Can anyone tell me what exactly the GOP is running on?
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
At least she is running on something besides no ideas and criticizing. Dead party.
Oh no doubt, but so are the liberals. No one respects those pussies. Too NeoCon like these days.
Right now - not a whole lot, but what candidates that have any chance on either side are really running on anything besides general party driven talking points?
I think the general message right now for repubs seems like economic growth driven by the private sector instead of the ever growing, inefficient black hole of the federal government.
My take is the vast majority of problems in society could be solved by the person staring in the mirror everyday and taking a bit of responsibility for poor personal choices. More government just seems to absolve people of that responsibility imo. One size fits all doesn't really fit anyone right?
I think the general message right now for repubs seems like economic growth driven by the private sector instead of the ever growing, inefficient black hole of the federal government.
My take is the vast majority of problems in society could be solved by the person staring in the mirror everyday and taking a bit of responsibility for poor personal choices. More government just seems to absolve people of that responsibility imo. One size fits all doesn't really fit anyone right?
No seriously the rep party is dead. Bunch of racist, stupid, religious idiots. Ha See ya.
Have you looked at any of their websites?
Bobby Jindal just announced, but you can look through his website news feed and read dozens of op-eds that give you a pretty good idea of what he will be running on. Plus you can look at what he did as Governor of Louisiana.
Rand Paul has a whole section detailing where he stands on most every major issue and what he would do as president.
Ditto Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio.
Ted Cruz lists his record as well as numerous entries on his news feed feed detailing his plans. Much the same for George Pataki. Not much out of Fiorina yet in the way of formally laying out positions, but she is still just getting going, and looking at her track record, you can get an idea of what sort of solutions she will gravitate toward. Lindsey Graham's Senate website lists his positions and opinions on most major issues, or a simple google search brings back a lot. I am sure Rick Santorum has stuff on his website too, but I am not willing to venture there...I am already queasy from looking at Lindsey Graham.
You are probably just missing it because you aren't looking.
Huey is a product of his party. If it doesn't go by what his party tells him, he doesn't give it any thought.
No, it won't be enough. Running on a campaign of "I'm not him/her" and providing no solutions and only a picture of doom and gloom hasn't worked the last two elections for the Republican candidate so it's curious that they would use the same strategy again. Of course, it did work pretty well for them in the house and on the state level so maybe that's all they care about.
C'mon, codflyer. Energy development, economic growth that creates good jobs, repairing the horrid mess known as the Obama/Clinton foreign policy debacle,repealing and replacing Obamacare with something that will actually work, and getting government overreach out of our private lives is not a positive platform. It's just running against Hillary. Well, according to the mindless party shills in this thread, at least.
When a conservative says he wants to get govt. overreach out of our private lives, that means he wants to sniff around your bedroom, peep in windows and generally just do the creeper thing. Just the way you guys are wired.
I voted republican most of my life but the last election I left my ballot blank for president and senate.
The income gap is getting out of control and the republicans when given a chance piss away money we don't have just as bad as democrats.
What I would like to see is a true reduction of spending, the closing of dozens of military installations, overhaul of retirement packages for federal workers, Higher taxes for super rich and have that money go directly to the middle class in the form of a check. That would give the poor an incentive to become middle class and help even out the income gap.
I would like to see incentives for clean energy, not mandates.
I would cut back foreign aid 5% a year for a decade. That money can help ourselves n infrastructure.
I would pull out of most foreign countries because all of these Middle East hell holes deserve an iron fist dictator. If somebody messes with Americans I would carpet bomb their asses back 500 years. The kids grow up to be terrorists anyway. Basically the Middle East had their chance and they blew it. Ignore them for a couple of generations and see what they do on their own.
The income gap is getting out of control and the republicans when given a chance piss away money we don't have just as bad as democrats.
What I would like to see is a true reduction of spending, the closing of dozens of military installations, overhaul of retirement packages for federal workers, Higher taxes for super rich and have that money go directly to the middle class in the form of a check. That would give the poor an incentive to become middle class and help even out the income gap.
I would like to see incentives for clean energy, not mandates.
I would cut back foreign aid 5% a year for a decade. That money can help ourselves n infrastructure.
I would pull out of most foreign countries because all of these Middle East hell holes deserve an iron fist dictator. If somebody messes with Americans I would carpet bomb their asses back 500 years. The kids grow up to be terrorists anyway. Basically the Middle East had their chance and they blew it. Ignore them for a couple of generations and see what they do on their own.
There will be eventually. It's so early in the process. The polls are going to be changing often. Once the thin the heard and get deep into the debates, you'll hear substance. Whether you like that substance depends. But it doesn't make a difference. The GOP will promise this, and the Dems (Hillary) will promise that. In the end, we'll just get more of the same.
I think that's true. And historically, when has the "out" party run on anything except not being the "in" party?
Well, you and I agree there. But nonetheless, she will at least promise something, which is something the GOP won't, and that in itself will get her the Oval Office
I couldn't disagree more with this. How can individuals solve Climate Change? Reduce income inequality? Get billionaires out of elections? These problems are well beyond simply looking in the mirror and saying, "I'll take responsibility." You may not like it, but the free market won't be solving any of these problems anytime soon.
To make this clear, I'm not trusting Hillary nor any of the Republicans to make good on their promises. But I do feel that Hillary has a better message for the future, which is why I think she will win. She will largely punt on that message, but it will be enough to get her the White House.
That is kind of the problem. Everyone wants it all NOW. Economic growth does not work that way. It works one business at a time, one hire at at time, one sale at a time and so on.
Supply Side Economics has been a winner right along. However, everyone starts criticising the results before any of the tax cuts, spending cuts, or any of the other provisions are even put into place.
Everyone seems to prefer a growth model such as what Japan has had in place for the past 25 years ... a kind of muddle along strategy. Japan could have an absolutely booming economy (Us too for the matter) if only someone would have addressed LONG TERM growth.
In the meantime, everyone gets a little older and a little more poor on a relative basis, and in turn, the complaining gets louder and louder.
Demand side is how you achieve long term growth. Supply side is just robbing your future for immediate pleasure. It's like drugs, it feels good for a little while then reality hits. Supply side builds a foundation. It's like farming and tends to the land so that it will produce for years.
The fun thing is, in a few years cons will pretend no one ever thought this.
I think you might have these two perspectives turned around, or perhaps you have transposed the words.
In any case, with the supply side, private individuals finding themselves with slightly more disposable income will over time, save this and spend/invest it on things that make their lives better.
With the demand side, they will not have the marginal disposable income (gone to taxes) and will stand by as the government spends it on whatever the government deems to be the best use. Usually this involves buying off interest groups in exchange for votes; hardly something that will put down any sort of stable long-term growth platform.
Last edited:
Let me guess . . . you started caring about this when Obama became president. We lefties objected to it under Bush and we object to it now.
Nothing. The "I'm not Bush" strategy was already used in the last two elections, so they're screwed.
