Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Collapse of the GOP

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2010 11:28:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Apparently, with this recent tiff over what at the very least Keith Olbermann is calling "bondage-gate," several RNC staffers have resigned, and in their place, even more incompetent people have been put in place. Meanwhile, former RNC Chair Mike Duncan has set up a way to by-pass the RNC for candidate funding, essentially making the entire organization pointless. This can only end in one of two ways; either they get rid of Steele and get some unity and direction back in the RNC, or two groups start competing for authority within the Republican Party, which will lead to an inevitable fissure ripping the party down the middle.

So, when's the death march taking place?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2010 11:33:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/5/2010 11:32:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I didn't quite understand the context of that, could you explain further?

http://abcnews.go.com...

ABC News can do it for me.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2010 11:51:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow, I would loooove for the GOP to collapse. Gives me chills just thinking about it. Won't happen though, Americans are too stupid.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2010 11:52:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Tehe Steele appointed the guy who ran his unsuccessful campaign to take his spot. Maybe that was his first mistake, especially since 4 people who worked under that guy quit in the last 2 months, apparently...? The second mistake was him shooing responsibility. He brings up that people doubted him from the get-go (gee I wonder why) and then made it seem as if their skepticism was unwarranted, even though he has been nothing but a liability to the RNC meaning that they were right in their assessment of him all along - especially after finding out that under his leadership, the RNC has spent more money than it raised in this election cycle. Anyway, I think the best thing for them to do is get rid of Steele, possibly by making a public firing but then just hiring him again somewhere else that's more low-profile or attempting to shift attention to something else as politicians are so good at doing. He's not leaving all-together, but I doubt he'll be able to play a major role in that area or else there will be massive party divisions like Volkov said.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:11:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/5/2010 11:51:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Wow, I would loooove for the GOP to collapse.

You WANT the democrats to have one party rule?

Even if you prefer to vote for the Democrats, I'm pretty sure what you get now and what you get when they have no competition are two different things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 7:49:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:11:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You WANT the democrats to have one party rule?

Even if you prefer to vote for the Democrats, I'm pretty sure what you get now and what you get when they have no competition are two different things.

I dunno. How much more incompetent can the Democrats get when they're left to their own devices?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 7:59:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:11:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/5/2010 11:51:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Wow, I would loooove for the GOP to collapse.


You WANT the democrats to have one party rule?

Even if you prefer to vote for the Democrats, I'm pretty sure what you get now and what you get when they have no competition are two different things.

would be cool if a Mod. Lib. party split it though... They'd take prolly most "independents" and actually bring forward a mix of the two parties that I think lots of people from both sides could identify with.

Prolly not gonna happen though as most libertarians are too far out to be "Moderates"...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:14:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:11:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/5/2010 11:51:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Wow, I would loooove for the GOP to collapse.


You WANT the democrats to have one party rule?

Even if you prefer to vote for the Democrats, I'm pretty sure what you get now and what you get when they have no competition are two different things.

Daamn, good point. Though, if the Republicans collapsed don't you think there'd be a good chance they get replaced by the Libertarians?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
marcusbrutus
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:21:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:14:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:11:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/5/2010 11:51:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Wow, I would loooove for the GOP to collapse.


You WANT the democrats to have one party rule?

Even if you prefer to vote for the Democrats, I'm pretty sure what you get now and what you get when they have no competition are two different things.

Daamn, good point. Though, if the Republicans collapsed don't you think there'd be a good chance they get replaced by the Libertarians?

They would, then democrats would have no chance.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:24:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:14:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Daamn, good point. Though, if the Republicans collapsed don't you think there'd be a good chance they get replaced by the Libertarians?

Not necessarily.

Libertarian-leaning Republicans might go towards the Libertarians, but paleoconservative and neoconservative Republicans would probably lean towards the Constitution Party. When you break these two groups up, and I'm pretty sure both share about the same amount of support within the GOP (can't be too sure, though), then the Democrats easily come up the middle and one-party rule forever.

It happened here in Canada. The right leaning party broke into two groups, and the Liberals were able to exploit it through three elections to win big majorities.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:28:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:24:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/6/2010 12:14:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Daamn, good point. Though, if the Republicans collapsed don't you think there'd be a good chance they get replaced by the Libertarians?

Not necessarily.

Libertarian-leaning Republicans might go towards the Libertarians, but paleoconservative and neoconservative Republicans would probably lean towards the Constitution Party. When you break these two groups up, and I'm pretty sure both share about the same amount of support within the GOP (can't be too sure, though), then the Democrats easily come up the middle and one-party rule forever.

It happened here in Canada. The right leaning party broke into two groups, and the Liberals were able to exploit it through three elections to win big majorities.

