Why exactly does America need the Republican Party?

[blackhawk]

You would be living under one party rule also known as a dictatorship or communism without them. History has shown few if any thrive under that

 

[Kosh]

We U.S. Progressives need 'some' party, Repubs in this case, to appear to be a formidable opposition party to give our electoral victories legitimacy. The way they have been sabotaging themselves is making it harder & harder for us to keep that charade going though. rw zany candidates, shutting down the gov't, treating women as 2nd-class citizens (same goes for gays), confusing "obstructing" with "governing", etc...

Oh the irony of that far left Obama drone post.

 

[The T]

You would be living under one party rule also known as a dictatorship or communism without them. History has shown few if any thrive under that

Republicans as Ted Cruz, et al., are accused of blocking Obama and the Democrats and doing what the people sent them there to do...

*Precisely*.

 

[Dot Com]

You would be living under one party rule also known as a dictatorship or communism without them. History has shown few if any thrive under that

Republicans as Ted Cruz, et al., are accused of blocking Obama and the Democrats and doing what the people sent them there to do...

*Precisely*.

I thought "Ted" was a teapartier. He join the corporate puppets AKA Repubs?

 

[The T]

You would be living under one party rule also known as a dictatorship or communism without them. History has shown few if any thrive under that

Republicans as Ted Cruz, et al., are accused of blocking Obama and the Democrats and doing what the people sent them there to do...

*Precisely*.

I thought "Ted" was a teapartier. He join the corporate puppets AKA Repubs?

And your POINT is____________________?

 

[Billy000]

Notice how you aren't rebutting any of my facts with fact of your own. On top of losing their jobs, Obama has extended unemployment benefits all of the last 5 years, keeping a majority of those unemployed on the government dole. They don't need support, they need a job. Naturally there is an income disparity between one whose on unemployment at home and one earning a paycheck at work.

People can't search for jobs that aren't there dumbass. Lay offs mean no jobs for anyone. Seriously this isn't hard to figure out. That extended employment insurance created economic demand. Without it, those people are not spending money. This is economics 101. Do you honestly think people don't need additional support?

You act as if there are not jobs?? That is NOT the case.. there are plenty of jobs that you and your little lemmings think are beneath them.. if you are a feelings counselor and you lose your job and you have to work a janitor job, a short order cook job, and wash cars to make do... SO FUCKING BE IT

Unemployment did not create economic demand.. it caused economic STRAIN on the economy... you think that unemployment insurance money you paid got put in some safe box for when you needed it?? Nope... just like SS, the fucking overbloated government SPENT it on entitlements, foreign aid and other bullshit... so more borrowing and more taxation to cover more handouts for a period that is completely unreasonable... in a function that government was NEVER empowered to do

How do you not understand the concept of lay offs. When a person is laid off, the job is GONE. It's not like someone replaces the position.

And no, studies show extending those benefits create economic demand. When a person is unemployed, they spend the government funds on basic essentials like food clothing and housing. That stimulates the economy. Jobless people without benefits are spending NOTHING. And because the help is still temporary, people still look for jobs.

 

[norwegen]

It's amazing to me that the OP or anyone else could even ask this question.

If there were not a party to counter the Dimocrats of today, this country would more resemble Cuba than it would the classic capitalistic country we've always known.

Even Canada would be a capitalism refuge compared to here if these people had no opposition.

Not just today, but through the Party's history. Abolition wasn't the only motivating factor in 1854 for the Party's formation. The Whigs and a few others (like the Free Soilers), along with the abolitionists, wanted to preserve our republicanism.

Democracy was confined to one chamber of one branch of government for a reason. The whims and passions of popular government is destructive.

 

[SwimExpert]

Tell me. What good has it done for this country?

This.

 

[rdean]

Because we were not the Democrats?

You know the guys that brought us the KKK, the Jim Crow Laws? Those guys?

Once again, you know that conservatives fled the Democratic Party in the middle 60's after creating the KKK and the Jim Crowe laws, right? They joined the GOP which is why it's 90% white today. You know that, right? You can't be this fucking stupid. Or can you? Do you live in a bubble of ignorance? Just repeating "stupid" because that's all you know?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Right-Sixties-Conservative-Capture/dp/0807858641]Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP: Mary C. Brennan: 9780807858646: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

There are books you can buy and read that will help you to stop repeating "asshole ignorance". In fact, you don't even need to read a book. You can look it up on the Internet.

 

[Political Junky]

Because we were not the Democrats?

You know the guys that brought us the KKK, the Jim Crow Laws? Those guys?

Why does it matter what democrats did decades ago?

Especially since the South is solid Republican today.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Republican party did end slavery, but clearly you dont find that at all important.

Technically, America doesn't need the Republican party now any more than we need the Democrat party. And if neither party intends to do what is right, but instead embraces corruption and ignores the Constitution, we the people should eliminate them both.

 

[Chris]

The Republican party did end slavery, but clearly you dont find that at all important.

Technically, America doesn't need the Republican party now any more than we need the Democrat party. And if neither party intends to do what is right, but instead embraces corruption and ignores the Constitution, we the people should eliminate them both.

We aren't talking about the past.

The Republican Party used to be liberal.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you love the fact of space travel
If you love being number one in science
If you love the nhc, noaa, nws, nasa...etc
If you love your police, fire and roads
and infrastructure and education for all children

DON"T vote republican. They have lost their fucking minds.

 

[Chris]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in Congress voted against infrastructure spending that would have lowered unemployment.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

And now Republicans in Congress refuse to raise the minimum wage.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

 

[ScienceRocks]

What does the grandoldgayde stand for?

Killing our public sector that funds nearly half of our science, majority of our infrastructure and public services.

These people aren't sane...I'd say the same thing about the extreme on the lefts with their illogical hatred of corporations.

 

[bripat9643]

The Republican party did end slavery, but clearly you dont find that at all important.

Technically, America doesn't need the Republican party now any more than we need the Democrat party. And if neither party intends to do what is right, but instead embraces corruption and ignores the Constitution, we the people should eliminate them both.

We aren't talking about the past.

The Republican Party used to be liberal.

It still is liberal, but the TEA Party is working on that.

 

[bripat9643]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in Congress voted against infrastructure spending that would have lowered unemployment.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

And now Republicans in Congress refuse to raise the minimum wage.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

The DimoRAT party is the one trying to damage the country. Growing the government is how it accomplishes that task. I only wish the Republican Party did hate government.

 

[SwimExpert]

We aren't talking about the past.

That is impossible.

 

[SwimExpert]

First George W. Bush's

You said we're not talking about the past.

 

[Katzndogz]

Still waiting for democrats to take the next step beyond mewing about their republican problem.