Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Should true conservatives like John McCain, Lindsey Grahm and George Voinavich wrest control from the far reactionary right and make the Republican party a national party again?
APP - Should Republicans move from the Far Right to the Right?
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
let the party splinter
maybe we will have five parties, far left, left, center, right and far right
maybe we will have five parties, far left, left, center, right and far right
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I can live with that. I don't agree with the Libertarian branch of the party but I can work with them. The RR are hopeless.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
After the "spending like a drunken sailor" mentality of George W. and Obama, a fiscal conservative could do very well.
If they distance themselves from the bible thumpers, they could pull votes from both parties and win.
If they distance themselves from the bible thumpers, they could pull votes from both parties and win.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
"conservative" has just become to much of an ideological term for my taste. I'd prefer a fiscal pragmatist/realist. In other words I want a deficit hawk.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
And when have we ever had a fiscal conservative president? Conservatives talk the talk, they don't walk the walk. They never present any real plan to cut government. I doubt any conservatives have any real grapple on what's actually in the budget until they're in office.
The most fiscally conservative president we've had since Coolidge was Bill Clinton. Dubya and Reagan did nothing but cut taxes without any sort of plan to make up for it.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
is there that much difference between what we have and 'coalition' government?.....apart from the lack of formality......you have "parties" on each end and a big block made of 50million "parties" in the middle who help choose a coalition leader every four years......
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
There is. Coalition governments are proportional. They have power (representation) proportional to the votes they recieve. In our two party system the parties must build coalitions but because our elections are "winner takes all" then some coalitions inside both parties are over/under represented.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wrong... the most fiscally conservative since Coolidge was IKE. He was the last President to preside over a DECREASE in our nations debt in a fiscal year.
That said, Clinton (along with the Rep Congress) did try not to outspend his revenues.
Reagan... worked with a Dem led House... that always seems to be forgotten when the left talks about his spending. Tip wasn't going to let Reagan cut everything he wanted to. $1.6 trillion added to the debt in his 8 years. For Clinton it was $1.6 trillion as well. Inflation adjusted it would put Reagan at about $2.4 trillion (calculated using 3.5 as average annual inflation rate and calculated to the end of Clintons term)
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Revenue did exceed spending for one year under Clinton... but social security taxes aren't generally supposed to be used for discretionary spending.
As % of GDP Reagan increased the debt by tremendous amounts over Clinton.
The Dems controlled the house but they dealt with a huge conservative base back then, probably over 100 Democrats were conservatives. The Democrats only controlled it in name. If Ronny asked them to do anything, they (did).
Last edited by a moderator:
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Stop this hissy fit now Mott. Your question doesn't even make sense. The GOP hasn't been on the right since Reagan, and possibly Newt.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it is only more proportional in relation to a parliament (or Congress if applied to our system).....in an a election for an executive, it is at least as proportional, if not more, as the candidate must obtain the approval of far more "portions" of the electorate than if he merely needs to gain the approval of 51% of the parliament members.....
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well technically they are about as proportional as each other, as long as one candidate gets a majority. If one candidate doesn't get a majority, all bets are off. You can get extremely absurd and even undemocratic results in that situation.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It's certainly more representative of the coalition. In a proportional system the head of the administrative branch of government is not directly elected by the voting public as it is in our winner take all system. But you are correct. Proportionality does come through our primary system. Who ever is elected to represent that party is beholding to those coalitions.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I don't think that forcing people to vote for one single person makes it more representative. Forcing a coalition to cooperate in the form of one person is less representative but more stable. That is obvious.
Proportional systems, with unified parties, are essentially like presidential systems if you could split the office between several people. The biggest problem comes when none of the parts that could possibly form a majority want to work together. That's what happened in the Weimar Republic - the Communists and Nazis, who didn't even believe in democracy, held a majority and government ground to a halt.
Proportional systems, with unified parties, are essentially like presidential systems if you could split the office between several people. The biggest problem comes when none of the parts that could possibly form a majority want to work together. That's what happened in the Weimar Republic - the Communists and Nazis, who didn't even believe in democracy, held a majority and government ground to a halt.
Last edited: