Jumbo Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I don't read this site--this popped up on my MSN page. It features the Planed parenthood controversy as part of the premise, but I have been wondering as a general thing with the sate of the GOP these days, if there will be a real split in unity from the more rightside Christians ahead. That's what I intend as the topic in this thread---not PP and there's a thread for that as we know). I realize that as focused as the terms "fundamentals" and "evangelicals" might be, they are also not simply large demographics of people in unwavering lock-step on all issues. But what else could they do if there's a widespread increasing attitude that they are being alienated or their concerns are not being properly attended to by the GOP? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/22/evangelicals-consider-exodus-from-gop-over-pp-funding.html Franklin Graham announced this week he was leaving the Republican Party as a result of the inclusion of Planned Parenthood funding in the spending bill that sailed through Congress last week. While he’s the first to formally bail, he might not be the last. Franklin Graham, who heads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, posted on Facebook yesterday that he plans to leave the Republican Party. His growing frustration highlights growing (and sometimes paradoxical) anger that pro-life and evangelical Christian leaders have for Republican Party leadership. Graham took to Facebook to rip Republicans in the wake of a spending bill the House passed last week that maintains federal funding for Planned Parenthood. “Seeing and hearing Planned Parenthood talk nonchalantly about selling baby parts from aborted fetuses with utter disregard for human life is reminiscent of Joseph Mengele and the Nazi concentration camps!” Graham wrote, referring to videos that showed Planned Parenthood officials discussing their fetal tissue donation program. “That should’ve been all that was needed to turn off the faucet for their funding. “This is an example of why I have resigned from the Republican Party and declared myself Independent,” he continued. “I have no hope in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or Tea Party to do what is best for America.” <edit> “This Planned Parenthood sponsorship in this bill further confirms what many evangelical Christians believe about the Republican Party establishment, and that is, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment,” he said. more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 In a two-horse race if you refuse to back either horse you aren't going to be supporting a winner. Sure as hell, the current two-party Congress isn't working. Maybe it would be better for US politics if the two monoliths were blown up and you could have parties dedicated to their single-issue ... Bernie could lead a party for the working poor; Hillary or Jeb could pander to corporate interests while claiming to serve everyone; Paul/Cruz/Rubio could cater to the crazies ; Trump to the overt racists, Huckabee/Santorum to the evangelicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 It really is hard to imagine any big lasting change in the two party dominant landscape, but it would be fascinating to watch more intensive and successful attempts to form a viable third and fourth etc. power base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Let's just make Utah its own country. That would solve a lotta problems for all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 It really is hard to imagine any big lasting change in the two party dominant landscape, but it would be fascinating to watch more intensive and successful attempts to form a viable third and fourth etc. power base. Without proportional representation it's hard for a third party to get traction because, aside from a protest vote, you are voting for the lesser of two evils .. if you vote. Back in the home country an election with PR and single transferable vote, might have, say, five seats up for grabs and 15+ candidates of all stripes. Voters would get to express preferences 1 through 5 for a list of candidates. It made elections much more interesting and provided the opportunity for all sorts of special interests to run a candidate and get visibility, even if they didn't ultimately get elected. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/proportional_representation.html Of course, in spite of a more fair electoral process, the Irish have a similar contempt for most of the incompetent and corrupt politicians who get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Been pushing proportional representation for some time, now. To me, two parties is the natural result of "winner take all" voting. Oh. And the evangelicals will leave the Republican Party when blacks leave the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I just looked up the current composition of the current Irish Senate with 60 seats: Fine Gael 18 Fianna Fáil 12 Labour Party 11 Sinn Féin 3 Renua Ireland 1 Social Democrats 1 Independent 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Certainly didn't take him long to go full Godwin. There seems to be a growing rift on many fronts in the Republican party. If you go to sites like Brietbart or Free Republic they pretty much hate the rank and file Republicans (RINOs) as much as the Democrats. It comes from many areas...immigration, planned parenthood, national defense, spending. They feel betrayed and they are angry and at the point where many on those sites have said, quite vehemently, that if the Republican candidate is not Trump or maybe Cruz, they simply will not vote at all. Or some have even said they will cast a protest vote FOR HILLARY. And the ironic thing is the GOP are the ones who made their own mess here. They played to the hard right and the loonies for many years. Courted them, made promises to them. Then didn't come through. Their chickens are finally coming home to roost in multiple ways. They pretty much created Trump as well. Only difference is he says some of the stuff they've been advocating for decades out loud as opposed to using subtle code words and dog whistles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 How about the "Sex Party"? Bound to get plenty of voters on their platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 "Batman Party" Don't vote for those jokers. Vote Batman. He's even got a Dick for VP. To the article, I doubt there'll be an exodus. It's going to be tough to convince their party to hand the DEMs the Presidency, and potentially more, for the sake of making point, or having a small chance of actually getting a new party started up. Most definitely, only having two parties can be problematic, and laws making it difficult for third parties need to be tossed, but it's tough to convince people to break ranks even in that situation. The cost-to-value isn't good. We'd need a wholesale system change, and good luck with that. Though I wish Graham the best of luck. If he wants to crash the GOP, he is more than welcome to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Certainly didn't take him long to go full Godwin. There seems to be a growing rift on many fronts in the Republican party. If you go to sites like Brietbart or Free Republic they pretty much hate the rank and file Republicans (RINOs) as much as the Democrats. It comes from many areas...immigration, planned parenthood, national defense, spending. They feel betrayed and they are angry and at the point where many on those sites have said, quite vehemently, that if the Republican candidate is not Trump or maybe Cruz, they simply will not vote at all. Or some have even said they will cast a protest vote FOR HILLARY. And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this. The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do. The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this. The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do. The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham. Oh I'm sure you're right. Though it would be amusing if they actually went through with it. But yeah its probably just hot air at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this. The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do. The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham. of course. If they didn't and it were a blowout. You'd see revenge taken in going at FG's Church as a Corporation and not.....well....a church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskin4ever Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 And, of course, almost none of them will actually do this. The overwhelming majority of them will troop in and pull the R lever in November, same as they always do. The GOP establishment knows this, and if anything, is glad to be able to seem separate from Franklin Graham. I agree with this. Most will still vote for the Republican nominee because they know the alternative is worse. They know Graham is pulling his public support but they aren't worried about his vote. The establishment loves it because it's one less voice on their side that opposes them or tries to keep them in line. It's also less issues they have to worry about. Now they will focus on their main goal which is not policy, but gaining and retaining power. So whatever policy gets them that, they will shoot for it. It's what they have been doing, but now they can publicly ignore the likes of Graham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 He'll be back. Or at least his parishioners will be. They have no where else to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 I agree with P. It's noise is all, nothing will really change. How about tossing this into the mix---how would any of you scheme up a successful third party? What would be the composition of the constituency you think would have the best shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I agree with P. It's noise is all, nothing will really change. How about tossing this into the mix---how would any of you scheme up a successful third party? What would be the composition of the constituency you think would have the best shot? The only way to create a new party is to cannibalize voters from one of the existing 2 parties, and gradually replace that party over a couple of election cycles. That's how the Federalist Party became the National Republican Party and then became the the Whig Party and then became the GOP. But it always drops back to two parties, quickly. It's called Duvurger's Law of politics. Our constitution basically mandates 2 parties because of the winner takes all approach and single member districts. The same thing is true for the Presidency by virtue of the Electoral College. I wrote a long paper on this subject back in college. If you want third parties, you need to get rid of a large amount of the constitution. You need larger districts, and proportional voting and several other things. So in the current situation, people could try to split the GOP to create a Libertarian Party or a Christian Values Party (for example) but within two election cycles, that party would either be defunct, or the GOP would be defunct and replaced by that new party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 if I accept all that as definitive, P, would you promise not to make me read your paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 if I accept all that as definitive, P, would you promise not to make me read your paper? I may be a jerk, but I'm not deliberately cruel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Our constitution basically mandates 2 parties because of the winner takes all approach and single member districts. The same thing is true for the Presidency by virtue of the Electoral College. I wrote a long paper on this subject back in college. I fail to recall the part of the constitution that mandates single member districts. But I'm sure you know more about it than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I fail to recall the part of the constitution that mandates single member districts. But I'm sure you know more about it than I do. No, actually, you are correct and my memory failed me when I said it was constitutionally mandated. The states originally were empowered by the Constitution to set their own rules, but the Constitution also said that Congress may override them. And Congress has chosen to override them and mandate single member districts. That is legislation, not a Constitutional provision. I supposed that legislation could be revoked, and then each state could vote for different ways of choosing representatives if they wanted to. However, doing so would run into other Constitutional problems, particularly the one-person one-vote principle contained in the Equal Protection Clause. It would be a huge mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 The states originally were empowered by the Constitution to set their own rules, but the Constitution also said that Congress may override them. And Congress has chosen to override them and mandate single member districts. That is legislation, not a Constitutional provision. I supposed that legislation could be revoked, and then each state could vote for different ways of choosing representatives if they wanted to. Thanks for the info. I had no idea that Congress actually passed legislation mandating that. I'd always assumed that it was simply a case of "that's the way we've always done it". Wonder why Congress decided that they needed to mandate that. Was some contrary state trying to do something that the other states didn't like? But that's OT trivia. Although, I will agree that Congress has that authority. I forget the exact words, but the constitution grants Congress the power to determine it's own membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I remember when I used to actually like Franklin Graham. And the Republican party. What the **** happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 the parties practice divide and conquer, not enough of a unifying theme to do more than sway leaners. a values voter party is probably the best chance, but divisions and fear from the opposition largely preclude that they even scare me when they start agreeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornaSkinsFan83 Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Let's just make Utah its own country. That would solve a lotta problems for all involved. I'm down with giving them Texas. I'm sure twa would love that. And if Mexico invades, "hey you're on your own this time. You want it, you got it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.