Spinoff: Republicans; please like I'm five

[jordancatalano4ever]

So this can get ignored which is fine. Yall can get downright pissed to since I'm not a regular. Also fine. But I seriously would love to know if the candidates running for office don't reflect the viewpoints of most republicans than what does? if I were to characterize the liberals on the board I would say they believe: 1)they are pro-choice with maybe some waffling after 20 weeks but certainly exceptions would be allowed/or across the board pro choice no limits 2) protecting the environment, the EPA, regulations etc is important 3) following sandy hook gun control legislation of some kind would have been championed, 4) universal healthcare is probably the way to go 5) LBGT rights and legalizing gay marriage are very important 6) stronger support networks for working mothers with some paid time off 7) probably would like expanded access to pre k programs if not some kind of support for daycare costs. 8) trickle down economics doesn't work and our current system is failing our nation. Those are just a few I can think of at the top of my head.

Now, I think if I sat down with any of the following candidates to ask about their viewpoints on those matters I don't think that any of them would have anything positive to say.

Furthermore, if I were to characterize what I think republicans would stand for I think I would hear about them oppositing government regulations, more controlled access to abortion with the ideal time allowed being 12 weeks, no regulations over labor laws, ideally government does not deal with healthcare and pulling back repealing programs would be ideal, no new gun control legislation, gay marriage is illegal and LGBT communities are not protected from discrimination. Finally I would wager a guess that most republicans would say economics are there number 1 issue but I'm not sure what that means personally.

Finally. I would like to say that I find it incredulous the notion that the candidates don't reflect the viewpoints of the majority of repubs/conservatives. To that I'm just???

These are the Republican presidential candidates for 2016:

Ted Cruz - senator texas
Rand Paul - senator Kentucky
Marco Rubio - senator Florida
Ben Carson - retired surgeon
Mike Huckabee -former governor Arkansas
Rick Santorum - senator Pennsylvania
George Pataki -former NY governor
Carly Fiorina - former executive
Lindsay Graham - senators South Carolina
Rick Perry - former governor texas
Scott walker- governor Wisconsin
Bobby jindal- governor Louisiana
Jeb Bush - former governor florida

In what way do these people reflect the viewpoint of a minority? Really? See reply below
Also that took me damn near a half hour to type cause I'm on my phone.

[wambam]

Are you on some sort of mind altering substance?

(I know, I know. I don't even go here.)

[jordancatalano4ever]

Jun 5, 2015 10:51:03 GMT -5 ttt said:

Jun 5, 2015 9:51:11 GMT -5 origami said:

you just posted some mother jones links and told me this IS the GOP. :S They are not the GOP or a majority of the GOP because data. The party doesn't control who throws their hat in the ring. It is ludicrous to act like those examples mean those candidates don't support any exceptions, or that most of them are even viable candidates, or that they represent the entire party. do obama's opinions represent the entire Dem party? ETA: I mean opinions he actually has, not ones Free Republic decided he had. He actually won his election, which is more than Huckabee will ever get, but I did not believe he spoke for Ds when he said marriage was between a man and a woman, for example. Does Bernie Sanders speak for all D candidates or all Ds in general? Does O'Malley? As much as libs here wish they did we all know they don't and because of that have no chance of winning the nomination. (I'm close to convincing myself that their sole purpose in running is to make HRC look better/more moderate than she otherwise would.) Ds make a living out of making Rs seem more extreme than they actually are. Thats basically mother jones' raison d'être. That's politics. Rs do the same thing to Ds. We should be able to see past that.

OK, the one link is from Mother Jones (I accidentally pasted it twice), but are the facts wrong? They can be verified elsewhere. You can see a video of him saying he supports the amendment directly:  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI4Pe3kAaLQ 

He also went to court, defying a federal judge, to block payment for an abortion for a 15 year old who had been raped by her father: 

www.nytimes.com/1996/08/10/us/arkansas-governor-blocks-medicare-payment-for-an-abortion-in-incest-case.html

I'm not making it up that they don't support any exceptions. These candidates are saying it themselves! 

Here is the official GOP platform, straight from the horse's mouth. It is strongly anti-abortion but is silent on any exceptions for rape or incest or the mother's life: 

www.gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

Paul Ryan, who was the official GOP candidate for VP - not some fringe guy with no chance -  sponsored legislation that would ban abortion and allow no exceptions, and the Romney-Ryan campaign confirmed that yes, Ryan believes there should be no rape exception. 

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-bad-is-the-ryan-akin-anti-abortion-bill/2012/08/20/c7e37e04-eafe-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html 

[josieposy]

Wow. Someone's feisty today.

[Deleted]

You really don't want to know, do you?

[KateAggie]

Jun 5, 2015 13:53:13 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

You really don't want to know, do you?

For the cheap seats. (tm iammalcolmx)

[meltoine]

I think it's not exclusively a case of the candidates being out of line with the party. It's also that many people have left the party and/or don't vote with it anymore because the candidates have moved so far away from reality. For example, my parents used to be republicans and I don't think either my mom or step dad has voted for a republican for national office since President (H) Bush was elected the first time.

I'm too conservative to be a democrat, but the candidates the Rs have put up since I turned 18 have been crazy cakes, so I'm an independent.

So basically I think the TP had some good PR that made people think they were the base of the Republican Party, so the actual base of the party took a walk.

[ESF]

Jun 5, 2015 14:05:07 GMT -5 @koko said:

Jun 5, 2015 13:53:13 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

You really don't want to know, do you?

I would like to know. Because yeah, I have to admit I wonder how these people keep getting nomiated and appointed and elected into positions by the public if they don't agree with their views.

Gerrymandering and vote suppression help a lot.

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2015 14:05:07 GMT -5 @koko said:

Jun 5, 2015 13:53:13 GMT -5 @spenjamins said:

You really don't want to know, do you?

I would like to know. Because yeah, I have to admit I wonder how these people keep getting nomiated and appointed and elected into positions by the public if they don't agree with their views.

The older, conservative voters show up in big ways and also put their money where their mouth is.
Lobbying. Which I'm sick to fucking death of and one reason I'm ready to burn shit down in this country - dollars, not votes, tend to pick our leadership. 

I participated in a county delegation last election, and it was obvious from the start that Mitt was the candidate of choice. I was amazed I was one of our group who got selected to represent us at the caucus. 

One of our group who also got elected to go to the caucus with me was a fellow independent, and she was told she couldn't enter (she was wearing a candidate shirt that wasn't Mitt) even though there were no rules preventing her from doing so. During the caucus, we were each given a form where we could prioritize what the party's platform should be for the election. LOTS of elderly white folks in that auditorium, so I can attest that a good cross-section of our community were not represented, and that started at the first delegation meeting.I got very jaded with that entire process.

This is why when I retire I think I'll volunteer for Rock the Vote, or maybe I'll start before. We need everyone to participate in the process, before ballots are even cast.

[msmerymac]

Listen, I'm basically a socialist. I'm a fan of Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher. A follower of Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. I bitch about these candidates and defend my positions as much as the next person on this board.

But the way you frame the issues is a bit argumentative. Yes, there are people who think elective abortion should be illegal, no exceptions. I vehemently disagree. I have no doubt that SOME of the people in position to make those laws are doing so from a misogynist perspective, and believe women belong at home, birthing babies. But I think average Joes who support those positions actually do think abortion is murder and can't compromise on that. So... that's a difference of opinion.

Re: LGBT protections. Putting aside pandering to bigots, there's an argument to be made that creating "special interest" groups with higher protections impacts businesses and actually makes us less free.

Environmental regulation, socialized medicine, paid time off, and subsidized childcare also usually fall under an undue tax burden, especially on businesses.


Of course there are people who follow generally conservative lines who are pro-gay marriage, especially since something like gay marriage can't be argued to be any kind of financial burden on the state and, in fact, spurs economic activity. Same with any of the things you mentioned. But there are also nuanced ways to talk about this which don't boil down to, "Wow, conservatives are hateful and bigoted and clearly don't care about anyone because they want to destroy the environment and hate women and minorities." YES, I know you didn't say that, but by asking how conservatives are AGAINST those things, you're framing them all as terrible. People who espouse conservative views on these things don't always do so from a bigoted point of view.

