APP - gop/rnc considering 'purity' questionnaire

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
yep, the new gop is considering giving potential candidates a questionnaire to determine if their goals are in line with the gop's goals

rr would not pass the test

if they do this it will be the gop reducing its party appeal and shooting itself in the foot

i guess that they would rather be small and pure
 
DonQuixote said:
yep, the new gop is considering giving potential candidates a questionnaire to determine if their goals are in line with the gop's goals

rr would not pass the test

if they do this it will be the gop reducing its party appeal and shooting itself in the foot

i guess that they would rather be small and pure
Click to expand...

Of course we all know that everyone answers survey questions candidly and honestly, right? :rolleyes:
 
In the UK, Canada, and Australia if you vote against the party on any major issue there's a serious chance you're not going to be standing for re-election on their line in the next election. You can still run as an independent, but even in Australia (where they have IRV) it's a long shot.

And I sort of agree with that. Why should anyone who voted against healthcare still be a Democrat?
 
Watermark said:
In the UK, Canada, and Australia if you vote against the party on any major issue there's a serious chance you're not going to be standing for re-election on their line in the next election. You can still run as an independent, but even in Australia (where they have IRV) it's a long shot.

And I sort of agree with that. Why should anyone who voted against healthcare still be a Democrat?
Click to expand...

you're right, no one should think for themselves or consider their own constituents, they should all vote in lockstep with the brown shirt party leaders of the democratic party
 
Watermark said:
Yes. Political parties present a unified front for an ideology. People who agree with that ideology should vote for that party. Otherwise they should vote for an independent.



I want my lawmakers to be sheeple to my interests.
Click to expand...

great...so if you are a republican or a democrat, you can't think for yourself....and if your constituents don't want you to vote lockstep with your party, then fuck them, you must hail the party hitler....

nonsense, if that was the case then each party should elect one person nationally, then you will have no disagreement...and you can sit back and enjoy your sheeplehood
 
Watermark said:
The purpose of a party is ultimately to reduce the opinion of the majority to the majority of the majority.
Click to expand...

perhaps the actual purpose is to find enough people that have the same opinions or enough of the same opinions to produce and effective voting block

personally, i register and vote independent - of course the problem in ca is that you cannot vote in primaries

i would like to see both the dems and reps split into two parties each for a total of 4 parties

where i live my representative is a republican in a 'safe' district so my vote does not count for that office :( regardless of what i think about his politics
 
Watermark said:
The purpose of a party is ultimately to reduce the opinion of the majority to the majority of the majority.
Click to expand...

no...the purpose is power

you're a borg, hive think, you can't function without someone telling you what to think

hopefully one day you will be dissimilated from the borg
 
Yurt said:
no...the purpose is power

you're a borg, hive think, you can't function without someone telling you what to think

hopefully one day you will be dissimilated from the borg
Click to expand...

politics used to be the art of living together or getting along with someone you do not like

people gather together to form a body politic for the purpose of exerting their power over others or themselves

Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government"]governments[/ame], but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation"]corporate[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia"]academic[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion"]religious[/ame] institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy"]policy[/ame].[3] The word "Politics" comes from the Greek word πολἰς ("[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis"]polis[/ame]") meaning city-state. The Greek word πολίτἰκος "Politikos" describes anything concerning the state or city affairs. In Latin, this was "politicus" and in French "politique". Thus it became "politics" in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English"]Middle English[/ame] (see the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concise_Oxford_Dictionary"]Concise Oxford Dictionary[/ame]).



  1. ^ Definition of politics from die.net
  2. ^ Politics (definition)@Everything2.com
  3. ^ Definition of politics from "The Free Dictionary"
 
politics used to be the art of living together or getting along with someone you do not like
Click to expand...

thats a pipe dream and not true

that is like saying the nuclear bomb was a bomb meant to end all wars, a bomb to bring peace.....
 
Thorn said:
Of course we all know that everyone answers survey questions candidly and honestly, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep. In psychology survey's are taken with a grain of salt. Plus, the people doing the survey can go to people who they want and who will give them the answer they want.
 
Watermark said:
In the UK, Canada, and Australia if you vote against the party on any major issue there's a serious chance you're not going to be standing for re-election on their line in the next election. You can still run as an independent, but even in Australia (where they have IRV) it's a long shot.

And I sort of agree with that. Why should anyone who voted against healthcare still be a Democrat?
Click to expand...

Two words: Blue Dogs.
 
If the Blue Dogs want to vote against healthcare they should become Republicans or make their own party. I'm not even talking about going to the lengths the parliamentary countries do, but there should at least be a requirement that you vote for the major changes the PARTY PROMISED AND WAS ELECTED TO BRING ABOUT.
 
They were not elected to bring about those changes though. You are just being stupid. One of the greatest political certainties in existence is that a candidate will not actually enact the grand reforms he proposes. Many people who voted for Obama, myself included, were actively opposed to the notion of healthcare reform and simply thought that Obama's platitudes on the issue were just like his platitudes on other issues like Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan: Pretty words that would never be acted on.

Obama may or may not pass healthcare, but if he does he has undone his own constituency coalition of independent voters, liberal Democrats, and moderate Republicans.
 
Epicurus said:
They were not elected to bring about those changes though. You are just being stupid. One of the greatest political certainties in existence is that a candidate will not actually enact the grand reforms he proposes. Many people who voted for Obama, myself included, were actively opposed to the notion of healthcare reform and simply thought that Obama's platitudes on the issue were just like his platitudes on other issues like Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan: Pretty words that would never be acted on.

Obama may or may not pass healthcare, but if he does he has undone his own constituency coalition of independent voters, liberal Democrats, and moderate Republicans.
Click to expand...

The Democrats are going to suffer whether or not they pass healthcare. 1994 wasn't made any better because the Democrats failed to do anything.

I think Obama did nurture the perception that he could provide healthcare to millions of Americans without tax raises. Maybe his plan would have worked like that. But once in office all he basically did was tell congress to make a bill (because he knew that if he tried to force one on them like Clinton it would go badly).

Congress had different views on healthcare. Most Obama supporters will continue to support him anyway, and the coalition is already fractured whether or not the bill gets passed.

IMHO, this is just reason that party executives and the leadership in the legislature need to get together before the election to form a coherent plan. The executive is often elected because of his bully pulpit to force his legislative promises through, but he doesn't really have the power to do jack shit without the support of the leadership in the legislature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top