Should the republican party move towards a Rockeffeller Republican type party?

[Synthaholic]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

I always knew you were a RINO.

 

[Yurt]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

I always knew you were a RINO.

odd...i always knew you were an idiot

oh, and one who marches to the party line, carry on democrat footman...carry on...be careful not to spill their water.

 

[Synthaholic]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

I always knew you were a RINO.

odd...i always knew you were an idiot

oh, and one who marches to the party line, carry on democrat footman...carry on...be careful not to spill their water.

You're not ideologically pure. You're not a real conservative. You're just as bad as the Democrats.

 

[auditor0007]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

All that needs to happen for the Republican Party to become a very strong party again is for the far right to accept the fact that they need to compromise every now and then. The Republican Party cannot win with a far right agenda. That does not mean that those on the far right cannot push to get certain parts of their agenda through, but it can't be an all or nothing proposition. That has become the real problem with the party; the right is demanding that you either walk in step with them, or get the fuck out of their party.

 

[Synthaholic]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

All that needs to happen for the Republican Party to become a very strong party again is for the far right to accept the fact that they need to compromise every now and then. The Republican Party cannot win with a far right agenda. That does not mean that those on the far right cannot push to get certain parts of their agenda through, but it can't be an all or nothing proposition. That has become the real problem with the party; the right is demanding that you either walk in step with them, or get the fuck out of their party.

Blasphemy!!! You're another RINO!

 

[Yurt]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

All that needs to happen for the Republican Party to become a very strong party again is for the far right to accept the fact that they need to compromise every now and then. The Republican Party cannot win with a far right agenda. That does not mean that those on the far right cannot push to get certain parts of their agenda through, but it can't be an all or nothing proposition. That has become the real problem with the party; the right is demanding that you either walk in step with them, or get the fuck out of their party.

Blasphemy!!! You're another RINO!

as usual, you do nothing but troll

carry on troll, no one cares about your opinion

 

[Yurt]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

All that needs to happen for the Republican Party to become a very strong party again is for the far right to accept the fact that they need to compromise every now and then. The Republican Party cannot win with a far right agenda. That does not mean that those on the far right cannot push to get certain parts of their agenda through, but it can't be an all or nothing proposition. That has become the real problem with the party; the right is demanding that you either walk in step with them, or get the fuck out of their party.

good point. and exactly why i created this thread.

thank you for your input.

 

[Yurt]

I always knew you were a RINO.

odd...i always knew you were an idiot

oh, and one who marches to the party line, carry on democrat footman...carry on...be careful not to spill their water.

You're not ideologically pure. You're not a real conservative. You're just as bad as the Democrats.

what is "ideologically pure"?

and i never claimed to a a "real conservative".

you have issues dude

 

[Synthaholic]

All that needs to happen for the Republican Party to become a very strong party again is for the far right to accept the fact that they need to compromise every now and then. The Republican Party cannot win with a far right agenda. That does not mean that those on the far right cannot push to get certain parts of their agenda through, but it can't be an all or nothing proposition. That has become the real problem with the party; the right is demanding that you either walk in step with them, or get the fuck out of their party.

Blasphemy!!! You're another RINO!

as usual, you do nothing but troll

carry on troll, no one cares about your opinion

You call it trolling. I call it pointing out:

A) The absurdity of the teabagger position of no compromise.

B) I'm witnessing the very beginnings of the re-emergence of Establishment Republicans and the decline (rapidly) of the Tea People.

What I find funny is that Right-Wingers will deny moderating their positions while they are doing it. Example: you two don't think you're RINOs for saying what you have in this thread. Hardcore teabaggers would.

 

[Locke11_21]

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Split the vote and assure a Hillary victory.

Great strategy.

Not.

what?

Yurt is right to question this. A good solid mainstream GOP candidate can beat Hillary.

Yeah, Bob Dole, John McShame and Mitt Romney sure prove your point well. And George W. Bush, whom the Huffington Post stated was a socialist (which in your demented view, socialism is mainstream), lost the popular vote against Al Gore, and needed the USSC to put him in office. Bush also lost the popular vote to John Kerry as well. When you run a Democrat against Democrat, people will vote for the candidate honest enough to run as a Democrat every time.

If you run you type of fake Republican (and you, Jake are a fake Republican), like Christi, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryno, or Eric ****or, Hillary will win in a landslide. There are too many Libertarians like me who won't vote for the your type of supposed Republican since we can't distinguish them from the authoritarian statist Socialist Democrat they're running against.

Mainstream Republicanism is sane Americanism not dem lite.

No it's not Dem lite, it's actually a rubber stamp for the Democrat Party. Look no further than America-hating traitor John Boehner hiring a pro-amnesty consultant for immigration reform. Boehner is just like you Jake, nothing more than a Democrat Trojan Horse.

 

[Synthaholic]

what?

Yurt is right to question this. A good solid mainstream GOP candidate can beat Hillary.

Yeah, Bob Dole, John McShame and Mitt Romney sure prove your point well. And George W. Bush, whom the Huffington Post stated was a socialist (which in your demented view, socialism is mainstream), lost the popular vote against Al Gore, and needed the USSC to put him in office. Bush also lost the popular vote to John Kerry as well. When you run a Democrat against Democrat, people will vote for the candidate honest enough to run as a Democrat every time.

If you run you type of fake Republican (and you, Jake are a fake Republican), like Christi, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryno, or Eric ****or, Hillary will win in a landslide. There are too many Libertarians like me who won't vote for the your type of supposed Republican since we can't distinguish them from the authoritarian statist Socialist Democrat they're running against.

Mainstream Republicanism is sane Americanism not dem lite.

No it's not Dem lite, it's actually a rubber stamp for the Democrat Party. Look no further than America-hating traitor John Boehner hiring a pro-amnesty consultant for immigration reform. Boehner is just like you Jake, nothing more than a Democrat Trojan Horse.

Bravo! Thank you for proving my point!

 

[JakeStarkey]

you know jake, i gave you a list of my beliefs that are right in line with RR's and you still have the nerve to lie and claim i'm with the tpm reactionaries. there are some beliefs they have that are also inline with RR's.

kindly stay out of this thread because all you're going to do is troll and lie and this is a grown up discussion.

thanks

I gave you a list of my beliefs right in the mainstream of the GOP, and you refuse to consider it.

So don't cry when you get the same from me. You align yourself with the TPM on almost every thread dealing with the issue.

So stop trolling and start telling the truth.

Now I am going to give you a chance.

Which of the following do you support or disagree?

I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney and McCain, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state. again, unprovable and based on the vast majority of your posts agreeing with obama, i don't believe you, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. i disagree though and did not vote for romney and one of the reasons was his 47% comment. he didn't have a solid plan and i was not going to hold my nose and simply vote party over my beliefs

I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq. Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served America’s long-term interests. It is time to leave Afghanistan for good. i support both, however, as iraq dragged on and bushed screwed it up royally, i opposed it. i agree about leaving afghanistan.

The social programs need reform. The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right. The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance. Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work. Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights. And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock. i have no problem with candy, but steak, soda pop, chips, i disagree. of course the other two. i agree with the 10 hours, but it likely will cost the city more to manage it than is worth it. i disagree wholeheartedly about benefits for children out of wedlock.

I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies. not sure about seniors...and my liberal teacher cousin agrees with you on no child left behind. i have no opinion.

I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms.
I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother. we agree on the second. i do not have an opinion on abortion and by and large stay out of those threads.

I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact. I oppose reactionary hatred. mostly vanilla platitudes here, but agreed on the social compact.

I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party. sorry jake, but your posts indicate otherwise. you're not a flaming liberal like i tease you to be, you're more of a semi moderate democrat.

i've answered this before jake. you are incapable of backing up your claims. but since you are trying, i will be the more mature person and answer you again, since you're being a simpering five year old and demanding i go first.

be warned, if you don't address my question or post in the FZ thread, the shred of credibility you have will be gone.

Your warning means nothing because it comes from a person who has shown to be untrustworthy.

However, I will give you the opportunity to do better.

I believe and act on everything above as I have said on the Board continually. I will oppose the far right of my party when its positions conflict with America's best interests, particularly when it threatens the country's population andpeople.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you people better do something because you can hang your hat on your 9% approval rating for only so long.

this post shows your ignorance of history. you said the same thing in '10 and before that, when pubs were not so socially rigid, they won elections.

the dems only hope is that pubs stay socially far right. other than that, you guys lose. think about how many bush policies you whined about and now that obama continues the same, not a peep from hacks like you.

