Then I suggest you listen to one who is an authority on evil....:devil:
Less evil is better than more evil.
& then came Justice Sonya Sotomayer & all that went out the window for the GOP.
(I honestly can't remember the last good tactical political move made by the GOP....They really are just to dumb to govern!)
Sure, but when *ALL* of your choices are evil, what do you do then?
You are not alone in considering the 2 parties as evils but I think you have picked the wrong side. I don't think the GOP will be getting any moderates with their far right agenda & rhetoric & appeal to only elderly white rural male evangelicals..
I think Obama's Presidency will be very successful & you just have to look at our economy as an example. Last winter we were on the verge of total collapse & another great depression...but now...things are getting better. Recovery is slow but it's underway & even Fox News can't hide that little truth.
A few predictions within the next 4 years:
1. All our troops will be out of Iraq & all our combat troops. will be out of Afghanistan .
2. Universally available & affordable HC will be a reality & we will all be saving HC money.
3. Our country will again be respected in the world & we will be making friends instead of suicidal enemies.
4. Law & order will mean something again.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I don't know that's true. Sotomayor did make some racially questionable comments, like it or not, and should have been questioned, just like any candidate of any other skin color who made similar statements.
I will agree that, for the most part, the GOP leadership is clueless, but they think God is on their side so they don't have to actually compete in the arena of ideas, God is going to deliver victory to them if they just believe hard enough.
Unfortunately for them, God's been doing a piss-poor job lately.
Sure, but when *ALL* of your choices are evil, what do you do then?
moderates will be tired of Obama's big-government answers.
Would anyone care to disclose their national political party affiliation?
I have voted for both Republican candidates & Democrats for national office but have not voted (nationally) for a Republican since the early 1970's so I would call my party affiliation Democrat. (just like Will Rogers responded once when asked what political party he belonged to, he said: "I'm not a member of any organized political party.......I'm a Democrat.")
I hear you but dividing conservatives in half is only good for the liberals.
Conservative first and always.
Yeah right.....So they'll all just FLOCK back to the Small Government....Fiscally Responsible...Nation Building.....Eavesdropping On Citizens...GOP of the last 8 years??? (I think not)
No......Listen to your fellow conservatives right here on this forum. ...They (WE) don't like what the GOP has become & want a new REAL conservative party that will keep religion in Church where it belongs & our tax money right here in this country....where it belongs!
Less you're able to spawn an actual conservative party out of it. Continuing to support the status quo won't change the status quo. It's an exercise it futility.
The Dems left a big surplus & the GOP left us almost in depression with a huge deficit.you think Democrats are better at responsible spending, at keeping government small? do not tell me the Democrats are more conservative than Republicans these days?
I remember that picture. why mention it?
a third party will take decades to grow big enough and even then it will split the conservative vote every time, for the democrats. the libertarians would be better off sticking with the GOP and using it to win themselves some elections. the GOP could use them too.
I don't agree. I don't think selling out my principles and platform would help me in the least.
I agree with you. Basically what he is saying is that no matter how the GOP sells out its conservative values, they are OWED blind allegiance & cannot ever be held accountable for that selling out!
No Thanks!! (get a new party going that appeals to moderates & you'll OWN this country!
If that's why you think the GOP has been getting it's head handed to it (in national elections since 2006) then I suggest you get better informed about politics.
(I don't consider myself a strict Democrat but I have not had a real choice in nat'l elections in many years now. To me, the GOP no longer represent conservatives, they represent elderly, white, rural evangelicals & are a dying regional party, at this point)
I don't agree. I don't think selling out my principles and platform would help me in the least.
I agree with you. Basically what he is saying is that no matter how the GOP sells out its conservative values, they are OWED blind allegiance & cannot ever be held accountable for that selling out!
No Thanks!! (get a new party going that appeals to moderates & you'll OWN this country!
Until then, I'll stick with the Dems & just try to get them to swing more conservative.
Run afoul of Rush Limbaugh & you're out!!
I think what he is saying is that rather than abandon the GOP one should work to change it from within. I disagree that it is changable from within, I think it is well captured by interests not of its conservative roots. It's fine for wanting to move a party one way or another, and if the system is fair and open you have some ability at that. But I think the GOP and the Democrats have for too long been unchallenged as the dominate parties and have stagnated. Instead they are beholden to special interests and lobbiests and their goal isn't so much to push their agenda and platform, but rather to stay in power. So long as there are an unrivalable 2, that's accomplished.
The point about letting the liberals win is that if enough people left the GOP, it would loose too much of its base and it would be unable to capture elections. In such a case, what is defined as the greater evil then wins; the liberals will always get in since basically almost all national elections come down to a 50/50 split + noise. But enough base retention is necessary to keep the 50/50 so that the noise is what elections get based on. Without the 50/50, it's much harder for the lacking party to get elected. My point is that is exactly what you want, well at least now that the GOP has moved so far down the road of fascism. You may have to take some liberal wins to force the GOP back, and if you actively vote third party you can put even more pressure on by showing that you're not just a lost vote but you're a supporter of another team. So long as you don't go democrat, since your opposition will get lost in that mess.
In the end, the Republocrats represent the status quo. Either or, you're not going to get much difference. Which is why the Obama administration has thus far looked very similar to the Bush administration. Support of the status quo can't change the status quo. And if the status quo is evil, then you should be even more opposed to supporting it. Changing from within is dead. The only way to change the GOP is to make it unable to win elections, as their main goal is maintaining power. That, or the best option is to replace it. Though that one is really tough in the selective, limited, restricted system the Republocrats have currently set up. I think it's good to change over parties every once in awhile. Keep them honest I say.
The current GOP has a tiny party (just look at the numbers here) & tolerates NO DECENT among its ranks![/B]
a third party will take decades to grow big enough and even then it will split the conservative vote every time, for the democrats. the libertarians would be better off sticking with the GOP and using it to win themselves some elections. the GOP could use them too.
I wouldn't advise anyone to sell out.
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?