What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
460 Comments
- felman87, on 05/08/2009, -4/+196We need new parties.
- amoirae, on 05/08/2009, -48/+180Hopefully.
- brstilson, on 05/08/2009, -9/+122Back when Ron Paul was running for the nomination I began to sense that there was an inner conflict in the Republican Party. Agree with him or not (I don't), Dr. Paul's campaign made it known that not every Republican is a neocon. I think there's a three-way split coming that will destroy the party. There are/were pretty much three types of Republicans: the moderates, the neocons, and the Libertarians. The moderates are joining the democrats and the Libertarians are joining the Libertarian Party. That leaves the neocon minority.
The article also brings up something interesting: America is becoming less Christian. In my age group, up to 40% of us are reporting no religious affiliation. From 1990-2000, the number of Christians shrank while the non-religious grew by the same amount. This does not bode well for a party that is increasingly excluding non-Christians with rhetoric of this being a "Christian nation" where the presence of other religious beliefs (or no religious belief) is merely tolerated. - michellets, on 05/08/2009, -9/+80The picture is my favorite part.
- jiggawatt, on 05/08/2009, -6/+75...as they are. Get rid of the anti-intellectualism. Shed the religious right. Be more inclusive. Stop with the childish antics and ignorance. Stop with the hypocracy. Find a real foreign policy. Be engaging and open serious discussion about the appropriate size of government. etc. I'd be happy to listen. If anything I think the Libertarians are poised to rise to dominate the republican party, but the republicans still pretend those don't exist. Get rid of the "religious right" and you get rid of a lot of those problems. It's poison to the brain.
- brstilson, on 05/08/2009, -3/+72The Democrats had a monopoly over the government before. In 1824 the election was between four guys from the same party. If the Republican party dies like the Federalist party did, then we'll see a new party step up to take its place. Conservatism isn't going to just disappear.
- thedcam, on 05/08/2009, -12/+69I can't wait in ten years when people ask if the Democratic party is over, and then in another ten if the Republican party is over, and then in another then if the Democratic party is over.... repeat for infinity
- Kate1240, on 05/08/2009, -17/+73The media said the same thing about the Dems when Bush won in 01.. This crap goes around in circles..
- stutimandal, on 05/08/2009, -28/+83If the republican party is over, then democrats will have a monopoly over the Government. We all know how a monopoly behaves. Don't be happy about silly things.
- shampoovta, on 05/08/2009, -13/+53I have seen this movie.
They come back stronger than ever and start playing our music backwards so they can hear the Devil.
Note to my former Dems. Don't underestimate the enemy.
It would be so cool if you guys would stop making them go over the edge all the time.
Kind of not fun for us normal people. - nOcoNtrol926, on 05/08/2009, -0/+38Fry: "Now here's a party I can get excited about. Sign me up!"
Apathy Party Guy: "Sorry, not with that attitude."
Fry: "Ok, then screw it."
Apathy Party Guy: "Welcome aboard, brother!"
Fry: "Alright!"
Apathy Party Guy: "You're out." - BenTheTank, on 05/08/2009, -5/+41As a former Republican, I think the party's biggest problem is the people we have representing us in the media.
The Rush Limbaugh type makes anyone associated with them look hateful and ignorant. I am more interested in distancing myself from men like O'Reilly than John Boehner.
And the purely negative portrayal of the GOP by the MSM is also very hurtful to their image.
How many Americans really follow politics? Compare that to the number who simply form opinions based on what little they see from the media. - novenator, on 05/08/2009, -21/+56Recent polls suggest only 21% of Americans call themselves Republicans, coincidentally the same number that still love bush and neocons. After all the shenanigans they pulled in recent years, its no surprise.
- d4nie1, on 05/08/2009, -11/+44I think it's pretty clear that the Republicans are much more unpopular now than the Dems were in 01. Remember who won the popular vote in that election.
- richmomz, on 05/08/2009, -10/+43Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party have picked up the conservative mantle (as well it should; the GOP abandoned keystone conservative values like fiscal responsibility, non-interventionism and upholding Constitutional rights decades ago). The Republicans have become nothing more than a bunch of Neocon shills that talk about Libertarian/Conservative values but act like moderate warhawk socialists the moment they get into office.
- sugarazor, on 05/08/2009, -2/+33"They just ran one of the most liberal republicans for President and lost. "
Which is true if we're talking about John McCain from 9 years ago, but John McCain of 08 was just another religious-pandering, anti-intellectual, no agenda, neocon. - redcolumbine, on 05/08/2009, -4/+34Given that the Democrats' main talent is arguing amongst themselves, I doubt that it would resemble a monopoly.
- Maxmojo015, on 05/08/2009, -11/+41Both Republicans and Democrats suck, stop treating politics as if it's a game of good vs. evil. It's right vs. wrong; not all Republicans are religious idiots, and not all Democrats are treehuggers. This two-party system just sucks the nuts.
