Most of the talking heads are suggesting, due to demographic trends the Republican Party is going to have to either face the real likelihood of not winning the White House anytime in the foreseeable future or change its positions and approaches. This with the understanding one of the definitions of conservative is opposition to change.
As I see it tge GOP is at an impasse. It's going to either have to reinvent itself in order to appeal to a broader audience or its going to need to be true to its historical convictions while facing the reality that they are likely going to be a minority voice politically and no chance at the Oval Office. Going forward should the GOP modernize and change its character in efforts to win the ultimate prize, the White House or should the GOP remain true to its principles and let the chips fall where they may being most effective as a national opposition party in congress and impacting state and local governments?
They need to run on Progressive Conservatism not far right bull****.
So basically what we need is progressives against progressives. I'm sure one of those sides will understand what the general welfare clause actually does, right?
Maybe you can move American society forward with the rest of the world instead of lagging behind by a few decades.
Also by doing that you move the Democrats to being actual Liberals or centre-left not Progressive Conservatives as they are now.
You mean by putting in place things like Universal healthcare? I honestly had no idea we needed to be just like Mike, so enlighten me on this if you will.
Where exactly does that move the democrats?
Well first of all socially America is behind on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Secondly what I mean is it would move the Democrats closer to social democracy.
Expanding state control over marriage is not moving forward. Republicans at the moment have no choice however to accept that position, but it would of been nice if they didn't shot their foot off so they could of picked up the position of separating marriage from government.
As for abortion, they have no reason to move away from their position on that. They need to stop saying crazy **** and stop putting up crazy ass invasive bills, but the pro-life position is a good position.
Social democracy on the other hand is just a transition movement to socialism. Democrats are already doing that.
Weird usually equal rights is moving forward and pro-life is a good position to have, if your a redneck. What your thinking of is democratic socialism not social democracy.
wikipedia said:Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism. It advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism.
I guess you for got the part where it the ideology of social democracy changed to it's modern form after the 1940s. It's too bad that isn't what marriage now is it, I also disagree with your definition of marriage. Pro-life is a great position to have as long as you stay far away from my country and don't like women's rights.Eduard Bernstein was also the founder of the movement and as you might be aware he was a socialist.
Equal rights could be gained in marriage without direct government involvement in the marriage process. People can decide to have a private contract in marriage or not in my system.
The pro-life position is about the value of human life and yes that is a great position to have.
I guess you for got the part where it the ideology of social democracy changed to it's modern form after the 1940s.
It's too bad that isn't what marriage now is it, I also disagree with your definition of marriage.
Pro-life is a great position to have as long as you stay far away from my country.
Its modern form is what I described.
I didn't provide you a definition of marriage and the first part of your sentence doesn't make any sense.
Yes, that is not really a counter argument, is it?
I meant that isn't what marriage is though and to achieve equality you must allow gay marriage. Secondly I believe it is always a woman's right and the pro-life viewpoint makes no sense. Here they are considered looney apparently America hasn't caught up.Equal rights could be gained in marriage without direct government involvement in the marriage process.
No that's what it's old form was, it's new form has no goal of achieving socialism. I don't see the Scandinavian countries becoming socialist do you?
I meant that isn't what marriage is though and to achieve equality you must allow gay marriage.
Secondly I believe it is always a woman's right and the pro-life viewpoint makes no sense. Here they are considered looney apparently America hasn't caught up.
Why should the GOP become lesser liberals? I say they stick it out or go down swinging.
Maybe you can move American society forward with the rest of the world instead of lagging behind by a few decades. Also by doing that you move the Democrats to being actual Liberals or centre-left not Progressive Conservatives as they are now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?