IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gop , republicans

Reply
Old 24th November 2009, 09:22 PM   #1
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates
Quote:
Ten members of the Republican National Committee are proposing a resolution demanding candidates embrace at least eight of 10 conservative principles if they hope to receive financial support and an official endorsement from the RNC. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," is designed to force candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing "Obama's socialist agenda," according to The New York Times' Caucus blog. The proposal highlights the ongoing tug-of-war for the ideological soul of the Republican party, and has been met with skepticism both inside and outside of the party.

Some are speculating that the move was inspired by the GOP’s recent loss in New York's 23rd House race, a seat the party had held since the 1800s. That contest saw Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican endorsed by the RNC, driven out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman, a more conservative candidate backed by the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava dropped out of the race, the RNC endorsed Hoffman, who went on to lose to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. ...
Oh man, I see this as a really bad idea. It basically screams "moderates need not apply" and I think it will do nothing to really satisfy the Tea Party wingnuts. I see it as bad for the GOP and bad for the country as well. I would love to see moderates have more of a voice within Republican ranks, yet moves like this don't fill me with confidence in that regard.

__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 09:30 PM   #2
korenyx
Graduate Poster
 
korenyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 19th Century Kansas
Posts: 1,070
According to the book Idiot America that's how McCain ended up with Palin. She passed those tests with flying colors.
korenyx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 09:31 PM   #3
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Is it too early to Godwin the thread?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 09:39 PM   #4
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Is it too early to Godwin the thread?
You know who else insisted on ideological purity tests?

Nazis.

That's who.


Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.
gtc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 09:43 PM   #5
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Given that the most far-right Republicans have had their heads handed to them when they run against a rational Democrat, I don't think hard right turns are a good idearight now, so I do encourage them to crank that sucker right and over the curb.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 09:46 PM   #6
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:

Quote:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 09:52 PM   #7
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Newsflash.

Political organizations demands politicians support its politics before it receives the political organization's political backing.

Said political organization's politics do not actually fit the other side's political organization's politics.

Other side's politicians are shocked, SHOCKED.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 09:53 PM   #8
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,587
This reminds me a lot of the questionaires the the GOP sends me every so often because I used to be a registered Republican. They always contain leading questions like "Do you favor using your hard-earned tax dollars to support people who refuse to work?"

But the idea that there is a "litmus test" for Republicans is, IMO, a very bad idea. They are going to foster more infighting and hostility among their own ranks. Lots of Republicans don't have any problem with gay marriage, among other issues in that list. To force them to sign up or "fail the test" is just going to cause more defections.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 10:02 PM   #9
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,090
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
This reminds me a lot of the questionaires the the GOP sends me every so often because I used to be a registered Republican. They always contain leading questions like "Do you favor using your hard-earned tax dollars to support people who refuse to work?"

But the idea that there is a "litmus test" for Republicans is, IMO, a very bad idea. They are going to foster more infighting and hostility among their own ranks. Lots of Republicans don't have any problem with gay marriage, among other issues in that list. To force them to sign up or "fail the test" is just going to cause more defections.
Exactly. Once your party gives you a test, and tells you that your score means that you're not a real Republican, you might realize that you're not a Republican and leave.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 10:04 PM   #10
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
 
hgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
Lets visit point 1, as regards smaller national debt and smaller deficits.

Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest?
hgc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 10:10 PM   #11
sugarb
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 869
There goes my shot at the Presidency...

What is interesting is that some Democrats would pass this test.
sugarb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 10:22 PM   #12
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Newsflash.

Political organizations demands politicians support its politics before it receives the political organization's political backing.
Newsflash.

Some newesflashes are wrong. Like the one above.

Both Dems and Reps have loyal members in good standing who have received their party's political backing and, at the same time, do NOT support its platform. Pro-choice Reps is an obvious example.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 11:01 PM   #13
Pvt. Stash
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 123
yes but...

Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Pro-choice Reps is an obvious example.



those aren't "real" republicans... (ie. RINO's, rep. in name only)
Pvt. Stash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 11:24 PM   #14
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Let joy be unconfined.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 12:07 AM   #15
Leif Roar
Master Poster
 
Leif Roar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,795
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:
Are any of those a principle rather than a current issue, except no. 4? A couple of them strikes me as somewhat non sequitor too -- what's the link between "containment" and "action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat" and how does "opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" help "support legal immigration and assimilation"?