[5thofjuly]

I'd argue that the media play a role in some of this, too. In order to get nominated and actually have a shot at getting on the stage, your name HAS to be out there. Sadly, "Look at the controversial thing thing X said" is a much more interesting story  than, "Check out Y's very complicated and reasonable plan."

ETA: I'm as liberal as they come.

[msmerymac]

TL;DR - there are nuanced ways to discuss conservative views, but most popular candidates reduce things to simple sound bites. Most people are low information voters who are fine with candidates being anti-gay marriage for religious reasons. DONE!

[msmerymac]

ALSO. Rudy Guliani said he is not running for President because he is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and favors a solution to immigration, none of which are popular within the GOP. That's unfortunate. I would certainly favor a lot more conservative discussions about the validity of various opinions on issues like that, and feel that, no matter how I feel about Guiliani otherwise, there are certainly some conservatives who would be open to that choice.

[jordancatalano4ever]

I just don't wonder where all we go from here. Listening to NPR this morning (lol I know) they played a sound bite of Hilary expounding that registration should be automatic and unrestricted for all eligible citizens and early voting should be expanded which would help but even then. This damn country is the United States of Special Interests it seems and I can't see how that's going to change. Andplusalso it just really gets to me when the other party says that the candidates don't reflect them but I have often seen my points of view reflected in my candidates. I know my post was incendiary but all the same I want to see the discussion. I've lurked a long ass time and right now the conservative point of view is at an all time low.

[eclaires]

Blame Reagan. He just had to court the Christian vote. ::shakes fist::

Look, I have no doubt that some of these asshats who run for office are true believers. But I think many more of them are true believers in themselves (total egomaniacs) and worship at the altar of reelection. For whatever reason - money, loudness, media coverage, etc. - they think they need the religious right and think the religious right is the base of the Republican party. So they pander to that, even though they likely know that the tide has changed with gay marriage (for example), they don't care, because they think the reelection winner is being anti-gay marriage. And they're probably right, because NO ONE FUCKING VOTES. Voter turnout is abysmal in this country for a variety of reasons.

Take Indiana for example, Mike Pence and his buddies thought they had some sort of mandate and that they could pass their religious freedom act and it wouldn't ruin his political future. But he failed to realize that only 30% of people voted in the state, so there was backlash.

The result is going to be that the GOP dies. When that happens, we'll see. But the current situation is unsustainable. It's just a question of how long it continues before they wake the fuck up.

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2015 15:21:46 GMT -5 jordancatalano4ever said:

I just don't wonder where all we go from here. Listening to NPR this morning (lol I know) they played a sound bite of Hilary expounding that registration should be automatic and unrestricted for all eligible citizens and early voting should be expanded which would help but even then. This damn country is the United States of Special Interests it seems and I can't see how that's going to change. Andplusalso it just really gets to me when the other party says that the candidates don't reflect them but I have often seen my points of view reflected in my candidates. I know my post was incendiary but all the same I want to see the discussion. I've lurked a long ass time and right now the conservative point of view is at an all time low.

I think it's great that you feel your candidates accurately represent you. I feel, though I might be wrong, even some Dems/libs on this board have expressed that Obama doesn't encompass all they wanted in him as a president. I'm not sure what response you're trying for by saying you're bothered when cons say their candidates don't entirely represent them, but you don't have that problem. (Honest question) do you feel that opinion should lead cons to say, "Know what, I miss that. I'll just turn in my Republican party card and switch to Dems, because I want to believe in a candidate again?" Because chances are high that candidates aren't the only thing tying cons to the Republican party.

I'll refer to eclaires' post below as to the real issues plaguing the Republican/GOP party and why they're shooting themselves in the foot by focusing on the wrong things & interests. Shit, I get annoyed that they can't even manage to use social media as effectively as the Democratic candidates. 

All of the parties are swayed by dollars and special interests. It indeed blows. I hate it. In no way does that make room for more of the real people to get accurate representation. The loudest and richest get the most play.

[oscarnerdjulief]

Jun 5, 2015 14:26:04 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Listen, I'm basically a socialist. I'm a fan of Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher. A follower of Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. I bitch about these candidates and defend my positions as much as the next person on this board.

But the way you frame the issues is a bit argumentative. Yes, there are people who think elective abortion should be illegal, no exceptions. I vehemently disagree. I have no doubt that SOME of the people in position to make those laws are doing so from a misogynist perspective, and believe women belong at home, birthing babies. But I think average Joes who support those positions actually do think abortion is murder and can't compromise on that. So... that's a difference of opinion.

Re: LGBT protections. Putting aside pandering to bigots, there's an argument to be made that creating "special interest" groups with higher protections impacts businesses and actually makes us less free.

Environmental regulation, socialized medicine, paid time off, and subsidized childcare also usually fall under an undue tax burden, especially on businesses.


Of course there are people who follow generally conservative lines who are pro-gay marriage, especially since something like gay marriage can't be argued to be any kind of financial burden on the state and, in fact, spurs economic activity. Same with any of the things you mentioned. But there are also nuanced ways to talk about this which don't boil down to, "Wow, conservatives are hateful and bigoted and clearly don't care about anyone because they want to destroy the environment and hate women and minorities." YES, I know you didn't say that, but by asking how conservatives are AGAINST those things, you're framing them all as terrible. People who espouse conservative views on these things don't always do so from a bigoted point of view.

true to the bolded

The framing in the initial post is argumentative and the type of "justify yourself" rhetoric that makes me and others desire not to post here.  For a long time, I tried.  No more.

The problem is that a lot of the majority on this board look at us on the right as being stupid and crazy.  Now add "evil" to it: stupid, evil, and crazy.  There's no nuance, no bothering to read what the candidates have to say to figure out any difference among them.  It's intellectually lazy.

[jordancatalano4ever]

Jun 5, 2015 17:55:41 GMT -5 @ladydisdain said:

Jun 5, 2015 15:21:46 GMT -5 jordancatalano4ever said:

I just don't wonder where all we go from here. Listening to NPR this morning (lol I know) they played a sound bite of Hilary expounding that registration should be automatic and unrestricted for all eligible citizens and early voting should be expanded which would help but even then. This damn country is the United States of Special Interests it seems and I can't see how that's going to change. Andplusalso it just really gets to me when the other party says that the candidates don't reflect them but I have often seen my points of view reflected in my candidates. I know my post was incendiary but all the same I want to see the discussion. I've lurked a long ass time and right now the conservative point of view is at an all time low.

I think it's great that you feel your candidates accurately represent you. I feel, though I might be wrong, even some Dems/libs on this board have expressed that Obama doesn't encompass all they wanted in him as a president. I'm not sure what response you're trying for by saying you're bothered when cons say their candidates don't entirely represent them, but you don't have that problem. (Honest question) do you feel that opinion should lead cons to say, "Know what, I miss that. I'll just turn in my Republican party card and switch to Dems, because I want to believe in a candidate again?" Because chances are high that candidates aren't the only thing tying cons to the Republican party.

I'll refer to eclaires' post below as to the real issues plaguing the Republican/GOP party and why they're shooting themselves in the foot by focusing on the wrong things & interests. Shit, I get annoyed that they can't even manage to use social media as effectively as the Democratic candidates. 

All of the parties are swayed by dollars and special interests. It indeed blows. I hate it. In no way does that make room for more of the real people to get accurate representation. The loudest and richest get the most play.

Well I misspoke, I feel I can find candidates who share some ideals. Certainly not all. I don't think anyone can find someone who entirely matches their beliefs. And what I mean that I'm bothered is not that im mad that conservatives don't change sides, more that I think it's shitty that they can't find anyone who they could feel comfortable voting for. That sucks. I don't want conservatives to defend themselves either. I would just like to see some articulation about what they do believe in and what they hope for in a candidate. I don't speak politics in any format of my life except with my dad and he and I have similar views. Having someone explain there point of view would help me better understand the other side. Especially when it's stated that the candidates that are elected don't align and are not representative of their views. Because the general republican candidates pov's are the only ones I know.

