The State of the Republican Party Post-2017

[Republic of the Cristo]

The point had nothing to do with voter fraud, and everything to do with people casting bad votes. People cast bad votes, but we still extend the right to vote to them. Why?

Because it's a fine line between telling stupid people they can't vote and getting shut out ourselves because we're on the wrong side of a political divide, and no one wants to be disenfranchised. You'd think, as someone who regularly complains about how he's disenfranchised by the Democratic Party's stances, you'd be more sympathetic and see the nuances that make this pretty much impossible to approach (to say nothing of the historical baggage).

I agree with him that we need to restrict voting to fewer people - but it needs to be based upon tests of basic political knowledge. The uninformed should not be allowed to vote.

It's all fun and games till some clever party operatives from the other side are writing that "political knowledge" test :^)

Which is easily fixed by making the information on the test about basic political questions with objective answers.

There''s no way to construe, " what is the 6th amendment "

[Petrasylvania]

You mean people can't get guns based on preexisting conditions and have a lifetime cap on guns they can get right now? Where are the disarmament panels?

Yup, yup, Sacramento...

Sacramento can block people from buying guns in other states now? I guess states' rights only applies to things you like.

[Senkaku]

Because it's a fine line between telling stupid people they can't vote and getting shut out ourselves because we're on the wrong side of a political divide, and no one wants to be disenfranchised. You'd think, as someone who regularly complains about how he's disenfranchised by the Democratic Party's stances, you'd be more sympathetic and see the nuances that make this pretty much impossible to approach (to say nothing of the historical baggage).


It's all fun and games till some clever party operatives from the other side are writing that "political knowledge" test :^)

Which is easily fixed by making the information on the test about basic political questions with objective answers.

There''s no way to construe, " what is the 6th amendment "

And who is going to be making this test, etc etc. I have myself full confidence that our brightest political operatives would quickly figure out how to subvert it and use it to suppress opposition voting.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Which is easily fixed by making the information on the test about basic political questions with objective answers.

There''s no way to construe, " what is the 6th amendment "

And who is going to be making this test, etc etc. I have myself full confidence that our brightest political operatives would quickly figure out how to subvert it and use it to suppress opposition voting.

An independent committee dedicated to producing the test. Your points are nonsense. Not only can you not construe this information, people would be able to raise public complaints in any event of attempted bias.

This test would ensure that only knowledgeable and dedicated citizens are allowed to vote for the leaders of our country.

[Senkaku]

And who is going to be making this test, etc etc. I have myself full confidence that our brightest political operatives would quickly figure out how to subvert it and use it to suppress opposition voting.

An independent committee dedicated to producing the test.

And how are the members of this committee appointed? It's nice to say "independent committee", but then you have to deal with the thorny problem of how to actually make it independent and keep it that way.

Not only can you not construe this information, people would be able to raise public complaints in any event of attempted bias.

This test would ensure that only knowledgeable and dedicated citizens are allowed to vote for the leaders of our country.

Despite the fact this would probably be good for educated elites like me, I think there's way too much possibility for this to turn into a slippery slope to let it happen.

I also have some questions- would you take this once when you first register (and would schools be teaching to it with, say, a new national civics curriculum), or every year or every other year or every four years or what? Would you be able to take it on Election Day and get your pass-fail grade back on the same day so you don't have to take time out on two separate days to deal with voting stuff (and would we be introducing holidays or something to make that viable for poor voters)? How long would it be? Would it be short-answer or multiple choice or a mix? How would it be graded- do you have to ace it, or is there a level of ignorance we're willing to tolerate (and how do we decide what that is)? Would the test get revised over the year by the committee?

[Telconi]

Yup, yup, Sacramento...

Sacramento can block people from buying guns in other states now? I guess states' rights only applies to things you like.

States rights don't apply to constitutionally protected rights, never , ever.

[Republic of the Cristo]

An independent committee dedicated to producing the test.

And how are the members of this committee appointed? It's nice to say "independent committee", but then you have to deal with the thorny problem of how to actually make it independent and keep it that way.

Not only can you not construe this information, people would be able to raise public complaints in any event of attempted bias.

This test would ensure that only knowledgeable and dedicated citizens are allowed to vote for the leaders of our country.

Despite the fact this would probably be good for educated elites like me, I think there's way too much possibility for this to turn into a slippery slope to let it happen.

I also have some questions- would you take this once when you first register (and would schools be teaching to it with, say, a new national civics curriculum), or every year or every other year or every four years or what? Would you be able to take it on Election Day and get your pass-fail grade back on the same day so you don't have to take time out on two separate days to deal with voting stuff (and would we be introducing holidays or something to make that viable for poor voters)? How long would it be? Would it be short-answer or multiple choice or a mix? How would it be graded- do you have to ace it, or is there a level of ignorance we're willing to tolerate (and how do we decide what that is)? Would the test get revised over the year by the committee?

1. Ensure a political equilibrium amongst committee members to ensire no one party maintains control.

2. You would need to pass said test in order to registerling as as voter. You would need to retake it every four years from the time you originally took said test. Civics curriculum would stay the exact same ( you are pretty much just retaking the constitution test only now with some contemporary questions thrown in ).

[Senkaku]

And how are the members of this committee appointed? It's nice to say "independent committee", but then you have to deal with the thorny problem of how to actually make it independent and keep it that way.

Despite the fact this would probably be good for educated elites like me, I think there's way too much possibility for this to turn into a slippery slope to let it happen.

I also have some questions- would you take this once when you first register (and would schools be teaching to it with, say, a new national civics curriculum), or every year or every other year or every four years or what? Would you be able to take it on Election Day and get your pass-fail grade back on the same day so you don't have to take time out on two separate days to deal with voting stuff (and would we be introducing holidays or something to make that viable for poor voters)? How long would it be? Would it be short-answer or multiple choice or a mix? How would it be graded- do you have to ace it, or is there a level of ignorance we're willing to tolerate (and how do we decide what that is)? Would the test get revised over the year by the committee?

1. Ensure a political equilibrium amongst committee members to ensire no one party maintains control.

And how do you do that, assuming you also want to avoid deadlocks? Who's responsible for appointing people to this committee? Are they elected? Or is it just independent committees all the way down?

2. You would need to pass said test in order to registerling as as voter. You would need to retake it every four years from the time you originally took said test. Civics curriculum would stay the exact same ( you are pretty much just retaking the constitution test only now with some contemporary questions thrown in ).

Well, we don't really have a national civics curriculum, since school districts in the US generally have a high degree of autonomy, and Civics isn't even always a required class... so you're saying "don't bother trying to prepare people or giving them a level playing field" when it comes to exercising their right to vote, which you'd like to restrict?

[Northern Davincia]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bush- ... spartanntp
Arlenton, thy name is Bush.

[Petrasylvania]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bush-41-becomes-longest-living-president-in-us-history/ar-BBFCAnr?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
Arlenton, thy name is Bush.

They jinxed it.

[Lake Crossing]

In its current form the Republican Party has completely abandoned traditional conservatism.

The Founding Fathers distrusted the raw passions of mankind, and even the most democratic among them supported safeguards in the Constitution to ensure that ambitious rulers appealing to our worst nature would be limited in their influence. Donald Trump is the epitome of their concerns. Populist voters, driven by anger and hopelessly uninformed as to politics, turned out in droves to support someone who would "Make America Great Again" by jeopardizing our liberty. Muslim Americans (who voted majority Republican as recently as 2000 and many of whom retain virtuous standards as to living) have been demonized, private property rights in states like Nebraska are being threatened by the Keystone XL pipeline, and no respect has been shown by the part of the President for the limitations the Constitution places on his authority. The Gorsuch nomination is the only substantive positive for conservatives that has been seen since January. Things like pulling out of Paris are empty gestures that just make noise.