On a general note, ideological "purity tests" are stupid. The world keeps changing, after all.
__________________
"Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005
Leif Roar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 12:13 AM   #16
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,419
Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test? If you generally do not agree with the Republican Party platform, then you probably shouldn't run as a Republican, or expect the Republican party to assist your campaign. If anything this makes their process more transparent because the party label will actually mean something. The genuine fraud comes arises when we discuss what "true" conservatives actually end up doing -- growing government, beginning wars they cannot finance, running up the deficit (see hgc's post).

Republican politics are more ideological whereas Democrats are more transactional (look at the astonishing goodies demanded by your precious "moderates" for the health care bill). If anything the Democrats should be more like the Republicans rather than vice versa (not terms of policy positions, obviously, but when it comes party discipline). Force Democrats to get a political theory. Assign Theory of Justice and conduct seminars.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 12:17 AM   #17
Leif Roar
Master Poster
 
Leif Roar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,795
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test?
Perhaps not in theory, but I don't think you can simplify a modern political party's platform into ten yes/no questions without oversimplifying it to the point of uselessness.
__________________
"Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005
Leif Roar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 12:33 AM   #18
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest?

At the exact moment they were no longer the party in power. Or so it seems at least.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 12:47 AM   #19
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,419
Originally Posted by Leif Roar View Post
Perhaps not in theory, but I don't think you can simplify a modern political party's platform into ten yes/no questions without oversimplifying it to the point of uselessness.
Why do you make a distinction for a "modern" political party? Is this to guard against a historical argument for a party that has one core issue, such as ending slavery? Political parties should not welcome everyone with open arms. As for these ten points -- well, they're shoddy at best. The first one is arguably inconsistent (and unarguably poorly worded, not unlike this parenthetical note). The third one is amusing: they "support market-based reforms by opposing cap and trade..." That just doesn't follow; indeed, it could arguably make more sense if it read "We encourage market-based reforms by supporting cap and trade legislation." But whatever; these things are usually written by idiots, and the people behind this list of ten are Republicans, and its done via committee, so that's three marks against their intelligence.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 01:02 AM   #20
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates
From: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - just after General Ripper launches a nuclear strike.

Quote:
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.

General Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?

General Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.

General Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.
So - the Republicans are concerned about Loss of Essence?
Hmmm.

PS: Purity of Essence - POE - was the recall code. It didn't work.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.

Last edited by fishbob; 25th November 2009 at 01:16 AM. Reason: purity of essence
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 05:25 AM   #21
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
 
KoihimeNakamura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III
Posts: 7,958
Neither party is really a 'party', they're more big tent organizations.
__________________
Don't mind me.
KoihimeNakamura is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 05:27 AM   #22
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Rika View Post
Neither party is really a 'party', they're more big tent organizations.

So this is an effort on the part of the RNC to address that problem?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 05:55 AM   #23
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by gtc View Post
Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.
Sure but most countries have a system that permits more than two functional parties, and often moves a lot of the focus from the individual to the party. You never vote for a party in the US only for individuals.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 06:00 AM   #24
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:




This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.
Nice to see that they have things that are incompatable on there. I think 2 and 9 don't really go together. If they want a truely free market for health care then you can't go arround forcing people to treat the indigent for no pay as they want in 9.

But I am not really suprised. America should sue the party for contract violation from the last time.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 06:12 AM   #25
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Sure but most countries have a system that permits more than two functional parties, and often moves a lot of the focus from the individual to the party. You never vote for a party in the US only for individuals.

Oh, I see. Two individuals to choose from, so to speak.
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 06:28 AM   #26
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Exactly. Once your party gives you a test, and tells you that your score means that you're not a real Republican, you might realize that you're not a Republican and leave.
Sure, see Micheal Bloomberg.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 06:44 AM   #27
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
So this is an effort on the part of the RNC to address that problem?
Yep, they have decided being a national party is a problem for them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 07:01 AM   #28
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep, they have decided being a national party is a problem for them.

So it would seem.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 07:59 AM   #29
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Am I the only one who is disturbed by this one?