[doobeedoo]

I don't think the GOP is dying. I think it is getting stronger and more radical in its views.

I am a registered R. I vote R about 95% of the time and have since I started voting, even though my views on a great number of social issues have changed over the years. I tend to vote with my wallet, and I skew capitalist. I also happen to love me some gay people and trees and am a feminist. So, I can't get excited about the current slate of Rs and haven't been for a few years. But unfortunately for me, that doesn't make the Dems any more attractive.

[FloFTW]

I am a progressive democrat but I think that the meaning of Republican is much different depending on where you live. The Ohio Republican Party can be quite different from Texas.

Mark my words: Kasich will be the nominee.

[sushi]

Jun 5, 2015 14:03:48 GMT -5 meltoine said:

I think it's not exclusively a case of the candidates being out of line with the party. It's also that many people have left the party and/or don't vote with it anymore because the candidates have moved so far away from reality. For example, my parents used to be republicans and I don't think either my mom or step dad has voted for a republican for national office since President (H) Bush was elected the first time.

I'm too conservative to be a democrat, but the candidates the Rs have put up since I turned 18 have been crazy cakes, so I'm an independent.

So basically I think the TP had some good PR that made people think they were the base of the Republican Party, so the actual base of the party took a walk.

But Democrats today are as conservative as Republicans a couple decades ago. So are you saying you're more conservative than an 80s Republican?

[Deleted]

sushi said:

But Democrats today are as conservative as Republicans a couple decades ago.

Can you expound on this idea a bit? I don't agree but maybe I'm missing or forgetting trends.

[josieposy]

If I'm remembering my documentaries correctly, conservatives of the late 50s and early 60s were fairly liberal. I don't think there was a swing until Goldwater showed up.

But I am NOT a historian so don't quote me on this.

[jordancatalano4ever]

Jun 6, 2015 14:52:03 GMT -5 @mx said:

In a two party political system parties are necessarily going to require big-tent style coalitions full of people who can't agree on all kinds of shit. I feel like this is kind of obvious and also inherent to the system. People vote based on the things they care the most about. Even low information voters. That doesn't mean they agree with an entire party platform. It is almost impossible to do so. I have never in my life voted for a candidate in any race right down to the creaking neighborhood commission where I could say u didn't have reservations about some of the beliefs of the candidate I supported. Short of leaving the entire ballot blank every single time, I think that's what most people do.

Agreed. So again that's why I ask what does it mean to you (the general you not just mx) to be conservative/republican. What are the issues that you look for/vote for. Also, if anyone is willing to share those thoughts, if you're going to say "fiscal conservativism" or "foreign policy", what does that mean to you specifically.

As I stated way up thread, my core issues are the environment, economic policies that strengthen the bottom of our nation through assistance or other such programs like universal healthcare, I think about what time of Supreme Court justices could be appointed under the president, and the general idea of having broader rights/less restrictions on minority groups.

[Deleted]

I just feel sorry for the actual people who are Republican. Various Rs on this board are super smart and while I dont agree with their views, I can respect them.

Then they have a choice of fkin idiots for president.

The problem is that these idiots pretty much dominate the noise from the elected right.

But the central question the OP asked (if badly) is an interesting one. There is always the claim that the Ted Cruz / Perry / Lindsay Grahams etc don't represent the rank and file. This seems true to me. Very few Rs I have met are anything like those bigoted eejits. Having said that, this election cycle is bringing the same nutters to the table as the last election cycle and the one before that...if not even worse...so...why is this? Why hasn't an R equivalent of Obama torn through the party? If rank and file want a non nutter candidate, why hasn't that happened? Does the GOP hold such a control over the system that no reasonable R can get through? But the Tea Party people got through, and I read again and again how dismayed the non extreme Rs were with this. Which means it is possible to break through the GOP stronghold over the party.
My guess is its money - I mean, if you want to run for office, then you get your money from Kock Bros or whatever. Still, if the majority of Rs are not represented, why is there not a groundswell movement, like the Tea Party, like Obama when he ran, of enthusastic people finally getting a candidate they really believe in.

To be clear, none of the above is a dig at the Rs. It is a genuine question, no snark.