What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Gauthier]

Something like this?

Or something like this:

http://deskofbrian.com/wp-content/uploa ... Stalin.jpg

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/52 ... -52167.jpg

For a supposed libertarian, your partisanship reaches YGO proportions.

[Luveria]

Something like this?

(Image)

Or something like this:

http://deskofbrian.com/wp-content/uploa ... Stalin.jpg

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/52 ... -52167.jpg

What you are doing is propaganda against other parties.

My job is to create propaganda making the Republican Party look good. It gets better results.

[Ashmoria]

Reinstitute poll taxes and slavery. Good God, how can you not see that as a Poe?

I lost all sense of judgment when I fell into suicidal depression.

.....is that another term for the UK?

[Gauthier]

I lost all sense of judgment when I fell into suicidal depression.

.....is that another term for the UK?

Sounds more like a One Direction tribute band.

[Blakk Metal]

Many study for their drivers license. I said booklets would be free (they could be 40-50 pages, not textbooks). They have 3-4 hours to study if they care about voting. Skip a couple nights at the club and study about your national govt.

Driving is not the same as voting.

In most places the ability to drive is a necessity.

Question 1: Do carbon emissions need to be reduced in order to prevent drastic anthropogenic climate change?

No. A nuclear war will do fine.

[Ashmoria]

.....is that another term for the UK?

Sounds more like a One Direction tribute band.

its hard to imagine a more pathetic excuse for a tribute band so if he fell into that I can see why he would lose hope.

[Luveria]

.....is that another term for the UK?

Sounds more like a One Direction tribute band.

No, Suicidal Depression sounds like a metalcore band, and it doesn't seem to exist.

So.... if anyone here wants to use Suicidal Depression as your band name, be the first.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Driving is not the same as voting.

In most places the ability to drive is a necessity.

Question 1: Do carbon emissions need to be reduced in order to prevent drastic anthropogenic climate change?

No. A nuclear war will do fine.

Objection! A nuclear war will clearly cause major changes to Earth's climate

[Maineiacs]

In most places the ability to drive is a necessity.

No. A nuclear war will do fine.

Objection! A nuclear war will clearly cause major changes to Earth's climate

Nuclear winter is a naturally occurring, cyclical phenomenon caused by sunspots.

[New Chalcedon]

So, I see we're talking voting tests.

Maybe we should go to lynchings next, to make sure that people who vote undesireably don't have the guts to?

But in the spirit of helpful co-operation, here's a suggested short test of unambiguous yes/no questions to measure political education and practical knowledge.

Question 1: Do carbon emissions need to be reduced in order to prevent drastic anthropogenic climate change?

This question tests scientific knowledge and awareness of the practical evidence surrounding current policy debates, and therefore ensures that the prospective voter has an informed opinion and is qualified to consider such issues. The correct answer is 'yes'.

Question 2: Should schoolchildren be taught that the Earth was created in 7 days 6000 years ago?

This question tests scientific knowledge and approaches to education policy, particularly the contrast between imposing ideology and providing accurate information, and therefore ensures that the prospective voter is not likely to support candidates who wish to wield government power to brainwash or misinform young Americans. The correct answer is 'no'.

Question 3: Was the PPACA (Obamacare) introduced through legal means, with the support of a majority, and in accordance with the Constitution?

This question tests knowledge of current policy debates, government structure, and recent political history. It also touches on matters of the Supreme Court and judicial oversight of the legislative process, and ensures that the prospective voter. The correct answer is 'yes'.

Question 4: Does the presence of a gold border on the US flag in a courtroom denote it being a 'Court-Martial'?

This question tests knowledge of the legal history of the US, the practical workings of the judicial system, and the connection of the prospective voter to reality; thereby ensuring that they are casting a vote based on the actual workings of the US government. The correct answer is 'no'.

I'm sure we can all agree that this voting test is a fair and accurate way to examine the knowledge of prospective voters on several current political issues, the function and organisation of the government, and their ability to bring informed opinions to the ballot box. Therefore I move that it should be implemented at the first opportunity.

