The future of the GOP

The Doctor wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I just don't know what the GOP is going to do in Obama's hellish 2016 nightmare. Damn shame they didn't get the John Carpenter's They Live vision of the future... Anyway, as to their future, I'm thinking Whigs.   We're all going to be forced to become gay, muslim, zombie socialists.  AAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn.  I really don't want to be a zombie.

I guess they should think about being a Government for everybody.  Not just WASPS.  Lets include the bees piders flys ants etc

Failcore wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: I guess they should think about being a Government for everybody.  Not just WASPS.  Lets include the bees piders flys ants etc *shudders* On an unrelated note, if I see one more person on FB say Johnson cost Romney the election, I'm going to reach through space-time and give them a dark matter bitch slap. If you gave all the third party votes to R-money he still would have lost.

rushfan4 wrote: Neither candidate really came out with a clear cut plan that says this is what I am going to do to fix the country.

That's because nobody can even say what will happen because they wouldn't be elected. We all know the reality: taxes go up, services go poof, economy weakens under the decrease in spending. That's what's going to happen because there just isn't any alternative. Mitt knows it, and that's why his plan was so insanely vague (but even then, he got busted on it for trying to please the idiots). Barack knows it and he'll be spending some time trying to convince the public not to panic when the list of cuts comes out.

Epignosis wrote: Even if our nation will exert more effort to solve problems as they become more severe, debt doesn't work that way, doesn't tolerate procrastination.  Eventually there will be a critical mass and then it will be beyond our power.  Eventually the staircase we are climbing becomes a sheer mountain.

The keyword being "eventually". If it will eventually be beyond our power, this means it's still in our power today.

thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: [ thellama73 wrote: My idea of a civilized society is one which encourages individual achievement and self-sufficiency, not dependence on the state. You're ignoring one fundamental truth: People want to depend on the state. People like blood-sports too. That doesn't make them civilized.

Let me say it this way then: Your idea of a civilized society is at odds with the idea of most other people. A society that enforces total self-sufficiency would be just as wrong and useless as a society that enforces total dependence on the state. It is okay and necessary to let people depend on the state when they need it. Total freedom may be a noble goal, but what's the use if it doesn't make your life any better?

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis wrote: None of this partisanship will matter.  The debt will ruin us and then there will be no social programs nor military funded. I just wonder how liberals will blame (true) fiscal conservatives for the house of cards collapsing in our lifetime. Gee, it's like you never talk about anything else. I will tell you something: Your fatalism is unwarranted. Yes, the debt is way too high, and yes, it needs to be reduced. But like with any problem, the more pressing it becomes, the more effort will be expended to solve it. The final result might not be nice, but I assure you that it will not involve the collapse of the US government. Even if our nation will exert more effort to solve problems as they become more severe, debt doesn't work that way, doesn't tolerate procrastination.  Eventually there will be a critical mass and then it will be beyond our power.  Eventually the staircase we are climbing becomes a sheer mountain. The Democratic Party is so popular because it promises more cookies for everyone, even though the cookie jar is empty and we must borrow flour and sugar and eggs from the neighborhood.  Obama's plan to "ask the rich to pay a little more" (now that's a nice way to put it!) misses the point, and I wish liberals would take note of this.  We are not redistributing wealth ("spreading the wealth around") as liberals would like to do.  That is because there is no wealth to redistribute.  Our mandatory spending consumes around 93% of our receipts.  Almost one hundred percent of federal departments and programs that fall under discretionary spending exist only because of borrowed funds, not tax revenue. And when the sh*t hits the fan, it won't just be the US economy collapsing.  It will be a worldwide disaster.   Somebody should tell that to all the multi-billionaires out there.  Somehow they're doing pretty well for there being NO wealth to redistribute.  How many multibillionaires are there in the US? There are 132 if you are counting people with $3B or more net worth.  Net worth includes assets, but says nothing directly of income.  How do you propose to redistribute this wealth?  Even if you wanted to liquidate assets and give the money to the "more deserving" poor, you do have to have someone with cash to buy them.