[Unrelated to policy, so much for conservatives being the defenders of traditional values and morality. I guess vulgar politicians with disgusting demeanors are OK as long as they have an R next to their names.]

I abhor almost everything the Democratic Party stands for. But superdelegates is one thing they got right. By allowing party elders (people who have experience in public life) to temper popular sentiment, demagogues are more easily avoided. I would postulate that Bernie Sanders, by framing his politics around the "1 percent," espoused a demagoguery of his own. Not the same as Trump, and perhaps not as toxic. But ultimately, blaming any one group in society for our ills is dangerous territory.

Wikipedia says that the GOP is at its strongest point in terms of offices held since the 1920's. But in philosophy, it is bankrupt and worthless.

[Hakons]

What’s wrong with a little poll tax?

So people should have to pay money in order to vote?

But the courts say otherwise...

Well the courts are wrong.

I'm not sure about other states, but the Indiana BMV is required to "issue an Indiana State ID Card for free," if an adult doesn't have an ID. The only inhibition is that the adult has to contact the BMV.

[Arlenton]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bush-41-becomes-longest-living-president-in-us-history/ar-BBFCAnr?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
Arlenton, thy name is Bush.

Cool! Never knew that.

[Arlenton]

In its current form the Republican Party has completely abandoned traditional conservatism.

The Founding Fathers distrusted the raw passions of mankind, and even the most democratic among them supported safeguards in the Constitution to ensure that ambitious rulers appealing to our worst nature would be limited in their influence. Donald Trump is the epitome of their concerns. Populist voters, driven by anger and hopelessly uninformed as to politics, turned out in droves to support someone who would "Make America Great Again" by jeopardizing our liberty. Muslim Americans (who voted majority Republican as recently as 2000 and many of whom retain virtuous standards as to living) have been demonized, private property rights in states like Nebraska are being threatened by the Keystone XL pipeline, and no respect has been shown by the part of the President for the limitations the Constitution places on his authority. The Gorsuch nomination is the only substantive positive for conservatives that has been seen since January. Things like pulling out of Paris are empty gestures that just make noise.

[Unrelated to policy, so much for conservatives being the defenders of traditional values and morality. I guess vulgar politicians with disgusting demeanors are OK as long as they have an R next to their names.]

I abhor almost everything the Democratic Party stands for. But superdelegates is one thing they got right. By allowing party elders (people who have experience in public life) to temper popular sentiment, demagogues are more easily avoided. I would postulate that Bernie Sanders, by framing his politics around the "1 percent," espoused a demagoguery of his own. Not the same as Trump, and perhaps not as toxic. But ultimately, blaming any one group in society for our ills is dangerous territory.

Wikipedia says that the GOP is at its strongest point in terms of offices held since the 1920's. But in philosophy, it is bankrupt and worthless.

Hey, IDK if I fit your definition of "traditional conservatism, but I'm 100% behind the pipeline. I thought most conservative factions were as well.

[Arlenton]

Thought this was interesting. W won 5 out of the 10 counties with the largest population (as of 2016) in 2004. Trump only won 1 out of the 10 in 2016. Really shows the trend the party has taken.

Blue=Democrat win
Red=Republican win

2004
Los Angeles (Los Angeles)
Cook (Chicago)
Harris (Houston)
Maricopa (Phoenix)
San Diego (San Diego)
Orange (Anaheim)
Miami-Dade (Miami)
Kings (NYC)
Dallas (Dallas)
Queens (NYC)


2016
Los Angeles (Los Angeles)
Cook (Chicago)
Harris (Houston)
Maricopa (Phoenix)
San Diego (San Diego)
Orange (Anaheim)
Miami-Dade (Miami)
Kings (NYC)
Dallas (Dallas)
Queens (NYC)


I should add more lol.

[Northern Davincia]

Thought this was interesting. W won 5 out of the 10 counties with the largest population (as of 2016) in 2004. Trump only won 1 out of the 10 in 2016. Really shows the trend the party has taken.

Blue=Democrat win
Red=Republican win

2004
Los Angeles (Los Angeles)
Cook (Chicago)
Harris (Houston)
Maricopa (Phoenix)
San Diego (San Diego)
Orange (Anaheim)
Miami-Dade (Miami)
Kings (NYC)
Dallas (Dallas)
Queens (NYC)


2016
Los Angeles (Los Angeles)
Cook (Chicago)
Harris (Houston)
Maricopa (Phoenix)
San Diego (San Diego)
Orange (Anaheim)
Miami-Dade (Miami)
Kings (NYC)
Dallas (Dallas)
Queens (NYC)


I should add more lol.

Or it could be a sign of the country's general change in velocity.

[Arlenton]

Thought this was interesting. W won 5 out of the 10 counties with the largest population (as of 2016) in 2004. Trump only won 1 out of the 10 in 2016. Really shows the trend the party has taken.

Blue=Democrat win
Red=Republican win

2004
Los Angeles (Los Angeles)
Cook (Chicago)
Harris (Houston)
Maricopa (Phoenix)
San Diego (San Diego)
Orange (Anaheim)
Miami-Dade (Miami)
Kings (NYC)
Dallas (Dallas)
Queens (NYC)


2016
Los Angeles (Los Angeles)
Cook (Chicago)
Harris (Houston)
Maricopa (Phoenix)
San Diego (San Diego)
Orange (Anaheim)
Miami-Dade (Miami)
Kings (NYC)
Dallas (Dallas)
Queens (NYC)


I should add more lol.

Or it could be a sign of the country's general change in velocity.

What do you mean?

[Northern Davincia]

Or it could be a sign of the country's general change in velocity.

What do you mean?

Large cities are practically the only reason why Democrats win at all anymore. The divide between urban and rural has gone to new extremes in recent years.

[Arlenton]

What do you mean?

Large cities are practically the only reason why Democrats win at all anymore. The divide between urban and rural has gone to new extremes in recent years.

You're right for the most part, but it's more complicated than that. Republicans, with Trump, have actually done better in urban areas that are primarily working class. While at the same time have started doing worse in more well off urban areas.

See what I mean about the trend?

[Valrifell]

What do you mean?

Large cities are practically the only reason why Democrats win at all anymore. The divide between urban and rural has gone to new extremes in recent years.

You make it sound as if cities aren't where the majority of people live.

[Valrifell]

Large cities are practically the only reason why Democrats win at all anymore. The divide between urban and rural has gone to new extremes in recent years.

You're right for the most part, but it's more complicated than that. Republicans, with Trump, have actually done better in urban areas that are primarily working class. While at the same time have started doing worse in more well off urban areas.

See what I mean about the trend?

Republicans under Trump seem to be sacrificing wealthy suburbanites in an effort to court the same lower-class of people that people still claim Trump won with great success. From my perspective, it's backfiring terribly and the losses are not making up the gains.

[Arlenton]

Large cities are practically the only reason why Democrats win at all anymore. The divide between urban and rural has gone to new extremes in recent years.

You make it sound as if cities aren't where the majority of people live.

Depends on what you mean by "city", isn't it?

[Arlenton]

You're right for the most part, but it's more complicated than that. Republicans, with Trump, have actually done better in urban areas that are primarily working class. While at the same time have started doing worse in more well off urban areas.

See what I mean about the trend?

Republicans under Trump seem to be sacrificing wealthy suburbanites in an effort to court the same lower-class of people that people still claim Trump won with great success. From my perspective, it's backfiring terribly and the losses are not making up the gains.

I agree.

Though I wish we could win both.

[Senkaku]

You make it sound as if cities aren't where the majority of people live.

Depends on what you mean by "city", isn't it?

Feel free to contort the English language until it serves your narrative.

[Arlenton]

Depends on what you mean by "city", isn't it?

Feel free to contort the English language until it serves your narrative.

So 80% of the population lives in a city?

Never knew the small suburb nearby was the same as NYC.