Where does the GOP go from here?

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:54 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Thud wrote:In recent history it's the Dems who've driven down the debt...
If you mean Clinton

He doesn't.

climber511 · Post by **climber511** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:10 pm

Where should both parties go? How about go to work solving the countries problems for a change? Instead of playing politics and trying to get reelected for half of each term. Two years we had to endure this election process - WTH - for two whole years the government was practically shut down. There really does have to be abetter way.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:16 pm

Asking political parties not to play politics is childlike naivete, it's what they do. It's up to people to hold them accountable, exerting their influence through donations and votes.

Thud · Post by **Thud** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:32 pm

JonnyCat wrote:Thud, I know you were addressing SFM, but I feel compelled to say I was only slightly less pessimistic voting for Romney than I would have been had I voted for Obama. I seriously doubt Romney would have been able to do much to stop the problems that are coming. My prime motivation for voting for Romney was to try to put someone in the White House who was not so friendly to the Muslim Brotherhood and who would at least try to cut the spending and limit or reverse things like Obamacare, which I believe will worsen our already insane debt problems.

Not maybe the most well-thought out reasons, but, well, there you go. At least I can articulate why I think Romney would be a better choice than Obama even if those arguments are easily dismantled or a President Romney might not be very effective in handling the situations I mentioned. I think we, as a nation, are way too far out to sea to be 'fixed' but I had hoped Romney might have been able to hold things together for a little while longer and that, by some miracle, we as a nation might wake up a little, see the danger we're in - and possibly find a way to ween ourselves off the quantative easing teat and deal with the stealthy infiltration of Islam into our government and social fabric. I'm really a small "L" libertarian, but I was also realistic about that party's chances and what effect giving my vote to the Libetarians would produce.

In the end, I don't think it really matters at this point, except that I believe Obama's plans will hasten the inevitable misery people I respect on opposite ends of the political spectrum see coming. I think Tuesday was a clear message from America to the world we have no intention of cleaning up our economic mess and the door to the White House has been kicked wide-open to the Muslim Brotherhood. I also think we just gave Israel the finger as well. I know a lot of people here have a decidely unfavorable view of Israel, but I do not, and it has bothered me how Obama just can't be bothered to give much time to Benjamin Netanyahu. A lot pundits think it's alarmist claptrack to be very concerned about these things or they think you need to wear a tin-foil hat, but economies are failing all over the place in big and small ways and the Islamic world is emboldened and empowered like never before. These are troubling times, for me, at least and it bothers me that so many people around me don't see or don't want to see the threats that are very real and will be addressed sooner or later. That these issues are not politically convenient or are difficult for Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart to spin on Comedy Central has meant they have been minimized to the periphery or ignored by the voting populace. It's also frustrating to see people line up to make magic underwear jokes but refuse to truly stand up against the rise of tyrannies, soft and hard, because, I don't know, it's not 'cool and stuff.'

If/when America bottoms, there's not going to be really a way to course-correct, in my opinion, and the vast majority of my peers can't or won't see that. I think it's just a form of sticking one's head in the sand as most of them can't even handle losing power fo a few days or know how to change a flat tire. I'm not much better, but at least I acknowledge that disasters happen all the time (see last week with Hurrican Sandy) and the government is now primarily in the clean-up business and not in the loss-prevention business.

Cat man, I hear you. It's just that economically things have not gone better under republican presidents, they've gone worse. Obama and Clinton before him have reduced the burgeoning debts inherited from Reagan, and 2 Bushes. It's a misguided myth that Repugs do better.

The thing is, the new economic realities are not going to be in our favor regardless. We have an aging population which will mean loss a of workforce/tax revenues, etc, and low paying jobs for the poor are either going over seas or being replaced by robotics (ie, cashiers)

The largest problem in my opinion is the increasing wealth disparity. What made this country an economic dynamo was it's broad, expanding middle class, much of which was funded by government spending (ie, WWII and building the highways). But now the middle class is eroding, pay goes down even while productivity goes up, and the lions share of the revenues go to a diminishing few (the wealthy).

This wealth disparity is the highest in the industrialized world.

We rank second in the world in child poverty:

And 47th in the world in infant mortality:

These numbers are deplorable for the richest/greatest country in the world and wanting to shaft the poor more is not the answer. The concept that some sort of socialized medicine, like the rest of the industrialized world has, is immoral is beyond absurd. This is the company we keep:

Anyway, I gotta run, gonna leave it at this for now.

