Why bother with the GOP if this is all it has to offer?

[BugI02]

Didn’t we already try this with the tea party?

The Tea Party, specifically how the lion's share of it's supporters at the congressional level wanted to co-opt it and use it for their own gain, should probably have served as a cautionary lesson for Trump

 

[Ingomike]

In [that which we do not mention] 2.0 it is unlikely other countries will not try to meddle in the process this time around

People, rightly or wrongly, are reluctant to take a course of action where the outcome is so unpredictable. They delay in the hope that some pathway out of the problem will become apparent until their hand is forced. Losing and a communist government aren't the worst possible outcome, warlordism and Mogadishu 2.0 are

But patriots rising to win the way ala 1776 in not in the upper level of likelihood, but several here seem to believe that it is. Freedom is the anomaly in the history of man. Even now the freedoms we have are better than 99% of history…

 

[Expat]

Negative.
When I was going to join them and checked them out. The local branch at least. They are not for limited government they were for no government at all. Let everyone do whatever they want. I don't believe in anarchy.

Well we know that isn't the case on the national level. Some of them were falling all over themselves supporting Obamacare because they didn't want to pay for their own health insurance.

 

[BugI02]

Maybe read his speech to those same log cabin Republicans. I'd say his standing is pretty mixed, but that's par for the course with him. Likely pretty left of what evangelicals of any Abrahamic tradition would prefer, though.

Regardless, my point stands that if the party can't make allies with large swaths of the population by excluding people based on their demographic then it's doomed to powerlessness. You can't change anything from outside the system and 'better candidates' who don't get a seat at the table are useless as a result.

If you were still working patrol or in security, would you want Stephanie HeShe as your partner or on your team?

If not, why not?

 

[BugI02]

Either a true conservative push to the right or helping the communists create a complete collapse so they can be eliminated and we start over.

Aren't the Venezuelans encountering some difficulty in pulling that off? Do you think the communists will allow you to buy ammunition or components or more weapons once they have full control? Do you think they will respect RKBA or ANY of your constitutional rights once they come to power? Do you think the crowds marching in support of BLM or Palestine wouldn't wind up being the shock troops of the left?

It is FAR easier to tear something down than it is to replace it once you have done so

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If you were still working patrol or in security, would you want Stephanie HeShe as your partner or on your team?

If not, why not?

I actively recruited some people in the LGQBT acronym to my current unit because they were highly competent, understood and could interact with a sub-culture I'm not personally comfortable with, and were an asset to the team. One of them applied to my old unit and to my current one because she liked working for me when I was a sgt and wanted to follow me again. I've had that experience with a wide variety of 'diverse' people. I don't give AF what you're demographic is and people seem to respond to that, but I also understand in my line of work we need different outlooks and backgrounds because not everyone will talk to me, or to them.

So, yes, absolutely. My issues are my issues, their issues are their issues, neither of which means we can't work together. I don't even have to like you. There are people I would have a fist fight with if we tried to go to lunch together, but I respect their technical know how or whatever and work with, recommend them as a trainer, etc.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There is a point at which the 'tent' becomes too big and the agendas of the constituents don't have sufficient overlap to set coherent policy or planning. The inclusivity you want erodes the identity and values of the party itself. We can work with Jenner where our priorities align but under no circumstances should he be a an exemplar of what a republican is

Keep it small and exclusionary, then, limit it to those "exemplars" however you define it. Enjoy the results of getting what you asked for.

 

[BugI02]

And may you enjoy celebrating the winning of elections by a party that is scarcely distinguishable from its competition

See: Compassionate Conservatism

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And may you enjoy celebrating the winning of elections by a party that is scarcely distinguishable from its competition

See: Compassionate Conservatism

If a party divorces itself from religion and culture wars, controls the border, and is fiscally responsive I'm there. I gives AF about most of what you and others in this thread seem to think makes a good Republican. Threatening me with a more moderate party is like threatening me that I can't have any cake until I finish my other piece of cake.

 

[blain]

Didn’t we already try this with the tea party?

No, you're thinking of the Bull Moose Party.

 

[manifest destiny]

Political nomenclatures (r, d, left, right,etc) aside, what we currently have politically isn't working for any body. Well, I guess it works for the politicians (from any party) since they always come out richererer and richererer. When it's said we can't/shouldn't vote for a 3rd party because they lack support and are powerless to make changes, it becomes a chicken and egg debate. If party C doesn't have enough support, we shouldn't vote for them. Well how does party C get support without votes? What came first, chicken or egg?

 

[Twangbanger]

I don't get the "Disaster will make America more conservative" concept. I thought Covid sorta disproved that on a small scale. I suspect the retort would be, "That disaster wasn't big enough, show me a situation where people's money is no good, and there will be no more liberalizm."

Oh really? Large numbers of people during Covid wanted government to protect them and make them whole. Why would the "qualitative" direction of their response to adversity change directions just because the "quantitative" severity of the crisis got worse? It's more likely they will gravitate the same direction when outside their comfort zone.

Even when you go into hyper-inflation and money is "worthless," the point is that the Government still has the power to A) take it from someone and B) give it to someone else.

For the Government's part, it is influenced by people who want tp move us back to a lower standard of living, anyway. I find it highly likely any real cataclysm would see the Government putting measures in place that would never allow the Fossil Energy industry to recover, for one prime example. "Never let an emergency go to waste."

I really want to understand why some think the people will elect a conservative government during bad times, when they won't elect one in good times? It must rely on some assumption I'm not getting. People don't blame liberalism for bad times. _Conservatives_ blame liberalism for bad times. "People" blame Capitalism for bad times.

You look at the Great Depression, you look at Covid...people look to the Government for help. I want a New Deal. I want a Vaccine. It's well-established. Why is now different? Explain it to me?

(In before, "It may take several generations...")

 

[Shadow01]

Aren't the Venezuelans encountering some difficulty in pulling that off? Do you think the communists will allow you to buy ammunition or components or more weapons once they have full control? Do you think they will respect RKBA or ANY of your constitutional rights once they come to power? Do you think the crowds marching in support of BLM or Palestine wouldn't wind up being the shock troops of the left?

It is FAR easier to tear something down than it is to replace it once you have done so

No, but you don’t give up your weapons to begin with. You fight and die or you do nothing and die. As I said, status quo is still a slow walk left. How does that prevent Venezuela 2.0?

 

[Shadow01]

I don't get the "Disaster will make America more conservative" concept. I thought Covid sorta disproved that on a small scale. I suspect the retort would be, "That disaster wasn't big enough, show me a situation where people's money is no good, and there will be no more liberalizm."

Oh really? Large numbers of people during Covid wanted government to protect them and make them whole. Why would the "qualitative" direction of their response to adversity change directions just because the "quantitative" severity of the crisis got worse? It's more likely they will gravitate the same direction when outside their comfort zone.

Even when you go into hyper-inflation and money is "worthless," the point is that the Government still has the power to A) take it from someone and B) give it to someone else.

For the Government's part, it is influenced by people who want tp move us back to a lower standard of living, anyway. I find it highly likely any real cataclysm would see the Government putting measures in place that would never allow the Fossil Energy industry to recover, for one prime example. "Never let an emergency go to waste."

I really want to understand why some think the people will elect a conservative government during bad times, when they won't elect one in good times? It must rely on some assumption I'm not getting. People don't blame liberalism for bad times. _Conservatives_ blame liberalism for bad times. "People" blame Capitalism for bad times.

You look at the Great Depression, you look at Covid...people look to the Government for help. I want a New Deal. I want a Vaccine. It's well-established. Why is now different? Explain it to me?

(In before, "It may take several generations...")

It’s not different. Just a lot more uneducated people allowed to vote. If handouts work so well, why isn’t everything free and the providers just sending the bill to uncle joe? We should be able to walk in any establishment and receive what ever we want and the retailer is paid by the government.

 

[Tombs]

Keep wondering why you're losing when things like opposing the legalization of gay marriage was a cornerstone of the party for awhile.

The extremist mindset on both ends turns off the people who matter to swing elections. I think a pretty wide swatch of public opinion includes "let people do what they want with their own dick and balls, but don't present it to school children". Reasonable minds can differ on where exactly the line is to be drawn, but we *can* draw a line if in a position to do so. Simply losing and/or abandoning the field does none of that.

We're losing because nobody is willing to risk their political career to oppose this nonsense, so voters won't turn out for them.

As it stands now the GOP is effectively democrat-policy-but-drawn-out. If we can't revisit gay marriage after the consequences it has brought to society between drag shows for kids and kink fetish nonsense being taught to 4th graders, then we don't have a country worth much.

This has nothing to do with reasonable minds. This is good people trying to co-exist and tolerate degeneracy to the limits of their extent, and it being pushed further and further every day.

If something isn't done soon to draw a hard line and reel this in, it's going to end up spawning a political movement neither you nor I will have a good time with. This is the blind spot people of your persuasion aren't seeming to understand. The pendulum always swings, just how far are you comfortable with it swinging next time around?

 

[BugI02]

Political nomenclatures (r, d, left, right,etc) aside, what we currently have politically isn't working for any body. Well, I guess it works for the politicians (from any party) since they always come out richererer and richererer. When it's said we can't/shouldn't vote for a 3rd party because they lack support and are powerless to make changes, it becomes a chicken and egg debate. If party C doesn't have enough support, we shouldn't vote for them. Well how does party C get support without votes? What came first, chicken or egg?

Perot managed to get 5x the best libertarian showing ever, and he did it from a standing start

It can be done, but the skilled, charismatic chicken comes before the viable third party egg

 

[BugI02]

Even when you go into hyper-inflation and money is "worthless," the point is that the Government still has the power to A) take it from someone and B) give it to someone else

This. When that happened to the Weimar Republic, they did not vote in a conservative government

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We're losing because nobody is willing to risk their political career to oppose this nonsense, so voters won't turn out for them.

As it stands now the GOP is effectively democrat-policy-but-drawn-out. If we can't revisit gay marriage after the consequences it has brought to society between drag shows for kids and kink fetish nonsense being taught to 4th graders, then we don't have a country worth much.

This has nothing to do with reasonable minds. This is good people trying to co-exist and tolerate degeneracy to the limits of their extent, and it being pushed further and further every day.

If something isn't done soon to draw a hard line and reel this in, it's going to end up spawning a political movement neither you nor I will have a good time with. This is the blind spot people of your persuasion aren't seeming to understand. The pendulum always swings, just how far are you comfortable with it swinging next time around?

Reminds me of my maternal grandfather who spent decades sure a race war was just around the corner. Always some cataclysm on the horizon to worry about, I suppose, and it costs us a lot of years when my interracial marriage made him concerned I'd be conflicted on what side to fight on. The idea that revisting gay marriage is a winner for Republicans is as likely as revisting miscegenation laws, and for the same reasons.

 

[DadSmith]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

“If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.” William Penn

This country was set up for a moral and religious people.

That isn't the case anymore.
According to polls
Gen Z only around 5% are religious.
Millennials around 49% are religious.
Baby Boomers 76% are religious.
Obviously you see our country isn't going to be religious very long. Once the 50 year old and, up are gone so will be the majority of religious people in this country.

Times have changed, and not for the better.

I do not see any return to the Judeo-Christian Roots of America. As William Penn stated we will be ruled by tyrants if people cannot self govern. That is where we are today. It's only going to get worse because of the lack of morality, and self-governing.
Even the Romans had morality until it didn't. Then it fell also.
According to Polybius "No longer confronted by the external threat, Romans could relax and give themselves up instead to greed, luxury, and personal ambition." He was taken about the start of the decline of Rome. Sound familiar?

Point is if we do not get a true conservative party we are not going to be able to conserve the constitution, and a bunch of tyrants will run roughshod over everyone.

Republican voters here on this forum can't even agree on anything especially when it comes to holding on to morality and self-governing. Both of which are essential to preserve the constitution.

 

[Kdf101]

What about when the Jenner mindset controls the party. Will it bother you then?

Again, I care about policy, not personal beliefs. If Jenner can help advance policy issues that I think is good, then so be it. I don’t have to agree with their life choices, and I sure as hell wo t tolerate them being forced on me, but I don’t see Jenner advocating that. Bruce just made personal choices I don’t agree with. This all or nothing voting test for republicans is what will kill us. Somebody up thread said something about a slow walk left is okay with any repubLucans. No. A slow walk right, which means we are all not going to agree on everything, but if we can make it incrementally better, then do it. The all or nothing philosophy of some republicans is just insane, and a sure fire way to get more leftists elected. I have my religious beliefs, others have theirs, and some have none. Fine with me, not my business. What is my business is what policy, laws, etc get passed, enacted etc. I want things to be more free, if that means a tiny nibble at a time, so be it. The Democratic Party is really good at small nibbles, we need to be also.