Fixing the Republican Party (new material on pg 9)

[PleaseBlitz]

If everyone is done feeding the troll with attention, perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand.

 

My fire take, to build off of what youngestson said (which I think is on point), is that if I am a Democrat, i seriously hope that Republicans continue to think that they are in great shape.  Trumpism is not popular.  People were willing to give it a chance when Donny had no record to judge.  Now that people have actually seen the circus in action, he is well and truly hated by a majority of Americans.  Democrats were not energized in 2016.  That has changed in a big way.  Demographics continue to shift in the exact ways that have been entirely predictable for years.  Baby boomers (the main generation of Trump supporters) are dying off.  The new generations starting to vote almost entirely reject what the Republican party is right now.  

Edited February 14, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[MartinC]

28 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That wasn’t an attack. It’s a statement of fact, same as saying I had honey bunches of oats this morning.  He really IS a nut job.

 

Nah - it was a personal attack. 

 

Feel free to ridicule his argument (please!) - but stay away from ridiculing him.

 

Take this as a slap on the wrist.

[Llevron]

 

Quote

I don't particularly like where they have headed in the last 15 years or so, but if the point of a political party is to be in power they've done exactly what they set out to do. 

 

This is why you dont get it. 

 

Edit: Maybe I dont get it. Do we all agree that the idea behind political parties is to gain and retain power? Thats not at all what I thought. 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Llevron

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

 

This is why you dont get it. 

 

 

 

I think he's right.  The point of a political party is to organize voters in order to gain power.  Republicans, at least for the 2 years we are in the middle of, hold nearly every lever of power.  

 

The way they achieved it probably ****s them in the long-term, but if you have the chance to have a 2 year span in complete control, you take it.  

Edited February 14, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Llevron]

15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

If everyone is done feeding the troll with attention, perhaps we can get back to the topic at hand.

 

My fire take, to build off of what youngestson said (which I think is on point), is that if I am a Democrat, i seriously hope that Republicans continue to think that they are in great shape.  Trumpism is not popular.  People were willing to give it a chance when Donny had no record to judge.  Now that people have actually seen the circus in action, he is well and truly hated by a majority of Americans.  Democrats were not energized in 2016.  That has changed in a big way.  Demographics continue to shift in the exact ways that have been entirely predictable for years.  Baby boomers (the main generation of Trump supporters) are dying off.  The new generations starting to vote almost entirely reject what the Republican party is right now.  

 

Right. This is the danger any political party has runs into when they have full control. Every complaint people have is easily attributed to you. Valid or not. And this republican party in particular is doing horrible things and with the way we receive information today even children can see that. When I was 18 and able to vote I had zero interest. Thats not the same with (some)18 year olds these days. And its not even them you have to worry about. Its people my age. Us 30-somethings will eventually get our heads out of our collective asses and realize that we have a little bit of control. And when we do they are not likely to go Republican.  

 

Simply put, if they continue the way they are now, not only will they lose the power they have, they may not get it back. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Llevron

[Fresh8686]

Yea but power for its own sake is stupid, plus this "power" is really a trust given to them by those who elect them. They are supposed to use the power given to them to lead and build our society so it is better than before. Not break the country and cheat it so they can have "power". 

 

Power for its own sake is short-term thinking. And will lead to people taking back that power when the trust that truly underlies that power is violated. 

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

 

This is why you dont get it. 

 

Edit: Maybe I dont get it. Do we all agree that the idea behind political parties is to gain and retain power? Thats not at all what I thought. 

 

 

Sort of. 

 

I always thought the goal was to combine like minds so it would be easier for people to recognize a common platform that the people could choose to or not to agree with.  Washington basically warned us of this backfiring on his way out of office, that it would devolve into us versus them and we'd forget about what we disagree with versus just not wanting to lose. 

 

Yes, they are going to try and get power, but always felt the goal was to make clear what their platform was, because if the party radically sways on the political spectrum, why would anyone vote for that party if they don't what they are going to be from one election to the next?

Edited February 14, 2018 by Renegade7

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think he's right.  The point of a political party is to organize voters in order to gain power.  Republicans, at least for the 2 years we are in the middle of, hold nearly every lever of power.  

 

The way they achieved it probably ****s them in the long-term, but if you have the chance to have a 2 year span in complete control, you take it.  

 

I dont know that I like that idea. But I can give that it may be naivete that makes me feel that way. I would like to think that the point of a political party is to represent the views of the people so that even the weakest voice is actually a voice. I think we have perverted that system to the point where it is unrecognizable. But I give that the system we are in is not as intended. I dont think I have a real choice here, now that I think about it. 

 

Lots for me to think about here thanks to you two. 

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Sort of. 

 

I always thought the goal was to combine like minds so it would be easier for people to recognize a common platform that the people could choose to or not to agree with.  Washington basically warned us of this backfiring on his way out of office, that it would devolve into us versus them and we'd forget about what we disagree with versus just not wanting to lose. 

 

I definitely agree with you here. I don't think you need power to achieve this. Especially not the way we see it used and abused now. 

 

Did Washington (I'm assuming you mean George) really allude to that? That would be amazing and almost scary insight for a man that far away from what we have today. Wow. Can you provide me with the quote or more detail? That,s really impressive if true (even if slightly) 

[twa]

11 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Yea but power for its own sake is stupid, plus this "power" is really a trust given to them by those who elect them. They are supposed to use the power given to them to lead and build our society so it is better than before. Not break the country and cheat it so they can have "power". 

 

Power for its own sake is short-term thinking. And will lead to people taking back that power when the trust that truly underlies that power is violated. 

 

You don't think they believe they are leading and building a better society?

Sacrificing some of your goals to have the power to enact others is good politics(except when you lose)

[Llevron]

Talking to you guys about stuff like this really makes me want to be a politician. God honest I wish I could change the world but I wouldnt even know where to start. 

[PleaseBlitz]

I would say there is some latitude, but a political party's main reason for existence is to gain power.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-party

 

Quote

Political party, a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. Political parties originated in their modern form in Europe and the United States in the 19th century, along with the electoral and parliamentary systems, whose development reflects the evolution of parties. The term party has since come to be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution.

 

 

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/origins-and-functions-political-parties/

 

Quote

A political party is a group of voters organized to support certain public policies. The aim of a political party is to elect officials who will try to carry out the party's policies.
 

 

 

I'm not cherry picking.  These are the first 2 non-wikipedia things that come up when i Google "political party"

Edited February 14, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I definitely agree with you here. I don't think you need power to achieve this. Especially not the way we see it used and abused now. 

 

Did Washington (I'm assuming you mean George) really allude to that? That would be amazing and almost scary insight for a man that far away from what we have today. Wow. Can you provide me with the quote or more detail? That,s really impressive if true (even if slightly) 

Check this out and do a CTRL-F for party (its pretty long):  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

 

Some people have tried to summarize it, but I can see parts that look like he's warning of us of the level of spite that we are seeing right now.

 

Sometimes I think people forget (not saying you or anyone in here in particular) that this whole United States government as we know it was an experiment, and the Founding Fathers tried to have some forethought into the future, but couldn't see everything coming.  Some stuff they absolutely did (like issue with entanglement in international issues, particularly Europe).

Edited February 14, 2018 by Renegade7

[BenningRoadSkin]

6 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Did Washington (I'm assuming you mean George) really allude to that? That would be amazing and almost scary insight for a man that far away from what we have today. Wow. Can you provide me with the quote or more detail? That,s really impressive if true (even if slightly) 

He did. He talked about it leading to divisiveness over the greater good of the nation.

[Dan T.]

A party built on anger and fear is much more effective as an opposition party.  They haven't figured out how to transition into the party in power.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

A party built on anger and fear is much more effective as an opposition party.  They haven't figured out how to transition into the party in power.

 

It is also a lot easier to build a party on anger and fear.  It is much harder to build a party on actually trying to improve society through good policy.  So the former will often defeat the latter, and then be unable to lead.

[Llevron]

....Damn. Like I said, my own naivete @PleaseBlitz (for the record I see you as above cherry picking so I wasnt even considering that possibility) 

 

@Renegade7 Wow thats wild. I almost cant believe it. Thanks for the link. 