JonnyCat · Post by **JonnyCat** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:00 pm

Thanks for providing that data, Thud. Lots for me to chew on and I will readily revize my opinions in light of hard facts. As I saw it, Romney was the lesser of two evils, but by the slimmest of margins. I had a real fear Romney would have won and things would have gone sour just as quickly and that would be the end of any conservative credibility (it's already been worn down - both from within and without). I don't think all liberal ideas are crazy, nor do I think all conservatives have some kind of sage wisdom. Conversely, I don't hate successful people because they are wealthy, pity poor people who make consistently stupid decisions and I try not to discount the truth just because I don't personally like the person who said it. Ideally, the two main parties would cancel out the excesses that plague each faction, but I see less and less of that. Things are snafued beyond all reason now, but it's been building for a long time and blaming any one individual is kind of pointless. I would personally just like whoever is in charge to put the breaks on the descent instead of flooring it, but maybe that's just putting a band-aid on a tumor. The whole enterprise is out of control (the U.S. Debt Clock blows my mind). It doesn't take much more than gauging the social climate to see how people think and because of that, I knew who was going to win and I have a strong hunch what will happen when we have our meltdown. Not that there's much I can do about that, either.

As FatCat pointed out, political games are how the big boys roll and it's naïve to think otherwise. I tend towards naïveté, honestly, but I'm getting too old now to believe something just because I want it to be true. Just wish the average schmoe who is just scraping by didn't have to eat the mistakes of their leaders, but that's how it always has been and won't likely ever change.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:34 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
DARTH wrote: And be ready to die like one.

Can't wait to see how much brown love libs have when it all goes Thunderdome and they are getting beat down for their food and their woman is being raped by the kind of people who's rights they were so concerned about.
25 consecutive months of job growth.
Eh? Be careful with that number, it's easily picked apart.
Didn't know that. Here's the unemployment rate trend from the Bureau of Labor Stats:

If the picking apart involves underemployment or people who have stopped seeking jobs, that's always been true with the unemployment rate, and hasn't affected it's use as an economic indicator. Down good, up bad.

The primary use of the unemployment rate is as a political tool-- probably because it's the only employment indicator that politicians and newscasters even partially understand.

I know just enough labor economics to be dangerous, but the number of discouraged workers has increased significantly over the last four years. If there was a significant perceived non-seasonal increase in employment, it is likely that a lot of those discouraged workers would reenter the job market-- this would be good, but may not be reflected in the unemployment numbers.

Obamacare is the indicator to watch-- if Obama implements it in a way that significantly decreases private and public sector insurance costs, the employment picture will get better. If not, or if he kicks the can down the road until 2016, it will likely get much worse.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:11 am

JonnyCat wrote:Thanks for providing that data, Thud. Lots for me to chew on and I will readily revize my opinions in light of hard facts. As I saw it, Romney was the lesser of two evils, but by the slimmest of margins. I had a real fear Romney would have won and things would have gone sour just as quickly and that would be the end of any conservative credibility (it's already been worn down - both from within and without). I don't think all liberal ideas are crazy, nor do I think all conservatives have some kind of sage wisdom. Conversely, I don't hate successful people because they are wealthy, pity poor people who make consistently stupid decisions and I try not to discount the truth just because I don't personally like the person who said it. Ideally, the two main parties would cancel out the excesses that plague each faction, but I see less and less of that. Things are snafued beyond all reason now, but it's been building for a long time and blaming any one individual is kind of pointless. I would personally just like whoever is in charge to put the breaks on the descent instead of flooring it, but maybe that's just putting a band-aid on a tumor. The whole enterprise is out of control (the U.S. Debt Clock blows my mind). It doesn't take much more than gauging the social climate to see how people think and because of that, I knew who was going to win and I have a strong hunch what will happen when we have our meltdown. Not that there's much I can do about that, either.

As FatCat pointed out, political games are how the big boys roll and it's naïve to think otherwise. I tend towards naïveté, honestly, but I'm getting too old now to believe something just because I want it to be true. Just wish the average schmoe who is just scraping by didn't have to eat the mistakes of their leaders, but that's how it always has been and won't likely ever change.

Look at some additional hard facts...and maybe some soft facts such as your own two eyes and ability to reason. Or, join the Democrat party and move to Portugal. Portugal rated well in Thud's key metrics and things are going swimmingly there. The Dems had zero complicity in any of those deficits in the USA too.