I can add another to that list: Does the current President of the United States fulfill the Constitutional eligibility criteria (natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age with at least 15 years' residency, winning a majority of the Electoral College) for that office?

Any answer but "yes" instantly disqualifies the answerer.

But of course, we realize that such a test would never be brought into existence, as it would effectively disqualify 90% of the Republican base.
Having said that, I find it telling that the Republican Party's partisans on this thread agree that the only way the GOP can win is by disenfranchising large chunks of the electorate, and attempting (rather pathetically) to defend said disenfranchisement by calling the bulk of the electorate "moochers" or "looters" or "parasites" or the like.

Ex-cuse me......who do you lot think is responsible for the "productive" Paris Hilton's fortune? The workers whose labor supports her, that's who!

[Freiheit Reich]

Or something like this:

http://deskofbrian.com/wp-content/uploa ... Stalin.jpg

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/52 ... -52167.jpg

For a supposed libertarian, your partisanship reaches YGO proportions.

I think Obama is more dangerous than Romney would have been. Both are against civil liberties and pro-foreign intervention but Obama wanted to push Obamacare to all states (instead of the less bad solution of states voting for it) and he is less friendly to businesses and he is less friendly on gun rights. I think in 2016, the republicans will be the lesser of 2 evils (although both suck).

If Obama was not so hypocritical (ex. keeping the Patriot Act, raising the debt ceiling) than he would have been a better choice than Romney (although still bad).

I am hoping the republicans move towards libertarian views. When the democrats cause the USA to collapse (which they are doing, we will be the next Greece in a few years) than the improved republican party will be seen as the ones with wisdom. The current path that the republicans are taking in their support of big govt. solutions (while saying big govt. is bad) is foolish.

[Blasveck]

For a supposed libertarian, your partisanship reaches YGO proportions.

I think Obama is more dangerous than Romney would have been. Both are against civil liberties and pro-foreign intervention but Obama wanted to push Obamacare to all states (instead of the less bad solution of states voting for it) and he is less friendly to businesses and he is less friendly on gun rights. I think in 2016, the republicans will be the lesser of 2 evils (although both suck).

If Obama was not so hypocritical (ex. keeping the Patriot Act, raising the debt ceiling) than he would have been a better choice than Romney (although still bad).

I am hoping the republicans move towards libertarian views. When the democrats cause the USA to collapse (which they are doing, we will be the next Greece in a few years) than the improved republican party will be seen as the ones with wisdom. The current path that the republicans are taking in their support of big govt. solutions (while saying big govt. is bad) is foolish.

You seemed only slightly misinformed up until this point.

Then, you lost me.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Obama wanted to push Obamacare to all states (instead of the less bad solution of states voting for it)

I fail to see how the latter is preferable to the former.

and he is less friendly to businesses and he is less friendly on gun rights.

These are good things, inasmuch as they both works towards general common prosperity and individual liberty.

I am hoping the republicans move towards libertarian views.

By libertarian, you mean communist, yes? Since libertarianism is communism--communism is the pinnacle of human freedom.

The current path that the republicans are taking in their support of big govt. solutions (while saying big govt. is bad) is foolish.

Do you have any intentions of developing your analysis beyond the ludicrously simplistic "big government is bad" trope? Because until you do, you will not be saying anything of value.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

For a supposed libertarian, your partisanship reaches YGO proportions.

I think Obama is more dangerous than Romney would have been. Both are against civil liberties and pro-foreign intervention but Obama wanted to push Obamacare to all states (instead of the less bad solution of states voting for it) and he is less friendly to businesses and he is less friendly on gun rights. I think in 2016, the republicans will be the lesser of 2 evils (although both suck).

If Obama was not so hypocritical (ex. keeping the Patriot Act, raising the debt ceiling) than he would have been a better choice than Romney (although still bad).

