstention (some people are just not suited to it) but self-knowledge and integration of sex into the person-hood of the individual.

(2) Economic support for the pregnant - Give ladies in your parish a stipend to support her during her pregnancy. Unwed mothers and mothers-to-be need some kind of housing and economic viability support. They need to learn typing and how to handle basic legal documents and how to do basic accounting.

(3) Stop the protests - Protests work against politicians, not people who are making life-and-death choices. All your protests do is push people away from Jesus (or Jehovah, or Allah)

(4) Fight Oversexualization in ads - Advertisers are your real opponents. Take your protest organization energy and turn it into boycotting companies that promote promiscuity or lust in their advertisements.
 
2013-04-11 06:34:43 PM  

Outrageous Muff: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm sure you will take it as a compliment when I tell you that you are as stupid, shortsighted and counterproductive as a Tea Party member.

At least I'm a true liberal isn't of one that just pretends to be one.


Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
2013-04-11 06:58:01 PM  

LemSkroob: what? smaller government and spending less is something that many people get behind.


But what does that have to do with Republicans?
 
2013-04-11 07:16:11 PM  

pciszek: TalenLee: America can only be a two party system as long as you have Weeners the post voting. You shiat in your bed, you have to sleep in it.

Are there any countries that let people vote for candidates directly (as opposed to voting for a party that will choose who to put into office, later) using a voting system other than first-past-the-post?  Which countries and which systems?

I am NOT talking about the parlimentary system, since (if I understand correctly) no voter gets to vote for a specific person for Prime Minister under that system.


For senate and congress positions, you vote directly, and your president is basically a military commander who can veto shiat from the other guys. It weirds me out how the President is treated in campaign rhetoric like a king, when he very much isn't, and every time he comes close to the bounds of his power, people call it overreach.

I mean things like Instant Runoff voting, which promotes extra parties, or proportional representation, which diminishes one-party rule in small population centres. I'd also recommend (if I could), compulsory voting, but lords knows Muricans aren't down with being told what to do by the gummint.
 
2013-04-11 08:47:20 PM  

TalenLee: For senate and congress positions, you vote directly, and your president is basically a military commander who can veto shiat from the other guys. It weirds me out how the President is treated in campaign rhetoric like a king, when he very much isn't, and every time he comes close to the bounds of his power, people call it overreach.


What you describe is considered a feature, not a bug.  A king is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.  The president performs certain functions that require a single decision-maker, such as running a war, but s/he is supposed to need the approval of congress to start one.  As head of the executive branch, s/he can do, or rather, not do, certain things unilaterally--for example, right after Tiananmen square, president George Bush the First announced that the INS would not be deporting anyone back to China for the time being, even if their visas ran out.  Similarly, Obama decided not to enforce or defend the DOMA.
 
2013-04-12 03:18:52 AM  
i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-12 09:18:07 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-12 01:47:05 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Deucednuisance: lewismarktwo: populous

Is there no-one on Fark who can spell this word?

No-one who knows the difference between the adjective (populous) and the noun (populace)?

Seriously.  I have never, not once, seen it used correctly here.

It's like no-one cares to tow the line around here!

Something something for all intensive purposes

Your all good at posting interesting thing's. Tanks.


You could of been a contender, kid.
 
Displayed 191 of 191 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report