PDA

View Full Version : APP - gop/rnc considering 'purity' questionnaire



Don Quixote
11-25-2009, 02:35 AM
yep, the new gop is considering giving potential candidates a questionnaire to determine if their goals are in line with the gop's goals

rr would not pass the test

if they do this it will be the gop reducing its party appeal and shooting itself in the foot

i guess that they would rather be small and pure

Thorn
11-25-2009, 11:26 AM
yep, the new gop is considering giving potential candidates a questionnaire to determine if their goals are in line with the gop's goals

rr would not pass the test

if they do this it will be the gop reducing its party appeal and shooting itself in the foot

i guess that they would rather be small and pure

Of course we all know that everyone answers survey questions candidly and honestly, right? :rolleyes:

FUCK THE POLICE
11-25-2009, 12:19 PM
In the UK, Canada, and Australia if you vote against the party on any major issue there's a serious chance you're not going to be standing for re-election on their line in the next election. You can still run as an independent, but even in Australia (where they have IRV) it's a long shot.

And I sort of agree with that. Why should anyone who voted against healthcare still be a Democrat?

Cancel 2018. 3
11-25-2009, 02:01 PM
In the UK, Canada, and Australia if you vote against the party on any major issue there's a serious chance you're not going to be standing for re-election on their line in the next election. You can still run as an independent, but even in Australia (where they have IRV) it's a long shot.

And I sort of agree with that. Why should anyone who voted against healthcare still be a Democrat?

you're right, no one should think for themselves or consider their own constituents, they should all vote in lockstep with the brown shirt party leaders of the democratic party

FUCK THE POLICE
11-25-2009, 02:27 PM
you're right, no one should think for themselves or consider their own constituents, they should all vote in lockstep with the brown shirt party leaders of the democratic party

If you want to think for yourself run as an independent.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-25-2009, 02:32 PM
If you want to think for yourself run as an independent.

so all political parties are good for is borg thinking....no wonder you're a sheeple

FUCK THE POLICE
11-25-2009, 02:36 PM
so all political parties are good for is borg thinking....

Yes. Political parties present a unified front for an ideology. People who agree with that ideology should vote for that party. Otherwise they should vote for an independent.


no wonder you're a sheeple

I want my lawmakers to be sheeple to my interests.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-25-2009, 02:44 PM
Yes. Political parties present a unified front for an ideology. People who agree with that ideology should vote for that party. Otherwise they should vote for an independent.



I want my lawmakers to be sheeple to my interests.

great...so if you are a republican or a democrat, you can't think for yourself....and if your constituents don't want you to vote lockstep with your party, then fuck them, you must hail the party hitler....

nonsense, if that was the case then each party should elect one person nationally, then you will have no disagreement...and you can sit back and enjoy your sheeplehood

FUCK THE POLICE
11-27-2009, 02:53 AM
The purpose of a party is ultimately to reduce the opinion of the majority to the majority of the majority.

Don Quixote
11-27-2009, 08:03 PM
The purpose of a party is ultimately to reduce the opinion of the majority to the majority of the majority.

perhaps the actual purpose is to find enough people that have the same opinions or enough of the same opinions to produce and effective voting block

personally, i register and vote independent - of course the problem in ca is that you cannot vote in primaries

i would like to see both the dems and reps split into two parties each for a total of 4 parties

where i live my representative is a republican in a 'safe' district so my vote does not count for that office :( regardless of what i think about his politics

Cancel 2018. 3
11-29-2009, 05:31 PM
The purpose of a party is ultimately to reduce the opinion of the majority to the majority of the majority.

no...the purpose is power

you're a borg, hive think, you can't function without someone telling you what to think

hopefully one day you will be dissimilated from the borg

Don Quixote
11-29-2009, 07:58 PM
no...the purpose is power

you're a borg, hive think, you can't function without someone telling you what to think

hopefully one day you will be dissimilated from the borg

politics used to be the art of living together or getting along with someone you do not like

people gather together to form a body politic for the purpose of exerting their power over others or themselves

Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making). The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#cite_note-0) and refers to the regulation of a political unit,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#cite_note-1) and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#cite_note-freedict-2) The word "Politics" comes from the Greek word πολἰς ("polis") meaning city-state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state). The Greek word πολίτἰκος "Politikos" describes anything concerning the state or city affairs. In Latin, this was "politicus" and in French "politique". Thus it became "politics" in Middle English (see the Concise Oxford Dictionary).




^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#cite_ref-0) Definition of politics from die.net (http://dict.die.net/politics/)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#cite_ref-1) Politics (definition)@Everything2.com (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=303454)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics#cite_ref-freedict_2-0) Definition of politics from "The Free Dictionary" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politics)

Cancel 2018. 3
11-29-2009, 08:23 PM
politics used to be the art of living together or getting along with someone you do not like

thats a pipe dream and not true

that is like saying the nuclear bomb was a bomb meant to end all wars, a bomb to bring peace.....

Don Quixote
11-29-2009, 09:46 PM
thats a pipe dream and not true

that is like saying the nuclear bomb was a bomb meant to end all wars, a bomb to bring peace.....

it is not that is was not tried during 20th century, it just did not worl

SouthernBelle82
12-09-2009, 06:05 PM
And what's so funny is their hero Reagan fails it. :bleh:

SouthernBelle82
12-09-2009, 06:06 PM
Of course we all know that everyone answers survey questions candidly and honestly, right? :rolleyes:

Yep. In psychology survey's are taken with a grain of salt. Plus, the people doing the survey can go to people who they want and who will give them the answer they want.

SouthernBelle82
12-09-2009, 06:07 PM
In the UK, Canada, and Australia if you vote against the party on any major issue there's a serious chance you're not going to be standing for re-election on their line in the next election. You can still run as an independent, but even in Australia (where they have IRV) it's a long shot.

And I sort of agree with that. Why should anyone who voted against healthcare still be a Democrat?

Two words: Blue Dogs.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-09-2009, 07:03 PM
If the Blue Dogs want to vote against healthcare they should become Republicans or make their own party. I'm not even talking about going to the lengths the parliamentary countries do, but there should at least be a requirement that you vote for the major changes the PARTY PROMISED AND WAS ELECTED TO BRING ABOUT.

Epicurus
12-09-2009, 07:12 PM
They were not elected to bring about those changes though. You are just being stupid. One of the greatest political certainties in existence is that a candidate will not actually enact the grand reforms he proposes. Many people who voted for Obama, myself included, were actively opposed to the notion of healthcare reform and simply thought that Obama's platitudes on the issue were just like his platitudes on other issues like Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan: Pretty words that would never be acted on.

Obama may or may not pass healthcare, but if he does he has undone his own constituency coalition of independent voters, liberal Democrats, and moderate Republicans.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-09-2009, 08:41 PM
They were not elected to bring about those changes though. You are just being stupid. One of the greatest political certainties in existence is that a candidate will not actually enact the grand reforms he proposes. Many people who voted for Obama, myself included, were actively opposed to the notion of healthcare reform and simply thought that Obama's platitudes on the issue were just like his platitudes on other issues like Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan: Pretty words that would never be acted on.

Obama may or may not pass healthcare, but if he does he has undone his own constituency coalition of independent voters, liberal Democrats, and moderate Republicans.

The Democrats are going to suffer whether or not they pass healthcare. 1994 wasn't made any better because the Democrats failed to do anything.

I think Obama did nurture the perception that he could provide healthcare to millions of Americans without tax raises. Maybe his plan would have worked like that. But once in office all he basically did was tell congress to make a bill (because he knew that if he tried to force one on them like Clinton it would go badly).

Congress had different views on healthcare. Most Obama supporters will continue to support him anyway, and the coalition is already fractured whether or not the bill gets passed.

IMHO, this is just reason that party executives and the leadership in the legislature need to get together before the election to form a coherent plan. The executive is often elected because of his bully pulpit to force his legislative promises through, but he doesn't really have the power to do jack shit without the support of the leadership in the legislature.

Don Quixote
12-12-2009, 12:52 AM
The Democrats are going to suffer whether or not they pass healthcare. 1994 wasn't made any better because the Democrats failed to do anything.