Yurt, if you think 2010 was the norm, then you are ignoring 2006, 2008, and 2012.

I agree with you that we need to unhinge our party from the far right social con positions that hurt us with women.

Reaching out to Hispanics means that we need to reconsider a border secure only policy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the GOP should run Locke_jaw's type of far right Republican like Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, etc, any major Dem will win in a landslide.

 

[JWBooth]

If the GOP should run Locke_jaw's type of fake Republican like Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, etc, any major Dem will win in a landslide.

A dream that you clearly hold dear to your heart.

 

[editec]

I could probably vote for an IKE type Republican.

He was a NATIONALIST unlike the leadership of either political party today.

 

[The Rabbi]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

Let’s rephrase the OP title a bit:

Should the republican party return to a Rockeffeller Republican type party?

The answer is obviously ‘yes.’

And yes, the ranks of the GOP would increase considerably.

But what’s important for republicans to realize is that to do so isn’t to ‘change’ the party, but to return the party to its origins.

Your endorsing it means the opposite is the case.

Yes, let's go back to the party of stagflation, Vietnam, and Watergate.
Oops, we're already there. The Democrats are the new Rockefeller Republicans.

 

[Seawytch]

if they did, i would likely join the party again and i think the party numbers would surge.

what do you guys think?

You know what they call Rockefeller or "moderate" Republicans these days? RINO.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mainstream Republicans refuse to let the far right reactionaries (they are no different in spirit and hidebound ideological rigidity than far left liberals) define us. We are the party, they are not.

 

[Yurt]

I gave you a list of my beliefs right in the mainstream of the GOP, and you refuse to consider it.

So don't cry when you get the same from me. You align yourself with the TPM on almost every thread dealing with the issue.

So stop trolling and start telling the truth.

Now I am going to give you a chance.

Which of the following do you support or disagree?

I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney and McCain, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state. again, unprovable and based on the vast majority of your posts agreeing with obama, i don't believe you, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. i disagree though and did not vote for romney and one of the reasons was his 47% comment. he didn't have a solid plan and i was not going to hold my nose and simply vote party over my beliefs

I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq. Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served America’s long-term interests. It is time to leave Afghanistan for good. i support both, however, as iraq dragged on and bushed screwed it up royally, i opposed it. i agree about leaving afghanistan.

The social programs need reform. The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right. The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance. Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work. Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights. And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock. i have no problem with candy, but steak, soda pop, chips, i disagree. of course the other two. i agree with the 10 hours, but it likely will cost the city more to manage it than is worth it. i disagree wholeheartedly about benefits for children out of wedlock.

I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies. not sure about seniors...and my liberal teacher cousin agrees with you on no child left behind. i have no opinion.

I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms.
I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother. we agree on the second. i do not have an opinion on abortion and by and large stay out of those threads.

I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact. I oppose reactionary hatred. mostly vanilla platitudes here, but agreed on the social compact.

I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party. sorry jake, but your posts indicate otherwise. you're not a flaming liberal like i tease you to be, you're more of a semi moderate democrat.

i've answered this before jake. you are incapable of backing up your claims. but since you are trying, i will be the more mature person and answer you again, since you're being a simpering five year old and demanding i go first.

be warned, if you don't address my question or post in the FZ thread, the shred of credibility you have will be gone.

Your warning means nothing because it comes from a person who has shown to be untrustworthy.

However, I will give you the opportunity to do better.

I believe and act on everything above as I have said on the Board continually. I will oppose the far right of my party when its positions conflict with America's best interests, particularly when it threatens the country's population andpeople.

i took the mature path and answered all your questions and you still refuse to answer one of my questions. my question was simple, prove your claim about my stances, and you still refuse, even after i addressed your post for a second time.

you claim i am untrustworthy, yet, you have never once cited a single lie i have supposedly told. and here, i took the honest route and answered you, you however, have taken the dishonest route and AGAIN refuse to back up your claims. you are the untrustworthy one. you are not worth shit jake.

back on ignore until you change your dishonest troll behavior.