I am hoping the republicans move towards libertarian views. When the democrats cause the USA to collapse (which they are doing, we will be the next Greece in a few years) than the improved republican party will be seen as the ones with wisdom. The current path that the republicans are taking in their support of big govt. solutions (while saying big govt. is bad) is foolish.

Considering that libertarian views have been out there for decades, but have never managed to rise about a comparatively minor level of support, what causes you to think that making them part of the GOP platform will suddenly cause them greater success? Several of the items you listed earlier were absolute non-starters in today's political climate, and yet you seem to believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that if the nation just hears the arguments in their favor (as if they haven't already), then the fortunes of the Republicans, and yea, the entire nation will turn around.

So tell me: Why do you think that this path leads to power for them?

[Alien Space Bats]

The GOP has conceded to leftist rhetoric for too long, and we are paying the price. Even the Tea Party has fostered a strong anti-rich attitude in their opposition to open campaign financing and other ways the most productive minority in the world is permitted advocate policies that benefit us all. Because we have bent to the ideal of "good government", good here being defined as a system that gives as much weight to the vote of a welfare mooch as it does a job creator, an influx of uneducated minorities and the degradation of voting process is an all-too-valid tool for the Democratic Party.

I've never been a fan of the poll tax, but with the increasing predominance of the poor and immigrant voting bloc, it may be time to introduce one.

You'll have to amend the Constitution to do that.

The hispanic vote is not large enough to stop a constitutional amendment, and the vast majority of Americans are strongly opposed to illegal immigration. It's quite realistic; the only reason the party isn't attempting such a repeal right now is due to a lack of charismatic and driven leadership and because some within the party have the misguided idea that the way forward is to win the immigrant vote, which the GOP has never held.

You'll never see the 14th Amendment repealed, either. Why? Two reasons:

• Repealing the 14th Amendment would allow States to violate the rights of their residents at will, without regard to the Bill of Rights. Yes, all States currently have their own Bills of Rights, but those can easily be overturned by popular vote. You love the rich, yet what protection would they have if a State like New York or California repealed the obligation to compensate them for the seizure of their property under eminent domain?
  
  The rich need their rights as much as the poor do, and they need them guaranteed at ALL levels of government, not just the Federal level.
  
  
• The 14th Amendment was a Constitutional override of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); repeal it and Dred Scott once more becomes the law of the land.
  
  Under Dred Scott, no person of African descent (in whole or in part) can EVER hold office in the United States, or bring suit in the Federal Courts, or have any legal rights at all under the Federal Constitition. The ruling is very specific: It does not restrict itself to slaves, but embraces all such persons on the SPECIFIC grounds of African ethnicity.
  
  There's no fucking way on Earth that such a move would EVER be approved in this country; if it somehow was, it would turn America into a pariah nation, subject to global embargo, and would provoke a full-blown revolution here at home.

And yes, I too call Poe.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

The 14th Amendment was a Constitutional override of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); repeal it and Dred Scott once more becomes the law of the land.

I think that's the whole point.

[Blakk Metal]

The GOP has conceded to leftist rhetoric for too long, and we are paying the price. Even the Tea Party has fostered a strong anti-rich attitude in their opposition to open campaign financing and other ways the most productive minority in the world is permitted advocate policies that benefit us all. Because we have bent to the ideal of "good government", good here being defined as a system that gives as much weight to the vote of a welfare mooch as it does a job creator, an influx of uneducated minorities and the degradation of voting process is an all-too-valid tool for the Democratic Party.

I've never been a fan of the poll tax, but with the increasing predominance of the poor and immigrant voting bloc, it may be time to introduce one.

You'll have to amend the Constitution to do that.

The hispanic vote is not large enough to stop a constitutional amendment, and the vast majority of Americans are strongly opposed to illegal immigration. It's quite realistic; the only reason the party isn't attempting such a repeal right now is due to a lack of charismatic and driven leadership and because some within the party have the misguided idea that the way forward is to win the immigrant vote, which the GOP has never held.