My point was that there is wealth in this country.  It's just tied up in the vast fortunes of the few.  You wouldn't necessarily have to liquidate all assets.  Some of them you could turn directly over to the more deserving poor. 

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis wrote: None of this partisanship will matter.  The debt will ruin us and then there will be no social programs nor military funded. I just wonder how liberals will blame (true) fiscal conservatives for the house of cards collapsing in our lifetime. Gee, it's like you never talk about anything else. I will tell you something: Your fatalism is unwarranted. Yes, the debt is way too high, and yes, it needs to be reduced. But like with any problem, the more pressing it becomes, the more effort will be expended to solve it. The final result might not be nice, but I assure you that it will not involve the collapse of the US government. Even if our nation will exert more effort to solve problems as they become more severe, debt doesn't work that way, doesn't tolerate procrastination.  Eventually there will be a critical mass and then it will be beyond our power.  Eventually the staircase we are climbing becomes a sheer mountain. The Democratic Party is so popular because it promises more cookies for everyone, even though the cookie jar is empty and we must borrow flour and sugar and eggs from the neighborhood.  Obama's plan to "ask the rich to pay a little more" (now that's a nice way to put it!) misses the point, and I wish liberals would take note of this.  We are not redistributing wealth ("spreading the wealth around") as liberals would like to do.  That is because there is no wealth to redistribute.  Our mandatory spending consumes around 93% of our receipts.  Almost one hundred percent of federal departments and programs that fall under discretionary spending exist only because of borrowed funds, not tax revenue. And when the sh*t hits the fan, it won't just be the US economy collapsing.  It will be a worldwide disaster.   Somebody should tell that to all the multi-billionaires out there.  Somehow they're doing pretty well for there being NO wealth to redistribute.  How many multibillionaires are there in the US? There are 132 if you are counting people with $3B or more net worth.  Net worth includes assets, but says nothing directly of income.  How do you propose to redistribute this wealth?  Even if you wanted to liquidate assets and give the money to the "more deserving" poor, you do have to have someone with cash to buy them. My point was that there is wealth in this country.  It's just tied up in the vast fortunes of the few.  You wouldn't necessarily have to liquidate all assets.  Some of them you could turn directly over to the more deserving poor.

Certainly does look bleak, especially given (excuse the cliche) our changing country.

I mean hell, women voted 55% for Obama? IDK if its ever been that high but there's usually little to no real gap in gender. The fact it was that large shows how out of touch the GOP is now.

However, they will not die. The country is too polarized. I see the 2 sides not gaining/losing ground just trying to ramp up how strong those regions are and keep battling over a few states. Why don't we just count votes in OH and FL and not even hold elections in the other 48?

Also you guys really just need a good candidate. I believe Chris Christie has already been anointed savior.
Oh and distance from the nutjobs. They can say what they want but some GOPers need to then come out and say "he's batsh*t insane".
After 1964 many thought it was the legitimate end of the GOP and that never panned out.




Of course I'd like to have more than 2 legitimate parties but lolz yeah right

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Epignosis wrote: Most poor people cannot manage money and never will. That's a ludicrous and offensive generalization.

It isn't ludicrous, and I don't mind offending people.

Managing wealth is like maintaining an automobile or keeping up a website.  Some people have that skill, but most people don't and never will.

Can you demonstrate that most poor people can manage wealth?

I think that wealth and income are being used interchangeably by some people, when they are two different things. Poor people are often not given the chance to manage wealth because of their income, you could be the most frugal person in the world but with a low income it'd take more than a lifetime of saving to be considered "wealthy". Some poor people become instantly wealthy via gambling/lottery/inheritance, but not all of them piss it away - this would be an example of poor people managing wealth. Also remember that rich people are not always the best money managers, and managing money really only helps one maintain wealth, but income is the most common way that people can obtain wealth. I refer you again to the chart I linked in my earlier post.