Can the Republican party be saved?

[timhau]

So while I suppose it is possible for a more realistic principled conservative party to emerge, it won't happen as long as a more ideologically simplified anti-whatever-they-do party is still capable of obtaining majorities.

This.

 

[Baylor]

I don’t understand how it was over the top with respect to today’s GOP.

The you don't understand US politics very well.

 

[Cabbage]

The you don't understand US politics very well.

Looks to me like they understand it better than you.

So there!

LOL!

 

[Trebuchet]

Dang, I forgot. Today's Republicans are the party of anti-science and anti-education. Because those things are contrary to their idiotic worldview.
On the science side, there's evolution, anathema to the fundy base; and AGW, anathema to the big-hydrocarbon donors.
Education, of course, teaches science, including evolution, and encourages kids to think for themselves.
Note that I did NOT mention anti-vax, because lots of liberal idiots as well as conservatives have bought into that nonsense.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Note that I did NOT mention anti-vax, because lots of liberal idiots as well as conservatives have bought into that nonsense.

yeah, but politically, anti-vaxxers have much more support from Republicans and their fringe than from Dems.

 

[Mumbles]

It's a pattern with conservative parties globally that they won't leave space for a far-right party to establish itself, adopting the polices of such a party instead.

From what little I know of the world outside the US, think you may be right.

This...could get ugly, very quickly., especially when you throw on climate-change-related migration which we are already seeing.

 

[Segnosaur]

The party of hate. Hatred of gays, hatred of transexuals, hatred of anyone not lily white, hatred of foreigners, hatred of women who don't know their place, hatred of non-Christians. And of the wrong kinds of Christians.

I'm not Republican for many reasons...

Sure you're not. I mean, just because you seem to defend Stubby McBonespurs on a regular basis, some might think you are. But I'm sure you're a 'fine person'.

...but this is way over the top.

I'm going to echo other people here and say...how exactly is it "over the top"?

Lets see:

Hatred of gays:
The majority of republicans are opposed to state-sanctioned gay marriage. (54-40%.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publi...in_the_United_States#By_political_affiliation

Hatred of Transsexuals:
In a 2017 poll, more than half of all republicans said that Transsexual rights had "gone to far"
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...nder-issues-divide-republicans-and-democrats/

Hatred of non-whites:
Well, they continue to support Trump, the man who called neo-Nazis "fine people", and told minority congress members to "go back to where they came from".

Hatred of women:
The Trump administration is changing rules to allow employers to deny contraception in health care plans.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/opin...a-west-virginia-abortion-campoamor/index.html

Hatred of non-christians:
The majority of Republicans would discount a political candidate just because they were muslim. Only 38% said they would vote for a muslim.
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-vote-muslim-president-poll-1424108

Now, its possible to find republicans who CLAIM to love homosexuals/Transexuals/women/non-christians, but they are still supporting a party who's policies harms those same groups.

 

[Baylor]

Sure you're not. I mean, just because you seem to defend Stubby McBonespurs on a regular basis, some might think you are.

"Seem to" but doesn't.

Anyone who is not a member of the Religion of Skeptic Sanctimony is a "trump supporter." Whether that person supports Donald Trump has no bearing on this, according to skeptics.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

"Seem to" but doesn't.

Anyone who is not a member of the Religion of Skeptic Sanctimony is a "trump supporter." Whether that person supports Donald Trump has no bearing on this, according to skeptics.

it depends entirely on what form this "not-support" takes.
In a two-party system, attack on one party is automatically support for the other.

If you are against Trump, most of your criticism can't be against Democrats.

 

[Baylor]

In a two-party system, attack on one party is automatically support for the

Nice logic there, skeptic.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nice logic there, skeptic.

it is, isn't it?

when you have a scale. it doesn't make a difference if you add weight on one side or take some away on the other for it to tip.

I assume you would (like me) prefer a Ranked Choice voting system to change that.

 

[Baylor]

it is, isn't it?

when you have a scale. it doesn't make a difference if you add weight on one side or take some away on the other for it to tip.

I assume you would (like me) prefer a Ranked Choice voting system to change that.

Words have meaning. To the neurotypical, being a "Trump supporter" means you support Donald Trump. Pretty easy huh?

Skeptics are unable to grasp this simple logic. Their 76 year old brains "work" like this.

Being a "Trump supporter" is bad.
I don't like migdm86.
Therefore, mgdm86 is a "Trump supporter."

 

[Cabbage]

"Seem to" but doesn't.

Anyone who is not a member of the Religion of Skeptic Sanctimony is a "trump supporter." Whether that person supports Donald Trump has no bearing on this, according to skeptics.

Oh, but if you attend a meeting that incidentally happens to be mostly white, Baylor has already decided you're Racist Trash! Whether or not you are in fact "racist trash" has no bearing on this, according to Baylor.

LMFAO!!!

Who's "racist trash?" People who prefer to be around their own race? Like a virtually all white skeptic forum.

Ever been to a TAM? It's nearly all white. Talk about "racist trash."

They are racist trash because even in their free time they choose to be around other white people. 90's Internet acronyms or quotation marks don't disprove that.

A guaranteed laugh riot every post!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Words have meaning. To the neurotypical, being a "Trump supporter" means you support Donald Trump. Pretty easy huh?

Skeptics are unable to grasp this simple logic. Their 76 year old brains "work" like this.

Being a "Trump supporter" is bad.
I don't like migdm86.
Therefore, mgdm86 is a "Trump supporter."

He doesn't need crowds at his rallies, since Fox will make sure to show only the densest part of the crowd. He doesn't need campaign donations, since he got big donors. And he doesn't need re-tweets because he has twitterbots.


the only support Trump needs is for you not to vote for Democrats.
If you that, you support Trump, if only indirectly. Which, as mentioned, is the same as voting for Trump in a two-party system.

 

[lomiller]

A more apt question may be “can the United States be saved from the Republican Party?”

The 2 party system is too deeply embedded in the political structure of the US for either party to die. This also shelters it from any need to reform or change. If the Republican Party isn’t going away or changing any time soon, how does the US navigate through to the other side of the chaos they are creating and is there a way through where the country retains its previous character and form?

 

[ponderingturtle]

A more apt question may be “can the United States be saved from the Republican Party?”

The 2 party system is too deeply embedded in the political structure of the US for either party to die. This also shelters it from any need to reform or change. If the Republican Party isn’t going away or changing any time soon, how does the US navigate through to the other side of the chaos they are creating and is there a way through where the country retains its previous character and form?

Not necessarily strictly true, for it to die it would be replaced with a new party like happened to the Wig, though I don't think that could happen at the moment.

But it is winning it doesn't need saving, and there is enough propaganda arms of it in the form of Fox and Sinclair broadcasting that they are not truly in danger.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

For fairness' sake:

Hate is, or at least used to be, a very strong word. Perhaps that's why it's been overused so much, but it used to denote a very strong emotion towards someone who had really wronged you or someone you loved. That this word has been so thinned out is a pet peeve of mine.

Here in Norway, it's the word "bullying". Bullying used to be the continuous bothering of another person, with acts such as saying mean things, pushing them in hallways, spreading rumours, yelling rude things to them across the common room, etc. Probably because it was such a powerful word, and no one wants to be known as a bully, people started abusing it on those who disagreed with them, and now you get called a bully if you so much as write an editorial telling someone how they happen to be wrong about something. It's incredibly irritating.

I know words change meaning over time, but it annoys me when they do so for backhanded emotional or political reasons.

 

[dann]

Sharp rise in share of conservative Republicans who have positive view of expanding presidential powers (PEW Research Center, Aug. 6, 2019)

Trump Supporters Abandon Democracy (The Damage Report, Aug. 8, 2019)

 

[rockysmith76]

Are the Democrats really any better off? Like it or not, a whole lot of why we have a Trump Presidency was due to Democratic pro Hillary complacency. It was assumed she would win so many stayed home and didnt vote. Now they are some of the loudest anti Trump whiners.

Since this they have not taken personal responsibility for the fact imo, Bernie was the better Candidate at the time, and they blocked him in favor of another Clinton, which really wasn't any better a choice.

 

[phiwum]

Are the Democrats really any better off? Like it or not, a whole lot of why we have a Trump Presidency was due to Democratic pro Hillary complacency. It was assumed she would win so many stayed home and didnt vote. Now they are some of the loudest anti Trump whiners.

Since this they have not taken personal responsibility for the fact imo, Bernie was the better Candidate at the time, and they blocked him in favor of another Clinton, which really wasn't any better a choice.

Let's suppose you are completely correct in your assessment of the Democrats.

On one side, we have a party that became complacent, leading to disastrous results for which they have taken no responsibility.

On the other side, we have a party which has abandoned the position that character matters, which supports a leader who lies with abandon, who disparages allies while admiring despots, who receives the praise of evangelicals while working to dismantle the asylum system and separate children from their parents and so on and so on.

Perhaps, as you say, the Democrats deserve criticism and need to change. But the two situations are not all that comparable in kind or degree.