It's time for a conservative party

[churchmouse]

What a surprise that "campaign finance reform" aka the government regulating whom you support and how much you're willing to do so, the left's favorite hobby horse, would get repeated mention?

My mention is only to the point that a huge donation will get more grease than my meager donation. You know that is how this works.

 

[Bapak2ja]

I had hoped the election of Trump would solidify Republicans into a concerted effort to undo years of liberal creep on our policies. I had hoped controlling all three branches of government would give them the power they claimed they needed to do all the stuff they ran for.

It's clear that Trump is more conservative than the national republican party, and that the GOP cannot be trusted. I think it's time for a conservative party to emerge, independent from Republican party, and start to make inroads. Honestly what does it matter if repubs have house and senate if they refuse to do what we elected them to do? Conservative party members of congress can caucus with dems to help control committee chairmanships.

I've had enough of the republican party and want a non-libertarian alternative. The election of trump has merely exposed the republicans for who they are. Big-government liberals. Enough.

Been saying this since the the GOP nominated Romney. The GOP is part of the swamp, and controlled by RINOs. A conservative party is needed, but we lack a leader with the ability, courage, resources and will to do it. Trump could, but I doubt he will seize the day.

 

[jamil]

What a surprise that "campaign finance reform" aka the government regulating whom you support and how much you're willing to do so, the left's favorite hobby horse, would get repeated mention?

My campaign finance reform is, instead of defunding the power, we should depower the funds.

 

[oldpink]

My campaign finance reform is, instead of defunding the power, we should depower the funds.

I'm totally with you on that, but it's sort of a chick and the egg situation.
It's tough to tell some people that they can't donate to X, while someone else can donate all he wants without stomping all over the right to advocate for your own political beliefs.

 

[rob63]

Many congress critters get into congress and actually have to rely on their salaries at first because they're not rich. Yet they leave office years later rich. Pensions to them, at that point, are pocket change. And sometimes that's because their prominent position makes them interesting enough to make money writing books or give paid speeches, or whatnot. And of course there are others that probably make money through crony deals (Harry Reid comes to mind).

I still think the only way to fix congress is to limit their power such that it's not worth buying. Okay. So maybe congress and the government won't be powerful enough to legislate your favorite ideology. Maybe you don't get to impose tree bark and alfalfa for school lunches. Maybe you don't get free birth control. Maybe you don't get to ban gay weddings. But then the government won't be so powerful that every rich person wants to buy a piece of that power.

My campaign finance reform is, instead of defunding the power, we should depower the funds.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.

 

[Twangbanger]

My campaign finance reform is, instead of defunding the power, we should depower the funds.

A giant pile of money sitting in the center of the table always attracts attention and power. And anyway, I don't think "good government utopians" are really talking about defunding the power. They're just talking about reducing the admission price of dealing yourself into the poker game.

Back to the OT, if Trump has the net effect of causing "Republican Voters" to be more dissatisfied with what they're getting from their party, then cool. That party has allowed the "Identity Civil Rights / Social Justice" apparatus in Washington to scare them into a corner, where they cower in fear and only look to maintain their position at the table. They won't venture outside the safe boundaries of their cubby hole to take on the forces that most of us agree are damaging the country. It might be good to see a vibrant example of someone like Trump going against the grain of the ICR/SJA and getting away with it. There is an actual fight for the soul of the country going on, and most Republicans are trying to sit it out and not get any of it on them. That's why they're scared of Trump. They're afraid he's going to actually drag them into the fight, and they don't want to be there.

But, many Republican Voters want them to "be there," and I think that's the dissatisfaction you're seeing evidenced in this thread. Most D.C. Republicans are willing to give in to Tree Bark/Alfalfa/Transgender Bathroom Mandates, if that's the price of keeping their position. The voters, however, believe that when you run for office as a Republican, you're "putting on a uniform," so to speak, and that uniform is supposed to mean something. They may be totally mistaken; but that's what I think I'm hearing in this thread. Republicans don't want to "wear the uniform." They don't want to be a target. They didn't come to town for a fight. The cultural "Fight for America" is like the First Battle of Bull Run to them; it's something that's happening "outside of town," that they hope doesn't affect them. The possibility that their actions in office can have an effect on it is not a matter of central importance to them. They believe this stuff will all be decided by The Courts, anyway. So why get involved?

 

[Denny347]

New party? Ha. People crapped on the Libertarian Party for trying to take the Presidency but a new "Conservative" party is ok? I remember being told right on these boards that there will only ever be 2 parties and stop supporting a third. What has changed? Oh right, your satisfaction with the 2 parties is what has changed. Politics is being run by one party the Repubocrat Party.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I wouldn't support a third party president yet. Need to establish a decent amount of Congressional seats before running Perot

 

[Dddrees]

I wouldn't support a third party president yet. Need to establish a decent amount of Congressional seats before running Perot

One of the reasons and there may very well be others that Jesse Ventura was unsuccessful as governor. Hard to see any President or Governor being successful without a party affiliation. In fact without a majority has anyone in history ever been able to push through their agenda?

 

[jamil]

New party? Ha. People crapped on the Libertarian Party for trying to take the Presidency but a new "Conservative" party is ok? I remember being told right on these boards that there will only ever be 2 parties and stop supporting a third. What has changed? Oh right, your satisfaction with the 2 parties is what has changed. Politics is being run by one party the Repubocrat Party.

The problem with the Libertarian party is that they're not interested in winning the presidency. They're only interested in breaking 5%. They're evangelists more than they are a serious political party.

But I get the point. I think the frustration expressed is that the Republican Party is not sufficiently "conservative". As far as two parties the voting system we have now will always produce two dominant parties.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

New party? Ha. People crapped on the Libertarian Party for trying to take the Presidency but a new "Conservative" party is ok? I remember being told right on these boards that there will only ever be 2 parties and stop supporting a third. What has changed? Oh right, your satisfaction with the 2 parties is what has changed. Politics is being run by one party the Repubocrat Party.

The problem with the Libertarian party is that they're not interested in winning the presidency. They're only interested in breaking 5%. They're evangelists more than they are a serious political party.

But I get the point. I think the frustration expressed is that the Republican Party is not sufficiently "conservative". As far as two parties the voting system we have now will always produce two dominant parties.

Like you Jamil, seems to me, they're more interested in the position of second guessing and pontificating. They're tone deaf and package their messages so that they insure the smallest possible interest. Then, they nominate kooks, weirdos, and hypocrites.

 

[ATM]

A libertarian political party is foolishness to me, though there is one that adopted that name.

I wouldn't consent to be ruled by it over any other party.

America should be the home of the free.

 

[hoosierdoc]

How do you propose eliminating parties?

 

[ATM]

How do you propose eliminating parties?

Expose the lies.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Expose the lies.

Which ones?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Which ones?

and to whom? The dems know about their lies and they don't care. The republicans have just seen their lies and they won't care either

 

[Kutnupe14]

How do you propose eliminating parties?

You don't, but you try eliminate all govt support of. For instance, reemove party affiliation from ballots, which would force people to either be informed, or not vote on candidates. Too many people simply check boxes based on the letters behind the names.

 

[actaeon277]

You don't, but you try eliminate all govt support of. For instance, reemove party affiliation from ballots, which would force people to either be informed, or not vote on candidates. Too many people simply check boxes based on the letters behind the names.

I like that idea

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

You don't, but you try eliminate all govt support of. For instance, reemove party affiliation from ballots, which would force people to either be informed, or not vote on candidates. Too many people simply check boxes based on the letters behind the names.

I've always been very curious about the percentage of voters who could name every one of their chosen candidates for every race on the ballot.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I've always been very curious about the percentage of voters who could name every one of their chosen candidates for every race on the ballot.

I can't. I just vote for people I actually know what they stand for.