Karl Rove Creates "Conservative Victory project"... To Get Rid of The Tea Party
82 replies, posted
[QUOTE]COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2&"]Read more[/URL]
R Vs. R, RINO vs True Conservative, Moderate Vs Teabagger. Whatever you want to call it, the tensions within the Republican party are growing, and now that the money's flowing, we could see some fireworks.
I hope the Republican party explodes.
I'm ready to see the GOP wither and die, I just would rather not have the dems have the inevitable full control of the government until something else forms itself to be the other half.
I'm ready for the Socialist Revolution!
[QUOTE=ewitwins;39467208]I'm ready for the Socialist Revolution![/QUOTE]
it's inevitable comrade!
I'd rather not have one party, and bunch of independents who'll never get voted for anything thank you very much.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39467238]I'd rather not have one party, and bunch of independents who'll never get voted for anything thank you very much.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the GOP moderates will win and the far-right nuts in their failure will form a new party that will never get elected into office but can still be a vent for them to channel through.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39467238]I'd rather not have one party, and bunch of independents who'll never get voted for anything thank you very much.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have the Democrats than the Republicans any day of the week.
Personally, I'd rather have parties and coalitions disbanded[and outlawed] and have it so you vote for the person and the policies/concepts they stand by.
As much as I would love to see the entire Republican party die, I can't say that I would be thrilled with the idea of only one party being left in charge. It only means that businesses can concentrate their funding into a tighter group of people, which in turn will make it easier for them to make nothing happen.
i'd like to see the opposite, vote for parties and not individuals.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39467271]Personally, I'd rather have parties and coalitions disbanded[and outlawed] and have it so you vote for the person and the policies/concepts they stand by.[/QUOTE]
That is okay in theory, but when you look at it, how would anyone get their name out there? The parties exist so that people can garner the backing and fame needed to win an election.
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39467287]i'd like to see the opposite, vote for parties and not individuals.[/QUOTE]
How would that work? What if you disagree strongly with one of the core tenants of the party? You just have to suck it up and shrug your shoulders? At least when you are voting for an individual, your chances of finding someone you agree with most of the time is more likely.
[QUOTE=valkery;39467295]
How would that work? What if you disagree strongly with one of the core tenants of the party? You just have to suck it up and shrug your shoulders? At least when you are voting for an individual, your chances of finding someone you agree with most of the time is more likely.[/QUOTE]
voting for parties would be better because when coupled with proportional representation, wouldn't end with spoiled votes and only one winner. it would require a multitude of political parties to work though.
[QUOTE=valkery;39467295]That is okay in theory, but when you look at it, how would anyone get their name out there? The parties exist so that people can garner the backing and fame needed to win an election.[/QUOTE]
But people vote for the "brand name" so to speak and elect people who may have nothing in common with their voters, or even the party ideals.
The article is a perfect example. You vote for a GOP candidate because he's GOP. What if you're a GOP moderate and you just voted for a teabagger?
[QUOTE=CloaknDagger;39467260]I'd rather have the Democrats than the Republicans any day of the week.[/QUOTE]
I'm fine with voting for Democrats on state level[mainly because North Dakota Democrat-NPL, is moderate Republicans if anything], but I can't fucking stand either of the parties on national level.
One is filled to the brim with spineless cowards who use tragedy to push their concepts.
The other is filled to the brim with psychopaths who've got no idea on the concept of long term effects.
Any of the other parties which have the chance of being the infamous '3rd Party' is a terrible combination of all of them.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467344]But people vote for the "brand name" so to speak and elect people who may have nothing in common with their voters, or even the party ideals.[/QUOTE]
that's why you vote for the brand name instead of any individual. instead of saying "i'm voting for john mccain because he is a republican" you say "i am voting for the republican party this election", cast a vote, and the republican party appoints someone to a seat who is kept in line with party values through party whips.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39467341]voting for parties would be better because when coupled with proportional representation, wouldn't end with spoiled votes and only one winner. it would require a multitude of political parties to work though.[/QUOTE]
That would be great for the election process, but I feel as though it would be more of a gridlock in the actual decision making department. Rather than having one guy who says "Okay, this is what my idea is, let's go do it," you have a group of people sitting around having a committee meeting. That only ever ends with people getting frustrated and accomplishing nothing.
the basics of republicanism and what it actually is is something i support
not all the retards who are republican today
[QUOTE=valkery;39467362]That would be great for the election process, but I feel as though it would be more of a gridlock in the actual decision making department. Rather than having one guy who says "Okay, this is what my idea is, let's go do it," you have a group of people sitting around having a committee meeting. That only ever ends with people getting frustrated and accomplishing nothing.[/QUOTE]
lol is the united states any different?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39467355]that's why you vote for the brand name instead of any individual. instead of saying "i'm voting for john mccain because he is a republican" you say "i am voting for the republican party this election", cast a vote, and the republican party appoints someone to a seat who is kept in line with party values through party whips.[/QUOTE]
And what would you suggest we do with the GOP in its current state then? It has two "party values", moderate and teabagger.
i mean the american system is the definition of gridlock. at least in foreign parliamentary systems there actually [i]is[/i] often progress since majorities and coalitions are formed(for better or worse).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39467393]i mean the american system is the definition of gridlock. at least in foreign parliamentary systems there actually [i]is[/i] often progress since majorities and coalitions are formed(for better or worse).[/QUOTE]
What exactly is a "coalition" in a parliamentary system? I've never quite understood the concept.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467392]And what would you suggest we do with the GOP in its current state then? It has two "party values", moderate and teabagger.[/QUOTE]
no it doesn't. the party has one platform, although they sponsor multiple factions.
if we switched and the republican party decided to take a "moderate" route, the tea partiers would have to vote moderate on issues or they would be removed from the party. vice versa if they decided a tea party route.
If the GOP explodes and collapses, it will not be good. Sure you can say "but racist gun toting christians", but one side having a large supermajority is not conducive for a good political climate.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467404]What exactly is a "coalition" in a parliamentary system? I've never quite understood the concept.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition[/url]
it would be a socialist party and communist party deciding to "unite" to form a government when neither side could gain majority alone. it's polypartisanism.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
if a majority isn't reached a government can't be formed. so it ensures that parties are working together and compromising on values to ensure that a government [i]can[/i] be formed.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39467428][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition[/url]
it would be a socialist party and communist party deciding to "unite" to form a government when neither side could gain majority alone. it's polypartisanism.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
if a majority isn't reached a government can't be formed. so it ensures that parties are working together and compromising on values to ensure that a government [i]can[/i] be formed.[/QUOTE]
So what's to stop one party from doing its own thing after they "form a government"?
And what happens if a government "can't be formed"?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467468]So what's to stop one party from doing its own thing after they "form a government"?
And what happens if a government "can't be formed"?[/QUOTE]
generally the government can't function. often times a new election is held until a government does get formed.
[editline]4th February 2013[/editline]
it depends on the constitution and the specific laws regarding elections.
it's generally not a good thing when a government isn't formed(greece 2012), but it's often more symptomatic of greater problems in the country.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39467515]generally the government can't function. often times a new election is held until a government does get formed.[/QUOTE]
I can see the teabaggers having a field day with elections happening again and again and again
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467536]I can see the teabaggers having a field day with elections happening again and again and again[/QUOTE]
it's a big deal when shit like that happens. i mean when it was happening in greece it was because no parties were willing to cooperate for one reason or another("we don't negotiate with leftists", "you guys are like the golden dawn", sorta shit). a single party is generally not enough to hinder a coalition.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.