- kublerross, on 05/08/2009, -3/+32so basically disband and start fresh with brand new people and new ideas.
- Aadain, on 05/08/2009, -0/+26Well, if GOP members would STOP watching and listening to those in the media you just listed as being hateful and ignorant, they might actually go away. But they aren't. That's the problem: those still in the GOP *agree* with the likes of Rush and Hannity. They aren't misrepresenting the party, THEY ARE THE PARTY. 15 years ago they were the minority group inside the GOP, now people like you are in the minority. The rest of moved on to better parties.
- ChuyMatt, on 05/08/2009, -0/+25Well, if history is to believe, we are well overdue for a new party.
Hopefully, multiple parties. - sugarazor, on 05/08/2009, -4/+27Why do people keep saying that like it's a legitimate argument? No one wants a one party system, I think most rational adults want more than two parties, maybe 5 or 6... but why do ANY of those parties need to be Republican?
- lovek, on 05/08/2009, -6/+28You assume that the end of the Republican party would mean there was only one. Maybe the demise of one of the Big Two would open up the playing field a little.
- prrp, on 05/08/2009, -2/+23It was our liberty that made the US great.
Republicans have GOT to get back to what they used to stand for. Not fighting stupid wars and spending like crazy. Otherwise Repubs will be bye bye. - d4nie1, on 05/08/2009, -5/+25I think the point of the article is that if the Republicans want to survive they have to evolve into something else. They have to...for lack of a better word - PROGRESS, because they are getting left behind. If they do not then they will disappear and another party will take their place.
- Mike17102, on 05/08/2009, -14/+34No. Next obvious question?
Its painfully obvious how young most of the digg crowd is sometimes, they arnt old enough to remember that things like this have happened to both parties before.
The party is still far, far to large to disappear. If we are lucky though they will back off from some of the christian ***** in order to draw some of the more middle of the road people back to the party. - pixel34, on 05/08/2009, -3/+22The "new" republican party seems to be the Ron Paul variety. Mark Sanford seemed to indicate that he wanted to move them in that direction in his cbs article.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/06/opinion/ ... - Serinus, on 05/08/2009, -1/+20The New Republican Party:
- Dump Pro-Life as an issue. Go for civil liberties instead.
- Dump Anti-Gay as an issue. Go for civil liberties instead.
With these two things, they might lose some grip on their base, but it's not like those people are going to jump to democrats. They're losing a LOT of moderates based on these.
- Focus on the deficit first THEN spending THEN cutting taxes, not the other way around. And when/if you do cut taxes, don't favor the rich and corporations. This is where the democratic party is weak. Go for it. Right now though, you're doing it wrong. In fact, you might even agree to RAISE taxes while lowering spending, because that's what focusing on the deficit first would mean. If republicans were truly fiscally responsible, they would fully support Obama's efforts to stop overseas tax havens.
- Marijuana legalization. Hey, it's both fiscally responsible AND individual freedom. It's hard to lose with this one.
I'm male, straight, and I don't smoke, but I agree with these things on principle even if they don't affect me. Isn't this supposed to be the party of principles? - sugarazor, on 05/08/2009, -6/+25Because those groups (evangelicals, anti-intellectuals, wingnuts) are exclusive by their nature. They don't want to be inclusive, they want their own special little club. And they can have it... along with the less than 20% of Americans who agree with them.
- sodade, on 05/08/2009, -1/+20I am waiting for the pragmatist party. So far, nothing resembles that at all...
- richmomz, on 05/08/2009, -7/+26"The moderates are joining the democrats and the Libertarians are joining the Libertarian Party. That leaves the neocon minority."
Not sure about moderates all joining the democrats - there's some crossover but quite a few are going Libertarian as well. The recent tea party movement is a great example of this (most of which were just as critical of the Republicans as they were of Obama, though most of the media outlets did not show this). The GOP tried to jump on the tea party bandwagon so they wouldn't get left behind, but in many cases they got booed or shunned by the largely Libertarian crowd. - rvandy, on 05/08/2009, -4/+22Maybe? This country needs viable 3rd (and 4th and 5th) parties for the government to function properly.
- geodebug, on 05/08/2009, -2/+20@sugarazor
Because that is the last straw (man) holding up the argument for the need of a Republican party.
Say the RNC was sidelined to a fringe group (which appears to be the plan they are implementing). There will always be opposition, coming from the far left (yes, Virginia this administration is mostly centrist) and from Libertarians, secular conservatives, and even Democrats who for some reason or another grow disenchanted with the party.
Labels are just labels. - inactive, on 05/08/2009, -10/+28I would love to see the republican party disband. Not because I hate the GOP, but because I want to watch Sean Hannity hang himself on live TV.
- maz2331, on 05/08/2009, -1/+18Actually, he did help by ensuring that Rudy Giuliani's candidacy imploded, and at least made the other candidates engage some of the issues.
