[quote]John S. wrote:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2009/10/cfg_poll_hoffman_leading_in_ny.php
Looks like America is finally done with the 2 party system. Lets hope this trend continues.[/quote]
Let’s hope not at this point. This will only serve to HAND an election to democrats, and that’s it.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Let’s hope not at this point. This will only serve to HAND an election to democrats, and that’s it.[/quote]
Well-stated. Parties in the American system have to be coalitional to be effective, and that is not an accident - the system has an intentional moderating effect.
The Libertarian Party is headed nowhere for the simple fact that libertarians - and there a number of types - just don’t make up a high percentage of the public.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
John S. wrote:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2009/10/cfg_poll_hoffman_leading_in_ny.php
Looks like America is finally done with the 2 party system. Lets hope this trend continues.
Let’s hope not at this point. This will only serve to HAND an election to democrats, and that’s it.[/quote]
Unless the current republican party dies very very very quickly.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Unless the current republican party dies very very very quickly.[/quote]
I don’t know about quickly, but the GoP does seem doomed to me. They’re a white party that can’t even keep white, republican voting, libertarians or conservatives happy. I suppose they’ll have their share of wins for a while yet, just because the Democrat overreach when they get in. However, eventually, the demographics will catch up.
Thunderbolt is right. Libertarianism – the philosophy – is too hard for the average person to understand. It rests on principle alone which most people do not see fitting with the pragmatism that politics is forced to take on.
This is why the libertarian movement needs to focus first on getting its ideas into the public in a way that the average person can accept. I am not sure how that will happen except for people like Ron Paul, et al – but then again he has been at it for 40 years.
Maybe in an other 40 years there will be enough people who are libertarian for it to make a difference.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Thunderbolt is right. Libertarianism – the philosophy – is too hard for the average person to understand. It rests on principle alone which most people do not see fitting with the pragmatism that politics is forced to take on.
This is why the libertarian movement needs to focus first on getting its ideas into the public in a way that the average person can accept. I am not sure how that will happen except for people like Ron Paul, et al – but then again he has been at it for 40 years.
Maybe in an other 40 years there will be enough people who are libertarian for it to make a difference.[/quote]
Wait till people start experiencing the inflation that the republicans and democrats have created. The Libertarian side is the only side who has been calling it since the beginning and once it hits expect a lot more people to be joining the conservative-Libertarian movement. It wont be in 40 years, expect a very strong conservative to come along and be in charge in 2012.
Because the Republicans are the solution? Palin and Jindal are more capable of fixing our problems? Wow…
I don’t think it is so easy.
While I can’t give an exact percentage, I would say the Democratic Party has about 35-40% of the vote completely locked up.
These being the individuals who say, and will not change, “My family has always voted Democrat and I have always voted Democrat,” “I am union and union members vote Democrat,” “Without the Democrats I will lose my Social Security,” “I am a liberal so of course I am going to vote Democrat,” “People of my race or religion vote Democrat: I’m no traitor,” “Only the Democrats will tax the evil rich,” “Only the Democrat says he is going to go after the oil companies,” “Only the Democrats will save the planet from global warming,” etc.
It’s very hard for anyone else to win an election given that high a percentage of locked-up votes. If for example the number is 40% locked-up, then another candidate – if there is only one of them – must win 501 out of every 600 other votes, or 83.5%, just as an example.
It’s not necessarily impossible. If Obama can make himself as an unpopular as Jimmy Carter, it could happen, for example. But it would take something like that, as personal opinion.
This reminds me of a video of GW and Vicente Fox I saw a while ago. Fox hinted at a “North American Union” and said somthing about making all the illegals here in America legal. GW didnt saw no as a matter o fact he didnt say anything. At that point I lost all faith in GW and most of the republican party. I really don’t think their are many real conservitives left in there so people are leaving the party. I think the RINO’s days are numbered.
[quote]John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Thunderbolt is right. Libertarianism – the philosophy – is too hard for the average person to understand. It rests on principle alone which most people do not see fitting with the pragmatism that politics is forced to take on.
This is why the libertarian movement needs to focus first on getting its ideas into the public in a way that the average person can accept. I am not sure how that will happen except for people like Ron Paul, et al – but then again he has been at it for 40 years.
Maybe in an other 40 years there will be enough people who are libertarian for it to make a difference.
Wait till people start experiencing the inflation that the republicans and democrats have created. The Libertarian side is the only side who has been calling it since the beginning and once it hits expect a lot more people to be joining the conservative-Libertarian movement. It wont be in 40 years, expect a very strong conservative to come along and be in charge in 2012.
[/quote]
John S I’d like to believe the republicans can come back. My only concern is that when they start to drag too much religion into the issue. But from what candidates have been thrown out I don’t forsee somebody strong enough to take on Obama (without a total collapse within the Prez’s supporters)
By the way, can you provide a single example of a law driven by Republican religion, for example passed in the Bush years when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate as well, that you have in mind as such a problem?
