So what now for the Republican right?

What? What is this nonsense. Taxes aren't meant to be temporary, you can't have a government without taxes. The only things that are temporary is what is taxed and at what level.

The Republican party is about to have a civil war over immigration. Hell, Sean Hannity today just came out in favor of amnesty. Immigration reform is about to become a huge issue and the party establishment knows they need to be part of it in a good way. The numbers don't like, they're overwhelmingly losing every demographic except white men and older white women. This is unsustainable. Their crazy base though that primaries anyone to the left of Todd Akin are going to flip out over it.

 

The store owners I've met have an exclusiveness about them thats hard to explain. Very few are not repub. They have their own societies. I was very surprised whenI stumbled upon the first Tea Party rally in my county. It was held in a old school gym. I was there on the wrong night for an art class. It was not advertised to the public. 98% attending were elderly white men. Farmers, Landlords and busness owners. I asked one elderly guy what was going on and he said it was a chamber of commerce meeting.
They believe this myth that Repub. govt. will benefit their busness and not take their wealth (raise taxes). This small, poor county has been run by Repub. for decades. There used to be a Air force base and they profitted well but did not govern with a growth plan for the future. Downtown is crumbling, streets are potholes, newest buildiing is a jail.
Such a contrast from where I came from which is a small town, Dem. for decades, and growing and progressive.
Since Walmart types have invaded smalls stores are struggling and not so rich. I support my local shops.

 

Karen

But the thing is that I think that has already happened; think of it like this, the US has at right wing (of two groups) with no significant adversary, resulting in the political system rotting from within.

 

They'll crank up the propaganda machine even louder in an attempt to change public opinion. Voters will change direction to suit the Republican agenda.

 

Quite frankly, they want a civil war. El Salvador circa 1980 is their model. Two friends have been disowned by their families for admitting to voting for the black guy.

 

Jump off a cliff

 

There is some truth to that, but the Democrats aren't leaning to the right on the issue of gay rights, and both parties are too far left for my taste on some aspects of financial policy. The Republicans claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but George W. Bush spent eight years spending money like a drunken sailor in Amsterdam. When it comes to borrowing money, we have two left wing parties.

 

I didn't know that debt accumulation was a left wing trait.

 

You don't know what left wing is

 

I know of individuals and companies that try very hard to avoid borrowing money, and I think that most people would refer to them as financially conservative.

 

Karen

But to me gay rights aren’t a right or left issue they are a bigotry issue. You can be a right winger and be in favour of gay rights.

To me that is the fault of the neoliberal ideas that have become dominant in the last few years and to me neoliberalism is definitely right wing economic thinking.

 

Karen

The whole idea of capitalism is based on debt – to buy an investment or run and especially expand a business people need ‘capital’ e.g. the money to do so. And one of the mainstays of capitalism is that you can borrow the money to do so.

That is what a house mortgage is. If a person didn’t borrow they could have to stay with there parents for 20-30-40 years until they have the money saved.

Same with businesses, if they can only get equipment if they have raised the money means that if they have the chance at a contract they may have to turn it down because they haven’t the money at hand to buy the machinery to fulfil it.

And it is the same with government sometimes it needs to borrow money.

The problem is that the neo-liberal ideas that became dominant in some countries brought about a mentality that it was alright to have such government debt in up periods because there was not meant to be any low periods.

 

I don't have a clue what your republican party is gonna do but I think in the next elections Hillary Clinton will win. That's how predictable your politics are

 

And in addition, we need a way to vote for "None of the above" with an election re-do if no person gets enough votes.

 

What if the majority would vote none of the above?

Not that I think this would happen but would that automatically open ways up for other parties? Or would they be blessed with a one party system?

 

I've been reading all the political analyses. It seems to boil down to this:

First, the Republicans change their immigration stance, hoping that this is all the change they need to attract Latinos. This will fail, because there are so many other reasons to hate the GOP.

Second, Republicans still believe they are completely right about trickle-down economics, less environmental regulation, and oppressing individual liberties. Accordingly, they believe that all they need to do is to educate the citizenry of the rightness of their positions. This will fail, because all their positions are actually wrong and the American people are so poorly educated and informed now, that they don't have the attention span to listen anyway.

So, the Republican Party is in for a long period of decline. Personally, I hope this is an opening for the rise of Greens and Libertarians as alternatives.

 

It may work that way in the UK, but we see it a little differently. And you have to know that an individual can be liberal about one thing and conservative about another. Standard labels rarely fit anyone perfectly.

A few Republicans do actively support gay rights. At the moment, the most accurate label for them is IRRELEVANT.

How well I know! But there are different kinds of debt. With stockholder equity, dividend payment can be suspended if necessary. That is the more conservative approach (in the US system). Paying interest on bank debt is never optional, so that is the more risky/radical/liberal approach, especially if it's a variable interest loan. There is also a control issue. When banks are owed a lot of money, then they insist on having input into business decisions. Conservative companies want to keep the banks out of the equation.

I'm sure the laws and regulations vary in other countries.

There is also the issue of degree. When two companies think they can make a profit by investing an additional $20 million from a bank loan, one of them may decide to only spend $10 million, out of reluctance to borrow heavily. If a recession begins right away, the company that borrowed less may survive while the other one fails. Both can suspend dividend payments to stockholders.

About the only thing about this that seamlessly carries over to politics is the mindset behind it. Countries don't have shares of stock, and they can print money. But they do have to pay interest.

Conventional Keynesian economics calls for heavy government borrowing and spending during an economic downturn, but there is an underlying assumption that the government has not dug itself a deep financial hole prior to that moment.

Yeah, just like everybody knew that Barack Obama was going to win 8 years ago. You know how much America has always loved black men with funny names.

 

I wonder what is the funniest part of his name, perhaps that it rhymes so good with Osama?

Was it that clear in advance 8 years ago? How much would that be thanks to the choices of republican candidates back then as well? I mean McCain and Palin... Even if I was a racist american I'd been considering going for Obama too.
I also have a hard time accepting a lot of americans wanted a Mormon as president. Seriously I have nothing against their religion by definition but to have a person with such a mindset as a president of the US would be something else.

 

I fucking hate that nazi bitch. fuck hillary clinton up the ass

she's one of, if not the most hated figure in american politics

there would be no better way to guarantee a republican victory than to nominate hc. republicans would be energized in opposing her, and many democrats would defect.

hillary represents the camp within the democratic party that believes that the way forward for women and gays is to wage war on straight men, and is prepared to sink as low as possible to get power

during her last bid for the nomination, she pushed for votes in michigan and florida to be counted, despite the fact that primaries in those states were held against dnc bylaws, and the fact that obama's name didn't even appear on the ballot

during the negotiations, hc supporters reportedly attacked obama supporters (that is, some obama supporters were shoved by hc supporters)

near the end of the campaign, she made comments to the effect that people should vote for her because "someone might shoot" obama (I've tried to find the exact quote, but this information appears to be difficult to find. no mention of it in the wikipedia article about hc's 2008 campaign)

 

Why all this hate? You are living in the past. She has proven herself as Senator and Secretary of State, where she has done an excellent job -- better than any other recent Secretary of State. Hillary is widely regarded as having an excellent chance, if she runs. I don't think she will run.