You'll never see the 14th Amendment repealed, either. Why? Two reasons:

• Repealing the 14th Amendment would allow States to violate the rights of their residents at will, without regard to the Bill of Rights. Yes, all States currently have their own Bills of Rights, but those can easily be overturned by popular vote. You love the rich, yet what protection would they have if a State like New York or California repealed the obligation to compensate them for the seizure of their property under eminent domain?
  
  The rich need their rights as much as the poor do, and they need them guaranteed at ALL levels of government, not just the Federal level.
  
  
• The 14th Amendment was a Constitutional override of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); repeal it and Dred Scott once more becomes the law of the land.
  
  Under Dred Scott, no person of African descent (in whole or in part) can EVER hold office in the United States, or bring suit in the Federal Courts, or have any legal rights at all under the Federal Constitition. The ruling is very specific: It does not restrict itself to slaves, but embraces all such persons on the SPECIFIC grounds of African ethnicity.
  
  There's no fucking way on Earth that such a move would EVER be approved in this country; if it somehow was, it would turn America into a pariah nation, subject to global embargo, and would provoke a full-blown revolution here at home.

And yes, I too call Poe.

I know to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment without causing a clusterfuck: Have the Supreme Court rule that the Fourteen Amendment was improperly ratified, since its ratification was forced, and then overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford using current scientific evidence.

[Alien Space Bats]

If you think the USA capital city is New York City than you shouldn't be voting.

What about people who reject evolution, or believe in Austrian economics? Can we keep them from voting out of ignorance, too?

[Maineiacs]

I know to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment without causing a clusterfuck: Have the Supreme Court rule that the Fourteen Amendment was improperly ratified, since its ratification was forced, and then overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford using current scientific evidence.

Dear God, please don't give them any ideas! A new overturn, with appeal after appeal, could take years; and with this Court, wouldn't necessarily be assured.

[Luveria]

If you think the USA capital city is New York City than you shouldn't be voting.

What about people who reject evolution, or believe in Austrian economics? Can we keep them from voting out of ignorance, too?

That doesn't sound so bad...

[Mollary]

If you think the USA capital city is New York City than you shouldn't be voting.

What about people who reject evolution, or believe in Austrian economics? Can we keep them from voting out of ignorance, too?

In fairness, while I disagree with those who believe in it, I can see why people believe in Austrian economics.

[Luveria]

What about people who reject evolution, or believe in Austrian economics? Can we keep them from voting out of ignorance, too?

In fairness, while I disagree with those who believe in it, I can see why people believe in Austrian economics.

I don't.

[Mollary]

In fairness, while I disagree with those who believe in it, I can see why people believe in Austrian economics.

I don't.

Well, what with the whole 'individual rights stuff', I can see why some would buy into it. Even if in reality, when implemented, it leads to massive inequality and more frequent and severe economic downturn.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

What about people who reject evolution, or believe in Austrian economics? Can we keep them from voting out of ignorance, too?

In fairness, while I disagree with those who believe in it, I can see why people believe in Austrian economics.

Sure.

For one, it absolves them of the necessity of critical analysis, which is a lot of hard work.

For two, it allows them to define their desire to oppress and exploit others as "freedom." Obviously, it's not--the Austrian world is the epitome of authoritarianism--but this way they have the linguistic tools to try and evade that fact, at least as long as they limit their interactions to other non-critically-minded folk.

[Mollary]

In fairness, while I disagree with those who believe in it, I can see why people believe in Austrian economics.

Sure.

For one, it absolves them of the necessity of critical analysis, which is a lot of hard work.

For two, it allows them to define their desire to oppress and exploit others as "freedom." Obviously, it's not--the Austrian world is the epitome of authoritarianism--but this way they have the linguistic tools to try and evade that fact, at least as long as they limit their interactions to other non-critically-minded folk.

Indeed; although I doubt the majority of people who believe in it are aiming for that specifically. More, they are taken into the rhetoric that calls for Austrian economics these days and ignore the evidence that it doesn't work.