- drmangrum, on 05/08/2009, -2/+19Not opposition for oppositions sake. Opposition for oversights sake. When you get a group of like-minded people together, they'll inevitably start making deals.
"Hey, if you let me slide my pet project into your bill, I'll let you slide your pet project into mine."
With out a critical eye that only a polar opposite can provide, we encourage pork barrel spending and other corruption. - dougs55, on 05/08/2009, -2/+17Try doing some population counts. Raw acreage doesn't vote, people do. ;-)
- sugarazor, on 05/08/2009, -3/+18And that was one of the widest margins in recent presidential history. And the damage done to the GOP as a result of the horrible campaign they run was staggering. You think they're ever going to be taken seriously when they run ads talking about people "pallin' around with terrorists" or "arugula-eating elitists?" Just like this whole ordeal about mustard, the party is a joke right now. No ideas, no agenda, just a never-ending punchline.
- DiggasWAttitude, on 05/08/2009, -2/+16While it may be true that in your age group up to 40% report no religious affiliation, take into consideration the fact that about 60% of total U.S. growth over the next several years will come from the Latino populations. A majority of Latinos are Christian, as are African Americans. They could very well be the new face of social conservatism. Republicans would be wise to understand and utilize these changing demographics.
- geodebug, on 05/08/2009, -3/+16I'm not sure you can use FTW until they actually W an election above comptroller.
- mparker21311, on 05/08/2009, -1/+14My whole point: The two party system is currently anti-liberty.
For liberty:
Social liberalism/Fiscal conservatism
Which I guess can be called libertarianism?
Anti liberty:
Social conservatism/Fiscal liberalism
The liberals really aren't that socially liberal anymore, for example... Obama doesn't support gay marriage.
The conservatives aren't that conservative anymore, for example... Bush and his outrageous spending.
Both parties no longer offer change that I can believe in. - sugarazor, on 05/08/2009, -4/+17""Why do ANY of those parties need to be Republican?" You mean the party that freed all slaves in the USA?"
Oh for *****'s sake, spare me the party of Lincoln nonsense. Yeah, great... they did wonderful things 140 years ago. The Republican Party today is not the same as the Republican Party of 1865 and it can go. If anything, they're just pissing on the legacy at this point. - DiggasWAttitude, on 05/08/2009, -1/+13The biggest problem I see for Republicans is that they don't argue amongst themselves. They take a stand either completely for or against an issue and criticize those with alternate views.
Take waterboarding. A majority of vocal Republicans decided waterboarding, aka torture, is acceptable. They then had to go on tv and radio stating Republicans are pro-torture. Not a great way to recruit moderates.
After 9/11 Americans saw the world in black and white. A majority didn't want to argue about the course of action. Those who did argue were called unpatriotic. Bush's approval ratings soared. But 8 years later most Americans see things in gray, weighing the pros and cons of torture, arguing about the best course of action for Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.
The one thing that could really revive the Republicans is another 9/11 type attack where the country would go back to a polarized world view and once again it would be negative to argue amongst ourselves. - GregLoire, on 05/08/2009, -2/+14We need a run-off voting system to just kill our two-party system altogether. I tend to side with the Democrats on most issues, but a one-party system is even worse than a two-party system.
We need one of 3 things to happen: a) run-off voting (which the two parties in power will always oppose, while convincing citizens to also oppose for reasons they don't fully understand), b) the Republican party learning from its mistakes and making itself a viable option again, or c) another party rising up to take its place.
Simply not having an opposition party is even worse than where we are now. - rebotfc, on 05/08/2009, -4/+16As much as I would like to see it, that coward won't even waterboard himself. The whole thing is an act to pad his wallet.
- bjornski, on 05/08/2009, -0/+12@DiggasWAttitude
"The biggest problem I see for Republicans is that they don't argue amongst themselves."
This!
You win one free internet. - d4nie1, on 05/08/2009, -7/+19The Republican party may not be over, but the Republican party as we know it today is over. The only way they will survive is if they change their platform into something more centrist and popular. Yes, a party that uses the brand name of Republican may be on top in 10 years, but it will be far different from today's Republican party.
- spritom, on 05/08/2009, -4/+16We get this article many times over each time one party makes significant gains.
'93 after the "Reagan/Bush era" the Republicans were endangered
'95 - suddenly the stories were that the Dems were on the decline
'01 - with Clinton leaving - the Repubs were on the move and the Dems were the new Whig party
The current leadership structure is definitely with the Democratic party, similar to 'the late 70's. But with most every major issue polling somewhere between 45/55 or 55/45, this is just a writer making a paycheck. - sugarazor, on 05/08/2009, -4/+16And? We're not talking about non-Obama voters, we're talking about groups that the Republican Party needs to distance themselves from if they ever want to win another election.
- mc88, on 05/08/2009, -6/+18Both parties have been hijacked by extremists and special interest groups.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 466 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is