I think Obama did nurture the perception that he could provide healthcare to millions of Americans without tax raises. Maybe his plan would have worked like that. But once in office all he basically did was tell congress to make a bill (because he knew that if he tried to force one on them like Clinton it would go badly).

Congress had different views on healthcare. Most Obama supporters will continue to support him anyway, and the coalition is already fractured whether or not the bill gets passed.

IMHO, this is just reason that party executives and the leadership in the legislature need to get together before the election to form a coherent plan. The executive is often elected because of his bully pulpit to force his legislative promises through, but he doesn't really have the power to do jack shit without the support of the leadership in the legislature.

all the opposition needs to do is win one senate seat to enforce their agenda of not letting bho pass anything critical to bho's agenda

PostmodernProphet
12-12-2009, 07:20 AM
If the Blue Dogs want to vote against healthcare they should become Republicans or make their own party. I'm not even talking about going to the lengths the parliamentary countries do, but there should at least be a requirement that you vote for the major changes the PARTY PROMISED AND WAS ELECTED TO BRING ABOUT.

you're forgetting that the only reason the Democrats became the majority party was because it ran the blue dogs for office in conservative areas.....the blue dogs were elected on different promises than the rest of your dogs.......

Mott the Hoople
12-12-2009, 08:15 AM
you're forgetting that the only reason the Democrats became the majority party was because it ran the blue dogs for office in conservative areas.....the blue dogs were elected on different promises than the rest of your dogs.......
uhh you failed to mention that us Blue dogs became blue dogs because the wingnuts ran us out of the Republican party. Though I'm one Blue Dog who agrees with health care reform. It's long over due. The propaganda people buy into about health care reform in this country is just short of laughable, if not outright insane.

PostmodernProphet
12-12-2009, 01:56 PM
uhh you failed to mention that us Blue dogs became blue dogs because the wingnuts ran us out of the Republican party. Though I'm one Blue Dog who agrees with health care reform. It's long over due. The propaganda people buy into about health care reform in this country is just short of laughable, if not outright insane.

dang, you never mentioned you were in Congress......are you from Arizona's 15th District?.....

FUCK THE POLICE
12-13-2009, 01:57 PM
you're forgetting that the only reason the Democrats became the majority party was because it ran the blue dogs for office in conservative areas.....the blue dogs were elected on different promises than the rest of your dogs.......

We have a majority in the house greater than the caucus of the Blue Dogs, and most Blue Dogs vote for our agenda regardless. Again, if you're going to vote against cap and trade and healthcare, then there's a party for you. It's not the Democrats.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-13-2009, 01:58 PM
uhh you failed to mention that us Blue dogs became blue dogs because the wingnuts ran us out of the Republican party. Though I'm one Blue Dog who agrees with health care reform. It's long over due. The propaganda people buy into about health care reform in this country is just short of laughable, if not outright insane.

You're not a Blue Dog.

PostmodernProphet
12-14-2009, 06:14 AM
We have a majority in the house greater than the caucus of the Blue Dogs

lol...then why are you concerned about the Blue Dogs?......if you want something, pass it.......

FUCK THE POLICE
12-14-2009, 01:54 PM
lol...then why are you concerned about the Blue Dogs?......if you want something, pass it.......

We can pass things easily in the house.

The main problem is that the Democrats choose to abide by filibusters which conservatives ignored in their term in office. We should follow their lead.

PostmodernProphet
12-14-2009, 03:11 PM
We can pass things easily in the house.

The main problem is that the Democrats choose to abide by filibusters which conservatives ignored in their term in office. We should follow their lead.

you do that....push your agenda through regardless of the public reaction.....I'm sure that once they experience liberal utopia they will thank you for it.....:clink:

Topspin
12-14-2009, 03:28 PM
Waterstain, your not allowed to pound blue dogs as long as your job is burger flipper.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-20-2009, 10:14 AM
The Blue Dogs should form their own party, so we can wipe them out in 2010, or become Republicans. They should not be given the honor of putting a D behind their name.