Quote:
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 08:02 AM   #30
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
[quote}(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; [/quote]

Yeah, Let's repeal restricitons on automatic weapons.

I really want to go out and buy a 1921 model Thompson Sub Machine Gun.

with a 50 round drum magazine.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 08:11 AM   #31
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
Lets visit point 1, as regards smaller national debt and smaller deficits.

Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest?
For that matter, would any of them call for entitlement and military cuts needed to simultaneously lower taxes, lower debt, and shrink government? That's not something you can do by simply opposing the stimulus bill, especially since the stimulus included tax cuts. And of course, how do you manage that while sending more troops overseas and doing nothing to change medical entitlements?

Frankly, the list is just a collection of talking points. "Stop taking my money!", "Victory in Iraq!", "Hands off my Medicare!", "Guns! Guns!", "What about the babies!?" "Send the illegals back where they came from!", "Gays want to ruin marriage!" No wonder they end up messing things up, they have no actual plan in the first place.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 08:25 AM   #32
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test? If you generally do not agree with the Republican Party platform, then you probably shouldn't run as a Republican, or expect the Republican party to assist your campaign.
But this is simply wrong.

"All politics is local." The national issues that define "the party" may be meaningless or active hindrances locally, which is where candidates are nominated and run. In a strongly "blue" area, you may not be able to find ANY electable candidate that will support all ten -- or even eight of the ten -- planks on that particular purity test. Even if that's the case, you'd be better off finding an electable candidate who supports six of them than insisting that the Republicans must run a candidate who can't help but lose to a zero of ten McGovern Democrat. If you do that, you end up with support for NONE of your ideas in congress, instead of only some of them.

This is the classic mistake of letting the achievable good become the enemy of the unachievable best.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 08:58 AM   #33
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
I actually like the idea of the purity test. Republicans should be Republicans, instead of forcing people like Doug Hoffman to run an underfunded third party campaign in lieu of pouring 900,000 dollars into uber-RINO Scozzafava's pockets.

Seriously, people like Scozzafava should be independents. Full stop.
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 09:12 AM   #34
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,628
Originally Posted by gtc View Post
Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.
The difference is that in most democracies there is at least a semblance of a multi-party system. There are at least four parties represented in the Australian parliament, IIRC. The United States has a two-party system, almost by law; ballot access laws and bureacratic state structural requirements make it prohibitively difficult for a third party to make any sort of national showing.

The result of this is that the two main parties are much more ideologically broad than those in multi-party systems; the Democrats have everything from conservatives (Zell Miller) to socialists (DSA), and the Republicans run the gamut from libertarians (Ron Paul) to virtual theocrats (Focus-on-the-Family types).

If one party starts applying a purity test, those who don't agree with every bullet point will start defecting to the one that doesn't. If both parties start applying a litmus test, it effectively disenfranchises everyone who doesn't toe one party line or the other.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 09:23 AM   #35
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues??????

I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq.

let the Godwining begin!!!!!

Last edited by Thunder; 25th November 2009 at 09:27 AM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 09:34 AM   #36
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues??????

I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq.

let the Godwining begin!!!!!


Are you really this upset that 5% of the RNC National Committee is proposing to restrict funding to members of their party who support less than 80% of the national platform?

Please excuse the Tu Quoque, but what's your stance on Joe Lieberman again? Didn't you call him a traitor and evil for stating that he would try to block the public-health-insurance-company option?
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 09:35 AM   #37
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by parky76
nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.
Since when was the Republican Party a nation capable of denying freedom? :/
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 09:35 AM   #38
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
How can they reconcile points (1) and (6)? Troop surges cost money. Lots of it. Point (5) doesn't even make logical sense. Items (8) and (9) are barbaric and shameful.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 09:41 AM   #39
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
 
Achán hiNidráne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,974
Originally Posted by hgc View Post
This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.
There is still homophobic and anti-abortion BS, and we all know where that usually comes from.
__________________
"As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold"
Achán hiNidráne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2009, 09:46 AM   #40
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
How can they reconcile points (1) and (6)? Troop surges cost money. Lots of it. Point (5) doesn't even make logical sense. Items (8) and (9) are barbaric and shameful.
Look we can borrow the million dollars it takes to send a soldier to afganistan from the chinese so financial responcibility isn't an issue.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.