Do you personally consider that a good or bad thing?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:31:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:28:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Do you personally consider that a good or bad thing?

With my Liberal hat on, it's a brilliant thing. Recipe for success for liberal forces. Hurrah.

With my democracy hat on, it's bad. It means one party, rightly using the strategy of a unified front, will be able to hold on to power no matter what, or at least until one side in the right-leaning civil war is destroyed, or is absorbed.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:45:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Representative Democracy is phony democracy. This is but another example of where it utterly fails.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 12:50:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:45:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Representative Democracy is phony democracy. This is but another example of where it utterly fails.

Popular democracy is chaotic and stagnant. Representative democracy at least allows the chance for something to get done, while voter's voices are still heard. I find nothing wrong with that. Personally, I'd advocate a helluva lot more participation within democracy. Currently, representative democracies are too beholden to, well, the elites, the special interests, and etc. Political parties and elites can be held account through laws and commissions and what have you, but there's no better way to hold democratic politicians account than by making sure the voters are actually engaged in governance, and know whats going on.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:50:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The system in the U.S. is very much suited for two-party rule. It is quite unlikely that the GOP will split up. Every time there is a major shift in the balance of power there is talk of the losing party splintering. When the party loses there is always a debate within the party over purifying the party (like the Tea Baggers and ultra conservatives want) and having a "Big Tent" party like the moderates want. It has happened several times recently with the democratic party, and it is now happening with the GOP. Generally, the losing party stays the losing party as until the "Big Tent" partisans win out.

At absolute worst, the party will split for a very short time. Eventually one of the right leaning parties will absorb the other and it will quickly go back to a two party system. That is highly unlikely, though.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:55:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:14:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Daamn, good point. Though, if the Republicans collapsed don't you think there'd be a good chance they get replaced by the Libertarians?

Hell, no. It will be the Tea Party.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:56:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 12:50:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
Popular democracy is chaotic and stagnant.

"According to the "will of the people" theory, direct democracy—voting on each issue by all the citizens, as in New England town meetings—is the ideal political arrangement. Modern civilization and the complexities of society, however, are supposed to have outmoded direct democracy, so that we must settle for the less perfect "representative democracy" (in olden days often called a "republic"), where the people select representatives to give effect to their will on political issues. Logical problems arise almost immediately." - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 1:57:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:50:10 PM, JBlake wrote:
That is highly unlikely, though.

yep... ARGH!!! probably my biggest gripe with America.

Forseen by GW

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 2:01:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:59:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:56:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Rothbard is infallible.

I think he chickened out a bit with his proportionality principle but he is damn good.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 2:12:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 1:56:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Rothbard Rothbard Rothbard

At 4/6/2010 2:07:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Bawh!!... rothbard...
Baawhh!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 2:14:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 2:07:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:56:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Rothbard matters.

Not in my books.

His arguments certainly do.

"One is that different forms of electoral arrangements, different delimitations of geographical districts, all equally arbitrary, will often greatly alter the picture of the "majority will." If a country is divided into districts for choosing representatives, then "gerrymandering" is inherent in such a division: there is no satisfactory, rational way of demarking the divisions. The party in power at the time of division, or redivision, will inevitably alter the districts to produce a systematic bias in its favor; but no other way is inherently more rational or more truly evocative of majority will. Moreover, the very division of the earth's surface into countries is itself arbitrary. If a government covers a certain geographical area, does "democracy" mean that a majority group in a certain district should be permitted to secede and form its own government, or to join another country? Does democracy mean majority rule over a larger, or over a smaller, area? In short, which majority should prevail?

The very concept of a national democracy is, in fact, self-contradictory. For if someone contends that the majority in Country X should govern that country, then it could be argued with equal validity that the majority of a certain district within Country X should be allowed to govern itself and secede from the larger country, and this subdividing process can logically proceed down to the village block, the apartment house, and, finally, each individual, thus marking the end of all democratic government through reduction to individual self-government. But if such a right of secession is denied, then the national democrat must concede that the more numerous population of other countries should have a right to outvote his country; and so he must proceed upwards to a world government run by a world majority rule. In short, the democrat who favors national government is self-contradictory; he must favor a world government or none at all." - Murray Rothbard
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 2:15:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 2:12:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/6/2010 1:56:41 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Rothbard Rothbard Rothbard

At 4/6/2010 2:07:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Bawh!!... rothbard...
Baawhh!

Lmao, 10/10
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 2:17:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 2:15:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
*Ignores arguments*
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2010 2:19:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/6/2010 2:17:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/6/2010 2:15:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
*Didn't see Reasoning's posts due to him responding to matt's*
*Being a presupposing jackass*