Is the GOP listening? They should be...

Southern Man said:
Either Newt or Hagel would be great actually.

I was partially kidding about Coulter. I don't think that she's serious about the "convert them to Christianity" type remarks, and they do help her to sell her books, but too many people just don't have the same sense of humor.
Click to expand...
I think we should put in Ron Paul. He's a fund raising genius, he's very conservative, and being a candidate doesn't serve him well.
 
Southern Man said:
Either Newt or Hagel would be great actually.

I was partially kidding about Coulter. I don't think that she's serious about the "convert them to Christianity" type remarks, and they do help her to sell her books, but too many people just don't have the same sense of humor.
Click to expand...

Newt???? Hagel is ok, but Newt????
 
Damocles said:
You mean Doctor Scream? Yeah, that's what we need.

What we need is somebody who isn't a religious reactionary willing to lead the largest nationalization of private business and banks ever in the US. One who might actually act conservatively in spending and expanding government and entitlement programs.
Click to expand...

Yep, a message that is for smaller government, advocating government from the bottom up. (see Dems financial plan, substitute gov't for stimulus.) There are real differences, in philosophy.

Displace the idea that the government is 'the last best hope', make it the enemy. Allow it the only the powers that cannot be dealt with successfully on another level.

Stop with the morals via legislation. It's fine to say that 'most Americans are against the refuse of a botched abortion to lay quivering on a table in linen closet, another to say that those the 'choose choice' are all murderers.
 
Kathianne said:
Yep, a message that is for smaller government, advocating government from the bottom up. (see Dems financial plan, substitute gov't for stimulus.) There are real differences, in philosophy.

Displace the idea that the government is 'the last best hope', make it the enemy. Allow it the only the powers that cannot be dealt with successfully on another level.
Click to expand...

Why when the government can do something good should it not be able to?

Your philosophy is not rational. It is emotional. There is no reason in it at all, it is nothing but fear and hate.
 
You can draft a platform that only consists of things a majority of people agree with. The problem with that, however, is that there are often completely different, conflicting majorities that agree on some things. A platform should appeal to a base, rather than making sure that everything in the platform is agreed with by a majority of people.

I could, for instance, run on instituting universal healthcare and banning abortion. Both might be agreed with by a majority, but the amount of people who agree with both at once would be an insignificant amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top