The Official GOP Debate Thread

[BonnieBengal]

(08-07-2015, 03:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If a majority of Republicans support "RINO"s, are they not Republicans?

I find it funny when people refer to mainstream Republicans as "Republicans in Name Only" when a majority of Republicans support their views. I think that means you're a "RINO" for not supporting them.

I basically left the party this year.  I still like some Republicans like Cruz who actually fight for their constituents instead of their job, but there are few left.  You're right that RINO used to mean Republican in name only. Although I still use that term,  it's true that now there are more progressives masquerading as Republicans than ever before, so the party has probably been taken over already, especially the leadership.  McConnell is no different than Reid.  Boehner is a lib too.  As a Conservative, I have no party.  I haven't changed my registration yet, but Tennessee's an open primary state so I can still vote in the Repub primary.  I won't be voting for the establishment Republicans when that happens.

I'm not sure a majority of Republicans support the views of McConnell and Boehner. They are hugely unpopular.

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2015, 03:55 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: I basically left the party this year.  I still like some Republicans like Cruz who actually fight for their constituents instead of their job, but there are few left.  You're right that RINO used to mean Republican in name only. Although I still use that term,  it's true that now there are more progressives masquerading as Republicans than ever before, so the party has probably been taken over already, especially the leadership.  McConnell is no different than Reid.  Boehner is a lib too.  As a Conservative, I have no party.  I haven't changed my registration yet, but Tennessee's an open primary state so I can still vote in the Repub primary.  I won't be voting for the establishment Republicans when that happens.

So the problem isn't that they're "Republicans in name only"; the problem is your views do not align with Republican views. 

You might be more interested in the Constitution Party. 

https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

[*michaelsean*]

(08-07-2015, 03:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So the problem isn't that they're "Republicans in name only"; the problem is your views do not align with Republican views. 

You might be more interested in the Constitution Party. 

https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

Voted for them in 2008.  Last minute decision in the  booth.  Had no idea who they were, but their name was promising.

[BonnieBengal]

(08-07-2015, 03:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So the problem isn't that they're "Republicans in name only"; the problem is your views do not align with Republican views. 

You might be more interested in the Constitution Party. 

https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

The problem is the Republican views have changed and gone more to the left.

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2015, 04:01 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: The problem is the Republican views have changed and gone more to the left.

Most of America's social views have gone more left.

If you can't keep up with that, the Constitution Party is definitely for you.

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2015, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Voted for them in 2008.  Last minute decision in the  booth.  Had no idea who they were, but their name was promising.

This is my 1 minute explanation of them for my kids

[StLucieBengal]

(08-07-2015, 04:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Most of America's social views have gone more left.

If you can't keep up with that, the Constitution Party is definitely for you.

I think that was true for awhile but I think social views are swinging back.     They may be ok with same sex marriage but the views on things like abortion are swinging back as well.

It's a continuous flex.

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2015, 02:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just so you know, you write-in vote won't count if they aren't an official write-in candidate.

Not entirely accurate. The write-in candidate cannot win unless they are an official write-in candidate, however your vote will still be counted in the "other" section. It's a better protest vote than not voting because it actually counts against their percentage. That's how it works around these parts at least.

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2015, 04:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think that was true for awhile but I think social views are swinging back.     They may be ok with same sex marriage but the views on things like abortion are swinging back as well.  

It's a continuous flex.

Pro-life identification overtook Pro-choice three in the last 10 years, but the latest Gallup polling puts it at 50% Pro-Choice and 44% Pro-life. 

At the same time, the number of Americans who oppose abortion in all cases has stayed at 19% since the 70s, while those who support it in all cases has increased from 22% to 29%. Those who support it in certain circumstances has decreased from 55% to 51%. 

People aren't flocking to Huckabee, Walker, Cruz, or Paul's strict pro-life, no exception views. 

[fredtoast]

If Republicans and Democrats are the same then why is the government getting shut down all the time. I thought it was because they had major disagreements that they could not work out.

Personally I see a lot of major differences between the platforms of the two parties. Perhaps some of you need to brush up on why we have had so much gridlock in Congress over the past several years.

**HINT** It isn't because Republicans and Democrats are all the same now.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 04:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is my 1 minute explanation of them for my kids

I doubt Bonnie would be willing to give up her right to vote just to go back to Biblical beliefs.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-07-2015, 04:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Republicans and Democrats are the same then why is the government getting shut down all the time.  I thought it was because they had major disagreements that they could not work out.  

Personally I see a lot of major differences between the platforms of the two parties.  Perhaps some of you need to brush up on why we have had so much gridlock in Congress over the past several years.  

**HINT** It isn't because Republicans and Democrats are all the same now.

Take away the tea party from the GOP and they are awfully close. They spend money a little different but it's still spending. They regulate a little different but it's still regulation. They both carve out tax loopholes for big business.

Eatablishment GOP is in step with the Dems.

The shutdowns happen because the conservatives will actually stand for something and use their power given to them. Gov shut downs are good. It's a joke that it's been made out to be a bad deal.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-07-2015, 04:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Pro-life identification overtook Pro-choice three in the last 10 years, but the latest Gallup polling puts it at 50% Pro-Choice and 44% Pro-life. 

At the same time, the number of Americans who oppose abortion in all cases has stayed at 19% since the 70s, while those who support it in all cases has increased from 22% to 29%. Those who support it in certain circumstances has decreased from 55% to 51%. 

People aren't flocking to Huckabee, Walker, Cruz, or Paul's strict pro-life, no exception views. 

Yeah but you also know that the exreme views of 3rd trimester abortions that Dems have aren't in step either.

I also don't think it will be a banning of abortion, but I bet we see some limitations down the road. Most Americans are against abortion for themselves but aren't willing to ban it for someone else. They also get more anti abortion as the baby gets older.

I am actually surprised the Dems push it and go for limitless abortions. Safe, legal, and rare is where people are at.... Dems dropped rare.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 04:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Take away the tea party from the GOP and they are awfully close.      They spend money a little different but it's still spending.   They regulate a little different but it's still regulation.   They both carve out tax loopholes for big business.  

Eatablishment GOP is in step with the Dems.    

The shutdowns happen because the conservatives will actually stand for something and use their power given to them.    Gov shut downs are good.     It's a joke that it's been made out to be a bad deal.

A small minority of one party can not shut down the government.

[fredtoast]

(08-07-2015, 05:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am actually surprised the Dems push it and go for limitless abortions.    Safe, legal, and rare is where people are at....    Dems dropped rare.

Please.  We have been over this before.  You are wrong.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-07-2015, 05:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A small minority of one party can not shut down the government.

They pretty much block anything in the house because of their numbers. And there are enough senators to make the establishment life terrible.

The house almost has ebough tea party to get one of theirs elected as speaker. Which would be awesome.

[BmorePat87]

(08-07-2015, 05:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah but you also know that the exreme views of 3rd trimester abortions that Dems have aren't in step either.    

I also don't think it will be a banning of abortion, but I bet we see some limitations down the road.   Most Americans are against abortion for themselves but aren't willing to ban it for someone else.   They also get more anti abortion as the baby gets older.    

I am actually surprised the Dems push it and go for limitless abortions.    Safe, legal, and rare is where people are at....    Dems dropped rare.

And like no exception Republicans, they're a minority in their party. 

Also, we won't see limitations down the road. We already have limitations against late term abortions. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

My takes, Kasich got his name out there and impressed (he's a little too religious for my taste same with Huckabee).

Border guys: Rand, Carson, Trump, Cruz

I'm not a fan of the following:
Rubio, Christie, Walker and Bush

Felt that Trump was attacked on a personal level twice. The questions directed at him were negative to start with, and that he handled it fairly well. Fox better be careful or else more people will gravitate towards Trump.

and why the heck were they asking God questions? That was very stupid on Fox's part.

Second I will not back anyone that wants to give illegals amnesty.

I'm still reviewing to see which one shares the most views with me. Unfortunately I might have to end up with a 3rd party.

I find myself most lining up with Carly Fiorina and her stance on most issues, with the only exception so far about: health care.
Rand Paul isn't too far off either, he's got a lot of good ideas. Healthcare and unfortunately I feel that he'd put us on a road to amnesty. One big one that stood out, not happy about allowing parents to decide about vaccinations or not to vaccinate.

For Healthcare, if you are an American (based on Right of Blood) you should have it, and I believe that everyone should pay a flat tax on their income to cover it with no exceptions. You have to factor in that kids will be covered with the idea that it's a future investment in them.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-07-2015, 05:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And like no exception Republicans, they're a minority in their party. 

Also, we won't see limitations down the road. We already have limitations against late term abortions. 

Dems are largely supporting no limits abortions. DWS even said that the DNC position was as long as its between a woman and her doctor.

Mainstream americans don't agree with this

The exceptions are so rare. I wouldn't want my wife to die but the chance of it happening is so small. But then I can see how that might be the reason to have them.

Incest is a family problem. Not the babies fault.

Rape can be sorted by the morning after pill.

And to repeat these happen so rarely.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-07-2015, 06:12 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: My takes, Kasich got his name out there and impressed (he's a little too religious for my taste same with Huckabee).

Border guys: Rand, Carson, Trump, Cruz

I'm not a fan of the following:
Rubio, Christie, Walker and Bush

Felt that Trump was attacked on a personal level twice. The questions directed at him were negative to start with, and that he handled it fairly well. Fox better be careful or else more people will gravitate towards Trump.

and why the heck were they asking God questions? That was very stupid on Fox's part.

Second I will not back anyone that wants to give illegals amnesty.

I'm still reviewing to see which one shares the most views with me. Unfortunately I might have to end up with a 3rd party.

I find myself most lining up with Carly Fiorina and her stance on most issues, with the only exception so far about: health care.
Rand Paul isn't too far off either, he's got a lot of good ideas. Healthcare and unfortunately I feel that he'd put us on a road to amnesty.  One big one that stood out, not happy about allowing parents to decide about vaccinations or not to vaccinate.

For Healthcare, if you are an American (based on Right of Blood) you should have it, and I believe that everyone should pay a flat tax on their income to cover it with no exceptions. You have to factor in that kids will be covered with the idea that it's a future investment in them.

Trump's a clown. He donates to Clinton and Pelosi. You can't make your name attacking people then cry foul when someone sends a completely fair question at you during a debate. He's a damn crybaby. He's a bully who got punched in the nose by someone he thought he could manipulate. He couldn't. Even without those questions, he has no substance. He's all rhetoric. 
He's a toolbag.

If Kasich and Huck are too religious you must really not like Cruz, who is one big ego boost away from saying he can directly talk to God