By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Racist history of the Republican Party

Player1x3 on 18 March 2012
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

I think you can do that if you have both of them agree to make their policy of not getting anything done, except going to war and pushing things further to a police state and oppose themselves as policy, with their motto being "Our goal is to make ourselves fail, but you MUST vote for us, because you have no choice)?  They the support the use of courts, super committees with dictatorial power, and government agencies to make all the rulings and regulations, and switch over to no interest fiat currency to pay for everything and never tax anyone (just spend the money into existence).  And they continue to run opposed to Washington, while using earmarks to bring back pork to their districts.  

They can kick this off by the Democrats reaching out to the Republican Party and say they really want bipartisan support, so in an effort to say they are able to do, they would propose the new bipartisan effort be called The Can (as in "We can do it").  

There you go, combine both parties into The Can party.  The party that is both #1 and #2.

They'd probably still win, because anyone who actually wants to do things differently would be portrayed in the media as scary and extremist.


On the internet, Ron Paul is portrayed like Christ himself, while anyone else gets pretty much destroyed (republican candidates)



Around the Network
badgenome on 18 March 2012
Player1x3 said:

On the internet, Ron Paul is portrayed like Christ himself, while anyone else gets pretty much destroyed (republican candidates)

Yeah, true. He's internet cool, so he gets to slide with a lot of shit that no other Republican could. That annoys me a lot, but I still do think he's the best candidate. Too bad the U.S. is not interested in having a government that's constrained by silly things like the Constitution or the concept of rule of law.



Rath on 18 March 2012

I don't think Ron Paul would reform the political system away from being a two party state...

He'd do other radical reforms but I don't remember that one being mentioned.



badgenome on 18 March 2012
Rath said:
I don't think Ron Paul would reform the political system away from being a two party state...

He'd do other radical reforms but I don't remember that one being mentioned.

I was actually talking about all the other stuff in Richard's hypothetical platform. A guy who is against wars of choice, against the police state, against an executive branch with ~3 million employees, against the entitlement state, against runaway deficits, etc., is never going to get elected no matter how much people profess to hate those things because any guy who is sincerely against that stuff is going to be portrayed as either a dangerous political extremist or an unserious candidate who can't win.



Erisian on 18 March 2012

The video reminded me, Mussolini was definitely the hottest fascist dictator. Yep.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 19 March 2012
Player1x3 said:
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

I think you can do that if you have both of them agree to make their policy of not getting anything done, except going to war and pushing things further to a police state and oppose themselves as policy, with their motto being "Our goal is to make ourselves fail, but you MUST vote for us, because you have no choice)?  They the support the use of courts, super committees with dictatorial power, and government agencies to make all the rulings and regulations, and switch over to no interest fiat currency to pay for everything and never tax anyone (just spend the money into existence).  And they continue to run opposed to Washington, while using earmarks to bring back pork to their districts.  

They can kick this off by the Democrats reaching out to the Republican Party and say they really want bipartisan support, so in an effort to say they are able to do, they would propose the new bipartisan effort be called The Can (as in "We can do it").  

There you go, combine both parties into The Can party.  The party that is both #1 and #2.

They'd probably still win, because anyone who actually wants to do things differently would be portrayed in the media as scary and extremist.


On the internet, Ron Paul is portrayed like Christ himself, while anyone else gets pretty much destroyed (republican candidates)

Where I am locally, I know an organizer on the progressive side, who is working on the Ron Paul campaign.  Yes, someone on the left is doing this.  As far as anything else, Ron Paul ends up appealing to some issues people really care and get excited about, but then (based on normal political views) has things that are seen as scary, and thus unelectable.  Ron Paul is a bit of an inverse of Mitt Romney in this regard.  No one is really that excited about Mitt Romney, but he feels like a safer pick, so he is grinding it out yo the nomination.  Add the fire up the base by getting them to REALLY REALLY REALLY hate Obama, and then you run someone few care about but feel they have no choice in the matter.  And that is how politics is run.  How about "people died for your right to vote" and other things, like it is "cool" and you have no choice.

On this, imagine you have a town which has two burger places.  They both are poor and not really having anything on the menu you want.  Would anyone expect it to be sane that you MUST eat at either place if you don't like them?  But hey, it is a cool thing to eat at them, and besides people died so you could eat at them.   Would it be sane to eat at them if you don't like the menu?  Well, probably not.  But if you replace the following with "voting" apparently it is sane and REQUIRE if you want to be a good citizen.  If you don't, you are throwing away your food money, don't you know it?  

As far as the other post on "still win", I do believe they would still win, because it embodies the politics as usual that they use to get elected.  Even if it were one party, it would still get elected.  

Also, on Ron Paul, I worked on his grassroots campaign locally in 2008, and donated to some moneybombs.  Interesting as much disagreement I can have with people on here, I can end up liking a candidate they like.  



Kasz216 on 19 March 2012
richardhutnik said:
Player1x3 said:
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

I think you can do that if you have both of them agree to make their policy of not getting anything done, except going to war and pushing things further to a police state and oppose themselves as policy, with their motto being "Our goal is to make ourselves fail, but you MUST vote for us, because you have no choice)?  They the support the use of courts, super committees with dictatorial power, and government agencies to make all the rulings and regulations, and switch over to no interest fiat currency to pay for everything and never tax anyone (just spend the money into existence).  And they continue to run opposed to Washington, while using earmarks to bring back pork to their districts.  

They can kick this off by the Democrats reaching out to the Republican Party and say they really want bipartisan support, so in an effort to say they are able to do, they would propose the new bipartisan effort be called The Can (as in "We can do it").  

There you go, combine both parties into The Can party.  The party that is both #1 and #2.

They'd probably still win, because anyone who actually wants to do things differently would be portrayed in the media as scary and extremist.


On the internet, Ron Paul is portrayed like Christ himself, while anyone else gets pretty much destroyed (republican candidates)

Where I am locally, I know an organizer on the progressive side, who is working on the Ron Paul campaign.  Yes, someone on the left is doing this.  As far as anything else, Ron Paul ends up appealing to some issues people really care and get excited about, but then (based on normal political views) has things that are seen as scary, and thus unelectable.  Ron Paul is a bit of an inverse of Mitt Romney in this regard.  No one is really that excited about Mitt Romney, but he feels like a safer pick, so he is grinding it out yo the nomination.  Add the fire up the base by getting them to REALLY REALLY REALLY hate Obama, and then you run someone few care about but feel they have no choice in the matter.  And that is how politics is run.  How about "people died for your right to vote" and other things, like it is "cool" and you have no choice.

On this, imagine you have a town which has two burger places.  They both are poor and not really having anything on the menu you want.  Would anyone expect it to be sane that you MUST eat at either place if you don't like them?  But hey, it is a cool thing to eat at them, and besides people died so you could eat at them.   Would it be sane to eat at them if you don't like the menu?  Well, probably not.  But if you replace the following with "voting" apparently it is sane and REQUIRE if you want to be a good citizen.  If you don't, you are throwing away your food money, don't you know it?  

As far as the other post on "still win", I do believe they would still win, because it embodies the politics as usual that they use to get elected.  Even if it were one party, it would still get elected.  

Also, on Ron Paul, I worked on his grassroots campaign locally in 2008, and donated to some moneybombs.  Interesting as much disagreement I can have with people on here, I can end up liking a candidate they like.  

If votes counted by level of enthusiasm, Ron Paul would probably win in a landslide.


It's like how Ron Paul ALWAYS seems to win any poll or any event that involves effort to vote.