Republicans show signs of Split.

[Daistallia 2104]

While I don't know the infighting and rules,and whether romney's folks are right or wrong. unseating paul would make romney look more middle of the road to america. Giving him a more orderly convention, and better being able to show the party united behind him.

And who are the paul supporters going to vote for? Obama?

Here in Iowa, I know several activists who helped carry this county for Paul back in January. Most of them either won't vote or will vote Obama.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

And, while caucusing with the Democrats, he was voted in largely with Republican support and has voted with them more times than not.

So he acted like a Republican.

Still doesn't make him any less of a Democrat.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and talks like a duck, but calls itself a bald eagle... then by your logic, it's a bald eagle.

???

[Daistallia 2104]

While I don't know the infighting and rules,and whether romney's folks are right or wrong. unseating paul would make romney look more middle of the road to america. Giving him a more orderly convention, and better being able to show the party united behind him.

And who are the paul supporters going to vote for? Obama?

Here in Iowa, I know several activists who helped carry this county for Paul back in January. Most of them either won't vote or will vote Obama.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

While I don't know the infighting and rules,and whether romney's folks are right or wrong. unseating paul would make romney look more middle of the road to america. Giving him a more orderly convention, and better being able to show the party united behind him.

And who are the paul supporters going to vote for? Obama?

Here in Iowa, I know several activists who helped carry this county for Paul back in January. Most of them either won't vote or will vote Obama.

You just posted this...

[Pendragonia]

Good, may the GOP eat itself alive. With any luck, a Democratic majority in both houses plus the presidency will result in a sundering of that party as well. Then the work of rebuilding our nation will begin.

[Augarundus]

I think (and this is mostly baseless conjecture) that the GOP will break up over the next few decades (it will have brief periods of resurgence along a populist right-wing ideology... use some minarchist/libertarian rhetoric while simultaneously alienating the libertarians by rejecting their Paulite candidates... think 2010 Tea Parties - which, for a couple weeks, were actually Paulite organizations, before being co-opted by the Bachmannite conservatives... followed by the Libertarian defection in 2012, a la Gary Johnson).

Rand Paul will probably come to represent the tenuous alignment of the pseudo-Libertarian Republicans (as far as I know, most real libertarians, by which I mean market-libertarians/anarchists like Roderick Long, Walter Block, Stefan Molyneux, Tom Woods, Stephan Kinsella, etc., all hate Rand Paul) with the conventional supply-side neoconservative right. The growing number of radical liberals (market anarchists, etc.) has exposed what a facade this alliance with the right is for the libertarian faction (the New Left movement's alliance with libertarianism, birthed by Rothbard, has been shown to be a failure for quite some time... there's a possibility someone like Roderick Long will try to infiltrate the Democratic Party with libertarianism, but I doubt it).

The Neocon right is eating itself (not that the ideology is dying, but the party itself is falling apart on mostly superficial issues, along with the rise of market libertarianism). The center-left (Neoconservative, social moderates and market interventionists of the Democratic Party - identical in many ways to their slightly more neocon, more conservative, and less interventionist Republican brothers) will absorb these factions, I think.

But I don't think it's accurate, on the other hand, to assume that a Democratic monopoly on the house and senate is inevitable. Even with a string of Democratic presidents (think Republicans in the Gilded Age), we're likely to see a split House and Senate. Some right-wing populist party (tbh, that may even be the Democratic Party) will arise in the US to challenge the center-left moderates that the Democratic Party currently represents. I don't expect to see Libertarians winning seats any time soon, but I think the movement's growth academically is unprecedented (well, Enlightenment/19th century saw a similar expansion of liberalism, but what was then a geographically isolated Great Awakening/religious fundamentalism is now an entrenched global structure of conservatism and statism that is impossible to avoid or engage... radicalism in the new age will necessarily cede the political: the only possibility is to die out or become truly revolutionary).

[Caninope]

So he acted like a Republican.

Still doesn't make him any less of a Democrat.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and talks like a duck, but calls itself a bald eagle... then by your logic, it's a bald eagle.

???

That's the absolute beauty of American political parties.

One of the most conservative old men I know is a dedicated Democrat. Some very fiscally conservative members of Congress are Blue Dogs. The rhetoric of the Obama campaign and the Scott Brown campaign are largely one and the same. Olympia Snowe is a Republican. Lindsay Graham, from South Carolina, is one of the Senators known to have been hostile to the Bush administration on several things (*cough Gitmo cough*) and willing to compromise and work with the Obama administration, the very same Senator Graham who is McCain's BFF. Voting records tend to mean little in American politics.

[Gigaverse]

Muahhahaha.

[Arkinesia]

I think (and this is mostly baseless conjecture) that the GOP will break up over the next few decades (it will have brief periods of resurgence along a populist right-wing ideology... use some minarchist/libertarian rhetoric while simultaneously alienating the libertarians by rejecting their Paulite candidates... think 2010 Tea Parties - which, for a couple weeks, were actually Paulite organizations, before being co-opted by the Bachmannite conservatives... followed by the Libertarian defection in 2012, a la Gary Johnson).

Rand Paul will probably come to represent the tenuous alignment of the pseudo-Libertarian Republicans (as far as I know, most real libertarians, by which I mean market-libertarians/anarchists like Roderick Long, Walter Block, Stefan Molyneux, Tom Woods, Stephan Kinsella, etc., all hate Rand Paul) with the conventional supply-side neoconservative right. The growing number of radical liberals (market anarchists, etc.) has exposed what a facade this alliance with the right is for the libertarian faction (the New Left movement's alliance with libertarianism, birthed by Rothbard, has been shown to be a failure for quite some time... there's a possibility someone like Roderick Long will try to infiltrate the Democratic Party with libertarianism, but I doubt it).

The Neocon right is eating itself (not that the ideology is dying, but the party itself is falling apart on mostly superficial issues, along with the rise of market libertarianism). The center-left (Neoconservative, social moderates and market interventionists of the Democratic Party - identical in many ways to their slightly more neocon, more conservative, and less interventionist Republican brothers) will absorb these factions, I think.

But I don't think it's accurate, on the other hand, to assume that a Democratic monopoly on the house and senate is inevitable. Even with a string of Democratic presidents (think Republicans in the Gilded Age), we're likely to see a split House and Senate. Some right-wing populist party (tbh, that may even be the Democratic Party) will arise in the US to challenge the center-left moderates that the Democratic Party currently represents. I don't expect to see Libertarians winning seats any time soon, but I think the movement's growth academically is unprecedented (well, Enlightenment/19th century saw a similar expansion of liberalism, but what was then a geographically isolated Great Awakening/religious fundamentalism is now an entrenched global structure of conservatism and statism that is impossible to avoid or engage... radicalism in the new age will necessarily cede the political: the only possibility is to die out or become truly revolutionary).

I would hesitate to call these current conservatives “Bachmannite.”

They have stronger roots in Jerry Falwell.

[Ethel mermania]

Then your problems should be with the lack of organization of the Democratic Party, especially in the Senate.

But it was a filibuster proof majority.

Lieberman is an independent. We can't control people who aren't actually in the party.

He was an independent cause the party ran against him in the primary and won. You can't blame the guy for fighting to kep his job and winning.

I also thought for the most part, he did vote for the democrats, but I am sure that can be checked.

[The Horror Channel]

The GOP will split, and the batshit insane side will take precedence over the other at first. Within about 10 years or so, the moderates might have their shit together, but there will probably never be a Republican party as we know it ever again.

[Caninope]

Lieberman is an independent. We can't control people who aren't actually in the party.

He was an independent cause the party ran against him in the primary and won. You can't blame the guy for fighting to kep his job and winning.

I also thought for the most part, he did vote for the democrats, but I am sure that can be checked.

According to the National Journal, he was the 51st most liberal Senator in 2010 (from the 2011 rankings). That means that there are several other Senators to blame for the filibuster problems. Then there's the fact that Lieberman does indeed vote with Democrats at least as much as Republicans on key votes. Then there's the fact that he tends to get moderate or high scores from "liberal" (pro-choice, ACLU, NAACP, etc.) interest groups in their ratings (50 or above) and moderate to low scores from "conservative" (NRA, American Conservative Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, etc.) in their ratings. Source.

Now, as you can see, Lieberman isn't the problem. He isn't a DINO- he does actively identify as a Democrat (or as actively as one needs to be considered a Democrat).

[Wikkiwallana]

And yet he didn't refuse the PATRIOT Act when it was up for renewal either. It would have at the very least forced them to put a new one into the works without those powers attached to it. Every time there is any chance to take any kind of stance against anything of this nature he somehow fails to do it, and his supporters are here to excuse him for it anyway.

All I'm saying is, you're living in a dream world if you think Obama ever intended to repeal any of the powers granted to him during the Bush Administration. Which means he was lying the entire time.

The worst parts of the PATRIOT ACT have been struck down or expired.

The parts that are in effect now are things mostly concerned with the process of tracking and defeating terrorism (such as cracking down on financial aid to terrorists, breaking the wall between the intelligence and law enforcement duties of the FBI) as opposed to outright unconstitutional provisions (roving wiretaps).

1. Roving wiretaps are still around.
2. What's unconstitutional about them?

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

The worst parts of the PATRIOT ACT have been struck down or expired.

The parts that are in effect now are things mostly concerned with the process of tracking and defeating terrorism (such as cracking down on financial aid to terrorists, breaking the wall between the intelligence and law enforcement duties of the FBI) as opposed to outright unconstitutional provisions (roving wiretaps).

1. Roving wiretaps are still around.
2. What's unconstitutional about them?

Never thought I'd see the day where a liberal attempted to defend part of the PATRIOT Act as constitutional, while a conservative denounced that same part as unconstitutional...

[Wikkiwallana]

1. Roving wiretaps are still around.
2. What's unconstitutional about them?

Never thought I'd see the day where a liberal attempted to defend part of the PATRIOT Act as constitutional, while a conservative denounced that same part as unconstitutional...

I'm not actually defending it yet, as I haven't been given an argument to defend it against.

[Caninope]

1. Roving wiretaps are still around.
2. What's unconstitutional about them?

Never thought I'd see the day where a liberal attempted to defend part of the PATRIOT Act as constitutional, while a conservative denounced that same part as unconstitutional...

You've had quite a number of conservative/conservative libertarian groups go crazy over it.

Example: The Cato Institute.

[Caninope]

Never thought I'd see the day where a liberal attempted to defend part of the PATRIOT Act as constitutional, while a conservative denounced that same part as unconstitutional...

I'm not actually defending it yet, as I haven't been given an argument to defend it against.

Whoopsies. My bad. I was thinking "sneak and peek" not roving.

EDIT: NSL's also go without saying, at least in their current forms.

[The De Danann Nation]

Romney/Obama,either way,America's screwed.

[Pope Joan]

It looks like Rubio is indeed the next Sarah Palin.

Now to find some safe white Anglo Saxon male to be the real president, while Rubio smiles and waves.

That couldn't be Jeb Bush; too much Florida.

hmmm....?

[Greed and Death]

Since I made this thread I am allowed to kill it when it comes back as a zombie right ?

[Frisbeeteria]

Since I made this thread I am allowed to kill it when it comes back as a zombie right ?

No, but I can.