Once the Dems squeeze a few % out of the millionaires and billionaires we're in for smooth sailing and a glorious new dawn. I think millionaire starts at around $250K but that's OK by me. I'm joining up tomorrow.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:04 am

Herv100 wrote:
Thud wrote:
I know you're trying to sound less than partisan, but I just have this sneaky suspicion you'd be a tad less somber if Romney and his neo-con Patriot Act'ors were elected.

You realize that Obama has voted for the Patriot Act every time? And approved the NDAA(indefinite detention)? And several other warrantless wiretap, domestic drone use, and various Spy bills? Also has executed an American citizen without trial, has kept Guantanamo open, has a secret kill list carried out by the CIA, and has invaded several more countries in the Mideast/Africa? LMAO! He has out-neoconned the neocons.

GWB was a wolf in wolf's clothing. It is laughable when people say that he was a war criminal or terror on human rights and then support Obama.

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:09 am

The GOP doesn't need to change anything.

They were running against an incumbent and put forth a candidate who wasn't even really supported by his supporters. BHO had a questionable economic record and no real plans for improvement in the next four years though the GOP, who had two guys with strong background in the area, released virtually none of their "plan", if such a plan existed. Their platform on women's issues assured that they were going to lose a large segment of moderates and they didn't seem to be able to coordinate a media campaign worth a damn. All this, and they came close in the popular vote and maintained the House.

JonnyCat · Post by **JonnyCat** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:23 am

This damning report was what sealed the vote for me and it came out several weeks ago - plenty of time to stuff it down the throats of the Democrats. Since he had already been painted as an evil rich, uncaring bastard by the Dems, Chris Matthews and just about every major media company, I'm surprised Romney and the GOP didn't say, "Screw it!" swing for the fences and make serious hay with this:

http://www.investigativeproject.org/377 ... hite-house

Realize some of you no clicky the links, so here's a snip:

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has secured the closest working relationship with the Obama White House despite a record of anti-Semitism, whitewashing the terrorist threat and hostility toward law enforcement. Fifteen MPAC officials have been welcomed by the White House. Executive Director Salam al-Marayati enjoyed at least six White House visits between September 2009 and July 2011, mostly involving meetings with Monteiro. Alejandro Beutel, who was MPAC's government liaison until July 2012, had 10 White House visits between July 2010 and May 2012.

Whatever doubts I had about Romney evaporated when I read that article. I wouldn't have cared if Romney had campaigned in his magic underwear, I would have still voted for him based on how cozy the Obama administration is with the Muslim Brotherhood. It's this kind of stuff that makes me apoplectic about Obama's second-term and made me wonder what is wrong with the people running the Republican party and or the American people. Romney's team should have gone full-throttle with this. Had I not stumbled on the the link perusing Drudge a few weeks ago, I would not have known this information even existed. If you can't take down your opponent with this wretched economy and his administration's association with known, documented terrorists something is wrong. At the very least they should have tied Benghazi with this info and said, "Explain yourself, Barak. What is up with this?" I would have put the screws to the Obama administration to the very end.

I don't know if would have made a difference, but it got me off the fence.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:41 am

Let it Burn!

The Republic was killed over 100 years ago by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. We've been fighting to preserve a ghost.

The American people are a bunch of degenerates interested in nothing but TV, handouts and stuffing their fat faces.Devoid of virtue, work ethic, and any knowledge or appreciation of our Constitution; they deserve to be slaves.

Direct election of Senators
The income taxes
The federal reserve
Universal suffrage

This is how our once great Republic was destroyed.

I'd Hit It · Post by **I'd Hit It** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:56 am

America died over 100 years ago? Direct election of Senators and universal suffrage is a bad thing? Do you seriously believe these things? If America died 100 years ago does that mean you're not American? Or the America that fought in WWII was not America? Women and black people should not be allowed to vote? We were better when lynching was cool and black people were segregated? There is a certain point where you start longing for a history that was so long ago, that was so separate from the current time period, that it isn't the present that's un-American--it's you, and your outdated notions of what freedom, equality, and America represents. Countries change. Values change. Tell me what else in the past 100 years we should throw out. How about penicillin? Its discovery was funded by the government, which means it is probably a product of Socialists and Communists. Fuck THAT.

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:08 am

From the Huffington Post

UPDATE: As of 2:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Obama has widened his popular vote lead. He now leads 60,193,076 or 50.4% to 57,468,587 or 48.1% with nearly all precincts reporting. Still no official word yet, however.

So how close is that really?

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:19 am

I'd Hit It wrote:America died over 100 years ago? Direct election of Senators and universal suffrage is a bad thing? Do you seriously believe these things? If America died 100 years ago does that mean you're not American? Or the America that fought in WWII was not America? Women and black people should not be allowed to vote? We were better when lynching was cool and black people were segregated? There is a certain point where you start longing for a history that was so long ago, that was so separate from the current time period, that it isn't the present that's un-American--it's you, and your outdated notions of what freedom, equality, and America represents. Countries change. Values change. Tell me what else in the past 100 years we should throw out. How about penicillin? Its discovery was funded by the government, which means it is probably a product of Socialists and Communists. Fuck THAT.

Logical fallacies don't help you're argument. No one mentioned Lynching, WWII, penecillin or any of the drivel you mentioned.

Try to wrap your public school educated head around some questions.

Explain the concept of citizenship?
Why did the founders limit the vote the property owners?
Explain why we have two legislative chambers?
What purpose did the founders have for the Senate?
Who does the Federal Reserve Serve?
If they serve the US people, why are their books closed to even Congress.

I'd Hit It · Post by **I'd Hit It** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:51 am

I think you missed the point of my post. Countries change. Countries and their values change drastically, and this is not a bad thing. Is America different than it was at the exact moment the Founding Fathers approved the Constitution? Of course it is. Women and non-whites are allowed to vote. We no longer think slavery is a-OK. Women are not owned by their husbands and it is considered inappropriate to employ five-year-olds in mines. The Founding Fathers came up with a document that was way, way ahead of their times, and they made it flexible exactly because they anticipated a country's values and demographics do not, and should not remain immutable. You bemoan America is not like it was 100 years ago. Of course it's not! No country is! And for the most part that's a damn good thing, because there's a LOT that was fucked up 100 years ago that is not nearly as fucked up now--and the political climate, the makeup of the voting population, and the values said population hold reflect that.

A country that cannot change is a country destined to die. The Republicans need to understand America is defined by what America is now, not what it was 50, 100, 150 years ago. And if they keep targeting their message to a population longing for that time they're going to die when that population does.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:20 am

JonnyCat wrote:This damning report was what sealed the vote for me and it came out several weeks ago - plenty of time to stuff it down the throats of the Democrats. Since he had already been painted as an evil rich, uncaring bastard by the Dems, Chris Matthews and just about every major media company, I'm surprised Romney and the GOP didn't say, "Screw it!" swing for the fences and make serious hay with this:

http://www.investigativeproject.org/377 ... hite-house

They didn't make hay with it because no one else thinks the MPAC are dangerous Jihadists hiding under the bed and there's no real record of anti-Semitism or bad behavior on their part.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:53 am

I'd Hit It wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Countries change. Countries and their values change drastically, and this is not a bad thing. Is America different than it was at the exact moment the Founding Fathers approved the Constitution? Of course it is. Women and non-whites are allowed to vote. We no longer think slavery is a-OK. Women are not owned by their husbands and it is considered inappropriate to employ five-year-olds in mines. The Founding Fathers came up with a document that was way, way ahead of their times, and they made it flexible exactly because they anticipated a country's values and demographics do not, and should not remain immutable. You bemoan America is not like it was 100 years ago. Of course it's not! No country is! And for the most part that's a damn good thing, because there's a LOT that was fucked up 100 years ago that is not nearly as fucked up now--and the political climate, the makeup of the voting population, and the values said population hold reflect that.

A country that cannot change is a country destined to die. The Republicans need to understand America is defined by what America is now, not what it was 50, 100, 150 years ago. And if they keep targeting their message to a population longing for that time they're going to die when that population does.

WTF, do you think I'm nestolgic for tricorne hats?

