Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

future of the Republican party


Recommended Posts

Now as to this:

Quote

And that is a danger to democracy as demonstrated over and again in the history. It comes not from outside but from those who come to believe that democracy works for them, not the society as a whole. In a divided society the very platform for the democracy and rule of law above partisan interests erodes. And that is not some fiction but the territory we're in now. Next time a president will tell to an election official "find me votes" what will happen after those who stood up for the Constitution and the law were ostracized?

Are you talking about the Republicans or the Democrats?

If it's the Democrats you have a point, except your timeline is off. It's already happened. Whether or not courts are willing to hear evidence of actual fraud I can make a really good case for 2020 being rigged starting months before the election. It was done with corporate and social media malfeasance, money snuck in to manage the election process by Biden friendly operatives, Leftist lawyers and judges rewriting election rules and weakling Republicans bowing to Democrat demands.

On the other hand if you're trying to insinuate the erosion of democracy is coming from the other side you're suffering badly from the dysfunction of the delusion of psychological projection and maybe you should get help.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of a proposed schism in the Republican party there's no denying there's something to that.

What is it though and how big a problem is it? Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? That's the where the argument lies.

Myself I'm kind of leaning towards the suggestion of this seemingly traditional Republican who's frustrated enough to make this argument:

The Republican Party Sucks

He suggests the problem isn't with those Republicans opposing the current power structure in the Party, wanting to return to the days of Eisenhower and Reagan. The problem is with the liberal/faux Republicans that moved in and hijacked the party during the regime of George W Bush. They're embedded now and there doesn't seem to be any way to extract them.

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surge into power does not always mean avoiding embracing extremes. Yes there are known examples in history. Moreover, in a divided society, with at least one of the factions "embracing extremes" it is almost certain that an extreme faction would come to power at some point. So it's an unfolding one-way spiral: with every step in partizan confrontation; in the failure to recognize and defend shared principles going back to mutual respect, to non-partisan decisions in the nation's interests can be difficult or no longer possible.

And we may not even have to wait that long. We already heard from the highest democratic official in the country what, suggestion? order? "find me votes". The question is, how long and how far is it, til some loyalist would try to obey their totem and find them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 6:23 PM, myata said:

That is an opinion and you have the right to your as well as Obama to her.

I am only one small voice. I have no twitter followers, let alone friends on facebook. If I had 10M followers, and started calling for them to be angry and to quote Barrack Hussein, "make your government feel uncomfortable" during an ongoing riot in the streets, well. doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the potential outcome.

Quote

Every person whom these events affect directly, who has experienced them in real life has the right to feel angry and speak about it. How they use that right can be a matter of discussion.

They have the right to, but being angry or staying angry shouldn't be encouraged, certainly not by people who have major clout and influence over thousands of dumbfounded dipsticks.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

- Yoda

Edited by OftenWrong
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

- Yoda

Nice argumentation from a fictional character from a fictional story by a hardly known author and entirely missing the point. Anger is an emotion, not an act, certainly not a violent act in itself. It can be discouraged or otherwise but very clearly it's not the same, and cannot be equated with a deliberate lie.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The erosion of democracy due to partisan polarization of the society can be observed in the US in real time. First, the impeachment went out the window, not possible any longer. And now, independent parliamentary inquiries. It is not hard to foresee where the trend is going. And what if at some point it would reach the courts? If there will be Republican courts and Democratic courts guided by political loyalties and ideological views it could be the end of independent judiciary. Anything that could change this direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, myata said:

The erosion of democracy due to partisan polarization of the society can be observed in the US in real time. First, the impeachment went out the window, not possible any longer.

 

Not sure what you mean by this...President Trump was impeached..twice...and President Clinton was also impeached.   Impeachment is a political process, and is very much alive.

 

Quote

And now, independent parliamentary inquiries. It is not hard to foresee where the trend is going. And what if at some point it would reach the courts? If there will be Republican courts and Democratic courts guided by political loyalties and ideological views it could be the end of independent judiciary. Anything that could change this direction?

 

Far more likely to get committee hearings, investigations, and special prosecutors in the U.S. (in full public view) than in Canada where ruling party can so easily shut down hearings in Parliament and invoke publication bans.

Judiciary is doing fine....this week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld 4th Amendment rights for unconstitutional gun ownership seizures despite ideological differences on the bench.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Far more likely to get committee hearings, investigations, and special prosecutors in the U.S. (in full public view) than in Canada where ruling party can so easily shut down hearings in Parliament and invoke publication bans.

It was pretty easy to get a whole schwack of charges laid against Conservatives when Harper was PM, just like against Trump.

It's the leftists in both countries who are untouchable. 

Hillary got to say "I can't remember" to the FBI non-stop to get out of two investigations. No one would even entertain the thought that Joe Biden wasn't as pure as the driven snow. 

IMO our countries both operate under the principle of "Trial by the MSM". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Not sure what you mean by this...President Trump was impeached..twice...and President Clinton was also impeached.   Impeachment is a political process, and is very much alive.

Far more likely to get committee hearings, investigations, and special prosecutors in the U.S. (in full public view) than in Canada where ruling party can so easily shut down hearings in Parliament and invoke publication bans.

Judiciary is doing fine....this week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld 4th Amendment rights for unconstitutional gun ownership seizures despite ideological differences on the bench.

Without possibility of conviction that practically cannot be done without bipartisan participation it may not mean much and soon presidents may wear their badges of multiple impeachments proudly for whatever its worth to the public.

Not comparing to Canada that does not even have a sovereign, independently constructed democratic system as yet, only copypaste of the British blueprint. Yet the prospects for non-partisan investigation into critical matters have been greatly diminished.

Judiciary: present is no guarantee for the future. Polarization is a one-way street and what if there will be first, and what if it isn't far away? It's only a matter of what is accepted, and considered acceptable. If "find me votes" is not a big deal anymore why not "get me the the right verdict"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, myata said:

Without possibility of conviction that practically cannot be done without bipartisan participation it may not mean much and soon presidents may wear their badges of multiple impeachments proudly for whatever its worth to the public.

 

There is a possibility of conviction...just ask Richard Nixon.   The conviction threshold is purposely set high by constitution because  impeachment can be abused for partisan reasons.   Working as designed....

 

Quote

Not comparing to Canada that does not even have a sovereign, independently constructed democratic system as yet, only copypaste of the British blueprint. Yet the prospects for non-partisan investigation into critical matters have been greatly diminished.

 

The American system comes under much wider scrutiny than does Canada's...the political theatre has a larger domestic and international audience.

 

Quote

Judiciary: present is no guarantee for the future. Polarization is a one-way street and what if there will be first, and what if it isn't far away? It's only a matter of what is accepted, and considered acceptable. If "find me votes" is not a big deal anymore why not "get me the the right verdict"?

 

Check out the history of the U.S. judiciary system...it has always been thus.   The ebb and flow of contemporary politics and judiciary will be swallowed up by history and context, same as the past 200+ years. 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Nixon...

Check out the history of the U.S. judiciary system...it has always been thus.   The ebb and flow of contemporary politics and judiciary will be swallowed up by history and context, same as the past 200+ years. 

One can check out general history too. Roman republic lasted close to 500 years. It fell because of disenfranchisement of citizens and deterioration of political system. Nothing is guaranteed and can be taken for granted democracy included. And the trend is hardly encouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, myata said:

One can check out general history too. Roman republic lasted close to 500 years. It fell because of disenfranchisement of citizens and deterioration of political system. Nothing is guaranteed and can be taken for granted democracy included. And the trend is hardly encouraging.

 

The United States is not a democracy...it is a constitutional republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The United States is not a democracy...it is a constitutional republic.

Ok. Then a constitutional republic can be an authoritarian state or even a dictatorship, as long as constitutional formalities are observed? Was that the point? Sure no argument there and hardly a news in this age, every dictatorship that respects itself now has a constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, myata said:

Ok. Then a constitutional republic can be an authoritarian state or even a dictatorship, as long as constitutional formalities are observed? Was that the point? Sure no argument there and hardly a news in this age, every dictatorship that respects itself now has a constitution.

 

The larger point here is that the United States was purposely not designed to be a direct democracy, because tyranny by the majority is not acceptable.   Hence a constitution.

A Canadian PM has more unchecked power than any American president....dictatorship ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The larger point here is that the United States was purposely not designed to be a direct democracy, because tyranny by the majority is not acceptable.   Hence a constitution.

Ok but a democracy is not synonymous to "direct democracy". There can be different forms of democracy, however a democracy in any form can function only if citizens are involved and can elect and control the governments. If not, then it can still be a constitutional republic but it's not controlled by the citizens hence authoritarian state, oligarchy and so on. Constitution and institutions do not assure the right of citizens, rather it's the other way around. And the concern with the recent events is that independence and non-partisan nature of critical for the democracy institutions can be eroded and undermined. Eventually, down this path it'll be up to the citizens as it always was, and is in the essence. Either they'll reestablish and renew their democracy; or it will cease to exist, regardless of the forms, texts, and traditions. It happened so we know that it can happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, myata said:

 And the concern with the recent events is that independence and non-partisan nature of critical for the democracy institutions can be eroded and undermined. 

Well, yeah...anything can be rigged. There's always going to be your Soros and your Stacey Abrahams and your Mark Zuckerberg types who will find a way to find an exploit.

They used to be under better control. Now they're not. The monkeys run the zoo.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, myata said:

 And the concern with the recent events is that independence and non-partisan nature of critical for the democracy institutions can be eroded and undermined. Eventually, down this path it'll be up to the citizens as it always was, and is in the essence. Either they'll reestablish and renew their democracy; or it will cease to exist, regardless of the forms, texts, and traditions. It happened so we know that it can happen again.

 

It has happened many times...and will happen again..this is the American experience and narrative, up to and including the Civil War.   There is nothing special about today's threats to "democracy" compared to threats and authoritarians of the past.  

America is the same as it ever was.  Hell, in a typical election only half of eligible voters bother to cast a ballot.   That is their choice....leaving the drama and partisanship to those who get far more excited about such things.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be hopeful too. However in life the past is never a guarantee of the future and every turn of evolution is a new test. Authoritarianism and dictatorship grow where trust among citizens have eroded to the point where their divisions are more important to them than their common project. America seems to be edging to that point slowly but steadily. What's next and how it'll play out we'll have to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 7:20 PM, Shady said:

Democrats are the real party in trouble.  Their policies like defund the police are having devastating results.  Voters won’t take kindly to it.

The Dems know that the people who were dumb enough to vote for them in 2020 are dumb enough to believe whatever they and their MSM puppets blame for that violence and everything else.

They'll say that it's the fault of guns, white supremacists, racist cops and Republican hate kills and leftist dolts will put their platitudes on placards and strut around like emperor penguins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those who think that republicans not wanting to go back to the losing coalition of McCain and Romney

and embracing the winning coalition of Trump

is somehow the doom of the republicans

are further proof that wishful thinking is a helluva drug

the future of the republicans is not John McCain or Mitt Romney, and that is good thing for republicans

the base is the future, the establishment who hate the base is the past

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Democrats are abandoning the working class in the rust belt

while their woke virtue signaling is undermining the Latino support that they need to continue gaining ground in the southwest to offset those loses

the Democrats are gaining ground with the educated urbanites

but those gains are not worth the accompanying loses among minority voters who they need to win presidential elections moving forward

get woke, go broke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...