GOP leader threatens to cut CNN and NBC from primary debates

[colourwheel]

 

The "Conservatives" here in the UK are finding out what lurching to the left does, they've gained no extra support from the left but have lost a lot of their own traditional support, their membership has more than halved since the current leader took over. To make matters worse the left wing Labour party lurched to the right when Blair took over in the 90's, now we have two social democrat parties that are hard to tell apart, needless to say voter apathy is on the rise.

 

I would like to point out that American political parties and UK political parties in my opinion are not equivalent even if they may share similar ideologies.

 

The republican party in American politics is unwilling to move closer to the center of the political spectrum even when a majority of their leaders know it will be the GOPs undoing with the current changing demographic climate of the nation. The Republican leaders know their party is doomed if they keep moving farther to the right because it only appeals to a declining and dying demographic. The huge problem is the Party doesn't know what to do about this other than trying to shrink the electorit by passing unnecessary voter ID laws, limiting the amount of early voting, and over all just trying to make voting more difficult for those who would normally vote Democratic while at the same time disenfranchising voters who might even possibly be voting Republican. Not to mention relying on outrageous gerrymandered districts which on behalf of the Republican Tea party caucus have put people in political power who seem are only in office for the sole purpose to obstructing legislation and government or fear of being primaried by the very same caucus that put them in power with out any political opposition during an election season.

 

In my opinion the GOP could still grow their voting base without losing too much support they already have if they could get behind some of these social issues...

 

1) Gay marriage

2) immigration reform

3) legalization of marijuana

 

The GOP has pretty much failed so far on 1 and 2 and very highly doubtful they would be in support for number 3.

 

The GOP leader threatening to cut CNN and NBC from primary debates is also not a good thing for their party as a whole. If it comes down to the GOPs potential candidates to only be debating on FoxNews (the right wing media machine), there is a very high chance they might end up nominating a candidate that will be too radically in the fringe for the national spotlight no matter how they try to dupe the public into thinking they are not. which if this happens the supporters will just be dumping money into a campaign probably even worse than the Romney Ryan ticket of 2012 making Karl Rove look like a champion of campaign spending for the GOP in comparison.

Edited August 12, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

 

 

I don't want the dems to have complete control.

I don't want the repubbies to have complete control.

 

Given that the republican party is so fractured right now, they don't know their head from a hole in the ground, I foresee the dems picking up some seats in both the house, and the senate, and very possibly the presidency in '16 as well. That is a situation I would just as soon avoid. So, instead of voting for some third-party candidate, that likely has zero chance of winning, I will vote for the opposition that just might have some small chance of offsetting the dems.

 

I see it as the most effective use of my vote, to make sure that NEITHER party gets control across the board. It isn't the ideal situation, but, when it comes to politics in america, ya work with what ya got.

 

So let me get this straight if a Republican is "ever" elected again to the presidency, you would be then voting a straight Democratic ticket in the next election cycle? Some how I don't see this being very sincere political logic.

 

If you ask me I think you are in a bit of political denial where you try to make up reasoning to justify your support of your party. Frankly I would feel a bit embarrassed too if the political party I supported was doing and demanding such ridiculous things like threatening to cut television networks from primary debates over what they broadcast to threatening to shutdown the government over a healthcare law that would most likely go into effect regardless if the shutdown was successful.

 

I would think the most effective use of your vote would be to vote for people regardless of political affiliation who would do good for the country as a whole. At this point I personally wouldn't have a problem of either party having total control of all government branches as long as they are not trying to run the country into the ground. If you look at what the republicans in power are currently doing you only need to ask what has been accomplished through legislation, basically nothing good.

 

If even remotely half of the nation felt the way you do about how politics should be it would seem America will be in a perpetual state of political grid lock till one party becomes too extreme for anyone to handle. For the record the republican party seems to be heading in this direction at a fast pace as the years go by. I really don't see the republican party lasting very long if they keep insisting their party to keep moving further to the right of the political spectrum that only seems to be appealing to a base that has a stunted demographic growth.

 

Show me a politician that has the best interests of THIS country at heart. Good luck finding one.

 

Even those that I HAVE seen (but, not any recently) that talked a good game, soon fell into the same ruts as the rest of the bozos in washington. They said a lot of things about 'reform', and 'changing the system', etc, but, once elected, nothing changes, and they become just like everyone else in DC.

 

I do not support EITHER political party. Nor am I am member of either party. Neither side gives a flying banana about me, or the issues I face. None of them really care about anyone here in the US, unless they have the ability to write fat checks to get them reelected. I don't expect anything good for the country to come out of DC. The only legislation that passes has the stamp of approval of the big money lobbyists. Either that, or it promises to put more money in the pockets of politicians.