Not taking my tax dollars to put into stem cell research it seems to me would be all you could come up with.
So why is this such an area of concern for you and others? I constantly hear it, but never hear substantive examples to back it up.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t think it is so easy.
While I can’t give an exact percentage, I would say the Democratic Party has about 35-40% of the vote completely locked up.
These being the individuals who say, and will not change, “My family has always voted Democrat and I have always voted Democrat,” “I am union and union members vote Democrat,” “Without the Democrats I will lose my Social Security,” “I am a liberal so of course I am going to vote Democrat,” “People of my race or religion vote Democrat: I’m no traitor,” “Only the Democrats will tax the evil rich,” “Only the Democrat says he is going to go after the oil companies,” “Only the Democrats will save the planet from global warming,” etc.
It’s very hard for anyone else to win an election given that high a percentage of locked-up votes. If for example the number is 40% locked-up, then another candidate – if there is only one of them – must win 501 out of every 600 other votes, or 83.5%, just as an example.
It’s not necessarily impossible. If Obama can make himself as an unpopular as Jimmy Carter, it could happen, for example. But it would take something like that, as personal opinion.[/quote]
I would say that unless there is a drastic turnaround in the economy in the next two years that the next election could be very intersting. But then again it depends on the strength of the opposing candidtes.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By the way, can you provide a single example of a law driven by Republican religion, for example passed in the Bush years when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate as well, that you have in mind as such a problem?
Not taking my tax dollars to put into stem cell research it seems to me would be all you could come up with.
So why is this such an area of concern for you?[/quote]
The stem cell research is a big one for me as my wife has a degenerative nerve damage and this is a frontier that could possibly bring back her quality of life.
The threat of overturning Roe V. Wade is always there (but I’m not sure that would ever happen). But you are correct on that there hasn’t been any legislation pushed with the church agenda. One of my issues is when the church reaches out to a politician and “reminds” him of his/her affiliation and how they should vote.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
… My only concern is that when they start to drag too much religion into the issue…
[/quote]
Gee thanks Push I never knew you cared…
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
By the way, can you provide a single example of a law driven by Republican religion, for example passed in the Bush years when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate as well, that you have in mind as such a problem?
Not taking my tax dollars to put into stem cell research it seems to me would be all you could come up with.
So why is this such an area of concern for you?
The stem cell research is a big one for me as my wife has a degenerative nerve damage and this is a frontier that could possibly bring back her quality of life.[/quote]
If you’re a conservative or libertarian then why do you want tax dollars to be taken from me and put to research that ought to be done by free enterprise?
(Or perhaps you’re under the mistaken impression that the Republicans blocked such stem cell research. Didn’t happen.)
Do you have examples? I can recall the Catholic Church “reminding” some Democrats that way, though it seems only on the abortion issue and only rarely even then, but can’t think of Republican examples, myself.
It seems to me this is just one of those memes that are out there: “Republicans are for the rich,” “Democrats are for the working man,” “Republicans try to force their religion down your throat,” “Republicans try to control what you do in the bedroom.”
Requests for examples for the latter two always come up dry, but memes are not so easily killed. The lack of examples never seems to bother the spreader.
And I also should have qualified with “embryonic,” which also has the feature of having already at that time pretty clearly been the wrong approach and by now I would now say demonstrated to be.
To clarify the difference:
Stem cells produced from embryos will not have your DNA. Therefore your body will tend to produce antibodies against them.
Adult stem cells derived from your own body will have your DNA.
Which way is the better way to go?
The whole embryonic stem cell brouhaha never made medical sense. What there was was some scientists, having gotten into that field – it was easier to do than adult stem cell research before enough was learned about working with the latter – of course wanting to continue feeding at the Federal trough, and some persons seeing Republicans against a given thing (Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research) therefore feeling it necessary to make it seem as if this was dooming millions to misery and early death.
Not out of science, but out of partisanship.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
… My only concern is that when they start to drag too much religion into the issue…
Gee thanks Push I never knew you cared…
Like Bill said, Repubs only resisted using TAXPAYER dollars to fund stem cell research.
Also the abortion debate encompasses so much more than religion. It is a legitimate debate whether one is religious or not.[/quote]
I had seen it somewhere I’d have to research the info to find it again (it’s not right at my fingertips).
And yes I know the abortion issue is unbelievably complicated, and a very qualified and legitimate debate with STRONG opinions on all sides.
There really is no need for you try to find it (but feel free.)
There was absolutely no restriction placed on anyone doing embryonic stem cell research with whatever dollars they themselves had or could raise. The only thing stopped was using taxpayer dollars to fund it.
However, I have no doubt that you read probably many sources where for partisan reasons, many authors wrote that Bush “banned” embryonic stem cell research and tried to create anger over it. Not true, however.
The reason I said there is no need for you to find it is that I have no doubt that 1000 sources could easily be found all falsely claiming that Bush “banned” embryonic stem cell research. It was endemic, because it was politically useful to some who really could not care less about truth.