[Fresh8686]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It is also a lot easier to build a party on anger and fear.  It is much harder to build a party on actually trying to improve society through good policy.  So the former will often defeat the latter, and then be unable to lead.

Yup, you can't build much with anger. It can mobilize, but at the end of the day it's reactionary and doesn't do well with the nuance and complexity required to draft and pass sustainable legislation.

It's lower order thought and emotion, in that it resides more in the fight/flight zone than the communication and consensus zone, which requires a degree of calm, so you can have a degree of coherency, and the opportunity to find a build a middle ground between seemingly disparate ideologies.

 

[Dan T.]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Check this out and do a CTRL-F for party (its pretty long):  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

 

Some people have tried to summarize it, but I can see parts that look like he's warning of us of the level of spite that we are seeing right now.

 

Sometimes I think people forget (not saying you or anyone in here in particular) that this whole United States government as we know it was an experiment, and the Founding Fathers tried to have some forethought into the future, but couldn't see everything coming.  Some stuff they absolutely did (like issue with entanglement in international issues, particularly Europe).

 

The level of animosity and distrust between the Hamilton and Jefferson factions make today's discord seem like an ice cream social.

[PleaseBlitz]

If anyone is interested in a documentary film covering how a political party both gains power and uses it for entirely corrupt purposes, the Ric Burns documentary on NYC (the 3rd part) covers Tammany Hall in great detail.  It's fascinating.

 

 

[Dan T.]

3 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Yup, you can't build much with anger. It can mobilize, but at the end of the day it's reactionary and doesn't do well with the nuance and complexity required to draft and pass sustainable legislation.

It's lower order thought and emotion, in that it resides more in the fight/flight zone than the communication and consensus zone, which requires a degree of calm, so you can have a degree of coherency, and the opportunity to find a build a middle ground between seemingly disparate ideologies.

 

 

And then to add on to that, the de facto party leader, Trump, lives in a zero-sum world where there must be winners and losers in any negotiation.  Not a great formula for consensus building.

[Fresh8686]

19 minutes ago, twa said:

 

You don't think they believe they are leading and building a better society?

Sacrificing some of your goals to have the power to enact others is good politics(except when you lose)

Well, the party is not a monolith. Do some believe? Probably. But, how valid is that belief? Is it blind? How well tested is it?

Are there other's who don't believe? Definitely. What is their motivation? Is it possible that they are using and abusing the trust of the people who have chosen their party to further their own ends, whether or not it brings detriment to those around them?

Then there is the question of institutional loyalty. For someone who believes and practices such loyalty, they would instead say that HOW you achieve certain goals is not worth the damage that would be done to the institution even if such a position causes them to lose.

Winning by any means is a weak position for a person to take, because it means that who they are and become (and everyone influenced by the event) is secondary to winning itself, secondary to power itself. Which of course is a weakness that opens the possibility of destroying the game, to win the game. Which defeats and loses the point of the game in the first place. Especially, when it's not a game at all, but a stewardship for steering the direction of human life (within the bounds of a specific region of course).

I'd rather lose in the right way now and win the right way later, rather than win the wrong way now and destroy the opportunity for a chance to win the right way later. Everything has an affect on the shape of who you are, and the shape of what our country is.

That's why you have so many people no longer identifying as Republican, even though they "won". It's because those people don't want to be a part of party that has the current shape of the GOP. Healthy people reject unhealthy or corrupt forms. They only accept them through corruption of that health, pressure or duress, manipulation, or blindness.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

40 minutes ago, twa said:

You don't think they believe they are leading and building a better society?

Sacrificing some of your goals to have the power to enact others is good politics(except when you lose)

Seems to me that the GOP has absolutely no principles and is all too happy to abandon any of the core values of what used to be the Republican Party in order to stay in power, passing legislation designed only to benefit their wealthy donors.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

Talking to you guys about stuff like this really makes me want to be a politician. God honest I wish I could change the world but I wouldnt even know where to start. 

you have to be a lawyer

otherwise they wont let you in their little club

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

Feel free to ridicule his argument (please!)

Fair enough. It’s clobberin time.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff