|
As a lapsed Ohioan, the strangest part of 2016's So my question to you is: What would a moderate Republican even look like in this day and age? What would they believe? Where could they compromise, and could they support their party's new nominee in good faith? Look, I know we're all godless leftist agitators here, but we need these guys and we need them to have their grownup pants on. So let's build a conservative we'd be kind of okay getting a beer with, or who at least won't kill us all.
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Karl Hess was pretty cool, too bad all his rhetoric is still used to validate commercial debt serfdom.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Probably some sort of blue-state Republican or fiscally conservative Democrat, like Michael Bloomberg or Jerry Brown.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Trenchfoot posted:What would a moderate Republican even look like in this day and age?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
He (and it will of course be a he) would have to shut up about Roe vs Wade, transgender bathrooms, glassing deserts and flat tax. He can crow all he wants about guns (fine have your pacifier), lowering taxes (this is the ethos of conservatism) and jesus (while recognizing separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution). Also I'd like this candidate to not be a dick so I could indeed have a beer with him. ...can't help but notice the no go poo poo I've listed was bullshit that conservatives themselves decided to pick fights about.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I guess you'll find out soon when she wins the Democratic primary. Well, pack it in boys. We lasted longer than I thought we would. SSNeoman posted:(this is the ethos of conservatism) This is kind of my question, though. It's nice to have more money, sure, but is this all the party can stand for?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Trenchfoot posted:So my question to you is: What would a moderate Republican even look like in this day and age? What would they believe? Where could they compromise, and could they support their party's new nominee in good faith? 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
gently caress, beaten.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
On a more serious note: Chris Shays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Shays quote:Shays is pro-choice on abortion but voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Shays was endorsed by the Brady Campaign for his support for gun control and was one of only six Republicans to vote against banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors in 2005.[16] Despite having voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, Shays voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in both 2004 and 2006 that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, and co-sponsored a bill to overturn the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibited LGBT troops from serving openly. He is one of the few Republicans to oppose amending the Constitution to ban flag-burning. In 1999 he was one of 20 Republicans to vote against an ultimately failed bill to ban physician-assisted suicide. The Congressman has long been known for environmental regulations,[17] and was endorsed in the past by the League of Conservation Voters.[18] He also advocates humane treatment of animals[19] and ending discrimination in the workplace.[20] Shays was also one of only four Republicans to vote against all four articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton. What happened to him? He got voted out in 2008, went up for Senate in 2012 but lost the primary to Linda McMahon.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:On a more serious note: Chris Shays I wouldn't vote for this guy, but I would respect his consistency and have a beer with him.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Skeesix posted:On a more serious note: Chris Shays Yeah fair enough, this guy's alright and what I would consider a moderate.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:A corporate stooge with more libertarian social policy, so I guess you'll find out soon when she wins the Democratic primary.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Triglav posted:Probably some sort of blue-state Republican or fiscally conservative Democrat, like Michael Bloomberg or Jerry Brown. Bob Dold/Mark Kirk in Illinois. They're barely discernible from Hillary mastershakeman has issued a correction as of 21:01 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Trenchfoot posted:This is kind of my question, though. It's nice to have more money, sure, but is this all the party can stand for? Yeah. Okay fine, I'll put some effort. You know the phrase "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? You know how it's mocked relentlessly on this site? That's because being socially liberal requires you to put money into programs to get them to work. That's the opposite of what conservatives do. So let's say you build low income housing on tax payer dime. A moderate conservative would say "that's a good idea, but not on my dime!" And would vote against it. This action, whether intentionally or not, sets you against the social cause. Now that you're against the social cause, you are joined by people who are also against it, be they white flighters or just straight up racists. Now what does your party look like? So leave all this to stew, and in a few decades you get a party which crescendos by nominating Trump as its presedential hopeful. We've reached an age where we realize that we need the government to monitor a lot of issues at once. Climate change, water usage, road maintenance and so on and so on. Conservatives believe the number of these issues has not increased and as such their approach is still acceptable. And the higher the number of issues that need to be dealt with, the more right-wing the conservatives become. I'm certain that moderate conservatives don't want to be racist, sexist or what have you. They only believe in two conservative principles: "less taxes more good" and "old days more good". Yet by choosing to be conservatives nowadays, they now choose to align themselves with all the bugbears the party picked up over the years. TL; DR: conservatives believe in less spending, more personal power, an old fashioned approach to government. But since there's only one party that can represent them, they have to also sign up for bigotry, sexism, racism and everything else that the modern GOP allies itself with.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
brian sandoval from nevada is often pointed to in these sorts of conversations moderate republicans and moderate democrats are equated by people to their right and their left but they're not actually identical i dont think
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Arnold Schwarzenegger. Just need one silly little amendment to be passed first.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:He (and it will of course be a he) would have to shut up about Roe vs Wade, transgender bathrooms . . . I don't know if you could get a moderate republican without ditching that central issue. the evangelical movement got forced back into the forefront of political discourse in this country because of conservative political machinations, and I don't see how you're going to undo or reverse the course they've set themselves towards without changing all of the things that have become accepted as baseline expectations because of it. nearly all of the heinous social policies they claim to hold as beliefs, central to their core world view, are presented as freedom of religion issues, and because the arguments get framed under those terms, it makes it very difficult to address the real underlying causes and problems. there's also the tertiary issue that tons of people nominally identify as "Christian", and even if they go to church less than once a year and have never read the bible from cover to cover and couldn't quote even one line of scripture, they get very concerned / frustrated if they hear on the t.v. box that the government is going to outlaw jesus! and this lets a lot of more manipulative operators get away with more dubious poo poo because they have this nice firewall of otherwise well-meaning but uninformed folks acting as a natural barrier to actual social change.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Came here to post this
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
democrats are moderate republicans
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
< proud member of the party of lincoln
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Moderate Republicans will dodge social questions by referring them as issues for the states so that crappy southern states can continue discriminating for as long as possible. Pro-gun, pro-business, low taxes- that stuff can stay the same, as can hamstringing social programs in the name of tax cuts. So, to answer your question, a moderate Republican is one who just passes the buck of any unpopular stance to the states.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 07:55
|
|