 

Washington is broken. Has been for a while now. Given the current political climate, and the divisions we see in the population, I don't see that changing any time soon. My vote isn't going to fix it. Too many people are of the firm belief that THEIR party has all the answers, and the other guys are delusional. Or, they are so fanatically dedicated to their party, that even when they do something TRULY stupid, that is quite obviously directly opposed to their core beliefs, they still vote their straight ticket.

 

So, I work with the system that is in place. If I can vote for various folks, to try and prevent one party or the other from gaining the 'upper hand', (control of both houses, and the presidency) that is the tack I will take.

 

Politics today very much resembles kindergarten on the playground. More emotional than intellectual. And it is only getting worse. Should be fun to see what happens in '14. Will the repubbies get spanked? or will they pick up some seats? Stay tuned!

Edited August 12, 2013 by HeyYou

[colourwheel]

 

Show me a politician that has the best interests of THIS country at heart. Good luck finding one.

 

:thumbsup: Here is one...

 

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02456/obama-inauguration_2456833b.jpg

 

I can see you already disagreeing with me on this but looking at the social and fiscal policies Obama stands for he has the best interests of "THIS" country at heart in my opinion.

Edited August 12, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Now THAT is funny.

 

he is just as dishonest, if not even more so... than EVERY other politician in washington. He wouldn't know the truth if it was wearing a sign, and jumped out and bit him.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, my opinion is somewhat different than yours.....

 

Just out of idle curiosity, do you see signing 'free trade' agreements with three more third world nations as "in the best interests of americans"? Or, in the best interest of corporations? (and please don't try and convince me they are the same, cause that just ain't the case.)

[colourwheel]

Anyways... getting back to the thread topic...

 

In regards to Reince Priebus, the controversy about the Hillary Clinton mini series being produced by Fox TV studios and why the GOP is not threatening to boycott FoxNews over it. Seems his defence in his own mind claiming to not care who produces the mini series over who is actually distributing the product... As if that makes any sense at all...

 

But it seems the truth came out on Sean Hannity's show on FoxNews. When speaking to Sean Hannity, Priebus had explained that he had threatened to blackball CNN and MSNBC in an attempt to "control the referees."

 

"I think it’s just about time that our party stands up and protects the party and our candidates from networks that are not in the business of promoting our party," Priebus said. "They’re not in the business of promoting our candidates. They’re not in the business of doing anything but promoting the Democratic party, and I’m not gonna sit around and watch this happen anymore."

 

This goes back to the point Priebus is just trying to avoid critical coverage and questioning from networks who might put the candidates in difficult situation in a debate. It's like I thought before, the GOP would rather have their candidates in a safe and friendly environment to avoid early embarrassment for their potential nominees using the threat to boycott CNN and NBC over a documentary and a Fox TV studio mini series project which neither have been even made yet.

Edited August 12, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

And here I always thought it wasn't ANY stations job to promote one side over the other..... You know, that whole "unbiased" thing.... so much for that thought, eh?

[MajKrAzAm]

 

 

 

It's not because of the merit of their arguments that the left is winning on a national level. The main reason that the Democratic Party is enjoying success is because of mass (mostly illegal) immigration. All political trends are moving steadily conservative, and so the liberals must bring into the country and enfranchise new voters who will reliably cast Democratic ballots.

As much as some of the things you have posted make some sense, I would have to totally disagree with you on the immigration thing. Unless you can prove democrats control the federal government because of illegal immigration this statement is complete fantasy. The exit polls have been reviewed after the last election and a majority of the nation (legal citizens) have re-elected Obama in both a majority of the electoral votes and popular votes. No amount of Illegal immigrants could possible end up electing a president without someone noticing something was fishy and only about 3.7 percent of the U.S.s current population is made up undocumented immigrants. I can understand if you might think all political trends are moving steadily conservative but this doesn't seem to be the case when democrats are slowly gaining control on all levels of federal government.

If America of 2012 had the demographic ratios of the 1980s then Romney would have won with a significant majority. This is the end game of illegal immigration. What was done to California will now be done to Texas, and any shred of hope of a Republican ever being president again is going to vanish, probably before the next election.

 

The republican party in American politics is unwilling to move closer to the center of the political spectrum even when a majority of their leaders know it will be the GOPs undoing with the current changing demographic climate of the nation. The Republican leaders know their party is doomed if they keep moving farther to the right because it only appeals to a declining and dying demographic.

 

In my opinion the GOP could still grow their voting base without losing too much support they already have if they could get behind some of these social issues...

 

1) Gay marriage

2) immigration reform

3) legalization of marijuana

Its not clear what the GOP believes. The Republican elite mentality seems to be:

 

1) embarrassed by the base's social conservatism and nationalism

 

2) if they mimic the Democrats, they deserve an increased share of its voters, who are apparently obliged to vote Republican out of fairness

 

Third rate political pundits keep on whining that the Republican Party needs to change to appeal to demographic changes. They state this with glee, as if it contains an implicit threat: Watch out there will be more of us! They ignore that election trends showed that a lot of traditional GOP supporters simply didnt bother voting.

 

Obama's real opposition was not corporate moneyists like Romney, with whom Obama had few real differences, but enraged anti-federalists who attacked federal authority and bloated central government. Running someone like Rick Perry would have presented a clearer choice, even though Perry likely suffers from some mild retardation. Romney was a poor choice because he could not out-appeal Obama's white liberal base but he also couldn't rev up the Tea Party whites who could easily see that he is against their interests. The Boomers that comprise the Republican think tanks are tired, obsequious, and overwhelmed by the new social media dynamics, and keep looking back to Reagan, a man with more charisma than the lot of them and who only thrived as a sequel to Carter, for their strategies. Mincing, self conscious dummies like Paul Ryan are unconvincing as proxies for the traditional, no-nonsense bringers of conservatism that thrived in the wake of the Cold War.

 

Of course Republicans will be rejected by the white liberal/man-child/minority axis they are pursuing, everyone can see it but them. The Republican Party hopes to curry favor with them anyway, because it is apparently fine with the idea of ruling a wasteland. Hey, it still counts as ruling!

Edited August 14, 2013 by MajKrAzAm

[colourwheel]

 

If America of 2012 had the demographic ratios of the 1980s then Romney would have won with a significant majority. This is the end game of illegal immigration. What was done to California will now be done to Texas, and any shred of hope of a Republican ever being president again is going to vanish, probably before the next election.

 

Honestly MajKrAzAm, If America of 2012 had the demographic ratios of the 1980s even Ronald Reagan wouldn't have even been elected president because the neo-conservative base would view Reagan as being too liberal just based on the record of his presidency in the 1980's. The Republican Party has become dangerously leaning completely towards the Fringe after the 2008 election cycle. The Republican party had basically changed over night once the Country elected Obama the 1st black president into office.

 

Also again on your statement about "illegal immigration" winning Obama's presidency, was this statement just an opinion or a fact? Are you claiming Illegal immigrants are illegally voting in elections? I can understand if you just "feel" or "believe" this but without empirical evidence or proof it's pure non-sense to even think this.

 

You can look at the actual amount of voter fraud Cases Since 2000 at this bottom link....

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost_none_.html

 

 

 

Third rate political pundits keep on whining that the Republican Party needs to change to appeal to demographic changes.

 

These "third rate political pundits" you are talking about are highly qualified political analyst that work for a political partys best interest. Regardless if you agree with them or not, I think I would listen more to someone who politicians pay to seek council over someone who is not qualified or gets paid at all for their opinions.

 

 

 

Running someone like Rick Perry would have presented a clearer choice, even though Perry likely suffers from some mild retardation.

 

In my opinion if Rick Perry was to be the Republican national nominee for president in 2012, Democrats probably would have taken almost every electoral vote in the nation. Rick Perry is too extreme for the nation to be duped into thinking as a moderate when traditionally what the republican party does in every national election is to make their candidate seem like a moderate to appeal to voter who identify as "independent".

Edited August 13, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

So, the political pundits making statements that basically say the repubbies should be more like the dems should be taken as gospel?

Just because someone gets paid to do a job, does not necessarily imply that they actually know what they are doing, or that their opinion is any better than some homeless guy on the street. Rush Limbaugh gets paid serious bucks, should I take him seriously? What about Bill O'Reily? Or Howard Stern? Glenn Beck?

[colourwheel]

 

So, the political pundits making statements that basically say the repubbies should be more like the dems should be taken as gospel?

 

No.

 

 

Just because someone gets paid to do a job, does not necessarily imply that they actually know what they are doing, or that their opinion is any better than some homeless guy on the street. Rush Limbaugh gets paid serious bucks, should I take him seriously? What about Bill O'Reily? Or Howard Stern? Glenn Beck?

 

Never was saying that someones opinion is "better" than another persons. But when you are constantly hearing the same rhetoric from the so-called "Third rate political pundits" from both the republican party and democratic party telling people the Republican Party needs to change to appeal to demographic changes, you tend to be a little less skeptical. It's like going to the doctor and getting a 2nd opinion on a diagnosis from another. If someone is hearing the same thing from multiple people, anyone who has any rational thought of reason would tend to listen and be a bit more open minded to what is being said instead of being thick, staying in a perpetual state of denial.