DARTH · Post by **DARTH** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:34 am

Batboy2/75 wrote:
I'd Hit It wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Countries change. Countries and their values change drastically, and this is not a bad thing. Is America different than it was at the exact moment the Founding Fathers approved the Constitution? Of course it is. Women and non-whites are allowed to vote. We no longer think slavery is a-OK. Women are not owned by their husbands and it is considered inappropriate to employ five-year-olds in mines. The Founding Fathers came up with a document that was way, way ahead of their times, and they made it flexible exactly because they anticipated a country's values and demographics do not, and should not remain immutable. You bemoan America is not like it was 100 years ago. Of course it's not! No country is! And for the most part that's a damn good thing, because there's a LOT that was fucked up 100 years ago that is not nearly as fucked up now--and the political climate, the makeup of the voting population, and the values said population hold reflect that.

A country that cannot change is a country destined to die. The Republicans need to understand America is defined by what America is now, not what it was 50, 100, 150 years ago. And if they keep targeting their message to a population longing for that time they're going to die when that population does.

WTF, do you think I'm nestolgic for tricorne hats?

Fuck it, Hit it does not get it that some things are timeless and the founders were using the Roman Republic as a blueprint, something that stood for almost 400 years until Augustus turned it into a Principate.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:02 am

DARTH wrote:
Batboy2/75 wrote:
I'd Hit It wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Countries change. Countries and their values change drastically, and this is not a bad thing. Is America different than it was at the exact moment the Founding Fathers approved the Constitution? Of course it is. Women and non-whites are allowed to vote. We no longer think slavery is a-OK. Women are not owned by their husbands and it is considered inappropriate to employ five-year-olds in mines. The Founding Fathers came up with a document that was way, way ahead of their times, and they made it flexible exactly because they anticipated a country's values and demographics do not, and should not remain immutable. You bemoan America is not like it was 100 years ago. Of course it's not! No country is! And for the most part that's a damn good thing, because there's a LOT that was fucked up 100 years ago that is not nearly as fucked up now--and the political climate, the makeup of the voting population, and the values said population hold reflect that.

A country that cannot change is a country destined to die. The Republicans need to understand America is defined by what America is now, not what it was 50, 100, 150 years ago. And if they keep targeting their message to a population longing for that time they're going to die when that population does.
WTF, do you think I'm nestolgic for tricorne hats?

Fuck it, Hit it does not get it that some things are timeless and the founders were using the Roman Republic as a blueprint, something that stood for almost 400 years until Augustus turned it into a Principate.

A message from Koolaid Inc-- we have read your comments. Please understand that your free Koolaid coupons for delicious Koolaid are not in the mail.

kreator · Post by **kreator** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:52 pm

I'd Hit It wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Countries change. Countries and their values change drastically, and this is not a bad thing. Is America different than it was at the exact moment the Founding Fathers approved the Constitution? Of course it is. Women and non-whites are allowed to vote. We no longer think slavery is a-OK. Women are not owned by their husbands and it is considered inappropriate to employ five-year-olds in mines. The Founding Fathers came up with a document that was way, way ahead of their times, and they made it flexible exactly because they anticipated a country's values and demographics do not, and should not remain immutable. You bemoan America is not like it was 100 years ago. Of course it's not! No country is! And for the most part that's a damn good thing, because there's a LOT that was fucked up 100 years ago that is not nearly as fucked up now--and the political climate, the makeup of the voting population, and the values said population hold reflect that.

A country that cannot change is a country destined to die. The Republicans need to understand America is defined by what America is now, not what it was 50, 100, 150 years ago. And if they keep targeting their message to a population longing for that time they're going to die when that population does.

Sure countries can change, and certainly America should have changed over the last 100 years. Except that the Constitution has a very clear and defined way of changing the government. Why isn't this followed?

Most of the most controversial issues in our political discourse today wouldn't be so controversial if they were just written into the Constitution.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:29 pm

I'd Hit It wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Countries change. Countries and their values change drastically, and this is not a bad thing. Is America different than it was at the exact moment the Founding Fathers approved the Constitution? Of course it is. Women and non-whites are allowed to vote. We no longer think slavery is a-OK. Women are not owned by their husbands and it is considered inappropriate to employ five-year-olds in mines. The Founding Fathers came up with a document that was way, way ahead of their times, and they made it flexible exactly because they anticipated a country's values and demographics do not, and should not remain immutable. You bemoan America is not like it was 100 years ago. Of course it's not! No country is! And for the most part that's a damn good thing, because there's a LOT that was fucked up 100 years ago that is not nearly as fucked up now--and the political climate, the makeup of the voting population, and the values said population hold reflect that.

A country that cannot change is a country destined to die. The Republicans need to understand America is defined by what America is now, not what it was 50, 100, 150 years ago. And if they keep targeting their message to a population longing for that time they're going to die when that population does.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY[/youtube]

DARTH · Post by **DARTH** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:51 pm

kreator wrote:
I'd Hit It wrote:I think you missed the point of my post. Countries change. Countries and their values change drastically, and this is not a bad thing. Is America different than it was at the exact moment the Founding Fathers approved the Constitution? Of course it is. Women and non-whites are allowed to vote. We no longer think slavery is a-OK. Women are not owned by their husbands and it is considered inappropriate to employ five-year-olds in mines. The Founding Fathers came up with a document that was way, way ahead of their times, and they made it flexible exactly because they anticipated a country's values and demographics do not, and should not remain immutable. You bemoan America is not like it was 100 years ago. Of course it's not! No country is! And for the most part that's a damn good thing, because there's a LOT that was fucked up 100 years ago that is not nearly as fucked up now--and the political climate, the makeup of the voting population, and the values said population hold reflect that.

A country that cannot change is a country destined to die. The Republicans need to understand America is defined by what America is now, not what it was 50, 100, 150 years ago. And if they keep targeting their message to a population longing for that time they're going to die when that population does.
Sure countries can change, and certainly America should have changed over the last 100 years. Except that the Constitution has a very clear and defined way of changing the government. Why isn't this followed?

Most of the most controversial issues in our political discourse today wouldn't be so controversial if they were just written into the Constitution.

Yep, this and the general lack of Constitutional knowledge, civics education and knowing what the area of operations for each level of goverment are. This fucks us and allows whorish politicians of both parties to fuck us and line their pockets.

I dont hate every liberal idea, (There are a decent number I like even) my problem is that 90% of them have no place on the Federal level but plenty of place for consideration at the State, and local levels depending on each state's Constitution.

Unless protecting us from invaders, taken care of a large scale emergency like plagues or disasters, regulating issues between the states or securing our Constitutional rights the federal gov. is suppossed to be limited in power for good reason.

This was the timeless genius of the Founders. Your State was to play a bigger role in your day to day life than the Feds. This takes in account regional differences.

As long as the Bill of Rights are not violated and applies to all people in the USA it's ok if Alabama wants to band abortion outright, Va. might want to cut it off after 3-4 months of pregnancy and NY wants to do it right up to 8 months. (Sick as fuck IMO but it's not my state, I just had to live there for about 10 of my near 40 years.)

If NY wants to wipe every ass that comes along fine and if Montana wants to tell you get a job or shoot a deer that's fine too. The voters of each state decised and if you feel your stae is too far from your way of seeing things then you vote by moving to one more in line with your outlook.

This also alows these ideas to be tested. A state might decide to have free healthcare for the lower 40% of it's population and if the state is able to pay for it and it works other ststes might go the same way. But if it drains the coffers too much then other states will not. This gets shit out of a theory you can get a false result upon because federal money is being thrown at it while the money printer runs to keep a loser idea going.

There is plenty of room for progress and change in the Founder's plan, through these different levels of goverment. The problem is the many examples where we excluded people form it (Slavery, Jim Crow and now affirmitive action), failed to live up to it or down right subvert it.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:48 pm

This officially Hispanic young man just gave notice of his intent to run for a statewide office in Texas (George P Bush)

This young Repuglican superstar just ran off to Iowa.............because it's nice there in November.

¡viva el Partido republicano!

johno · Post by **johno** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:37 pm

In the popular vote, the latest numbers suggest an Obama victory of 50.4 percent to Romney’s 48.1. This is not recount territory. Measured by the standards of the 20th century, though, it reflects a genuinely tight race.

Between 1900 and 1999, only five of the 25 presidential elections were decided by fewer than 130 electoral votes. Only three had a popular vote margin smaller than the Obama-Romney contest. It’s a sign of how accustomed we’ve become to razor-thin margins of victory that Obama’s 2.3-percent popular-vote victory seems almost like a rout.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... close.html

It's tough to defeat an incumbent President. And this election was not a blowout. A "fix" for the GOP could be as simple as running Marco Rubio next time.

That, or offer MORE FREE SHIT.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:52 pm

johno wrote:That, or offer MORE FREE SHIT.

Don't fall into political short term memory. Remember Bush V. Gore? Hey, we got this big surplus, what should we do with it?

Gore: Let's sock it away.
Bush: Free money for everybody!

IGX

Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?