Man, would I love to see more Republican politicians get a spine and severe themselves from the religious right . . . . In case you missed it you took it hard from the socons in CA.

An alliance of socons, blacks and hispanics would flatten the Dems.

Fiscal conservatives/pro-business plus social conservatives and pro defense is a winning ticket. DanS has it right. None of this 'deficit' crap.

Balanced budgets. Debt repayment. Tax cuts.

If the fiscal cons are willing to come along with the socon ride, then this is gonna be one hell of a party. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/biggrin.gif

Originally posted by Whoha
hopefully they'll ditch free trade. I just don't understand opposition to free trade. How would you feel if you had to pay a tax on interstate commerce?

The problem with these agreements is that most of them aren't faithful to free-trade ideals. They've got all kinds of exceptions for farmers and other influential lobbies. Get rid of those, and you'll see more popular support. After all, free trade has only made people more prosperous.

Everyone was saying the same thing in '04 about how the Dems were doomed and the party would split, etc. I don't think the nation has changed much at all, nor has the nation turned to the left. Bush was extraordinarily unpopular which made it difficult for any Republican to win, and the Democrats put up an extraordinary candidate this year who out-hustled McCain.

There's no reason the opposite couldn't occur in 4 or 8 years.

Originally posted by Felch
I just don't understand opposition to free trade.

The problem with these agreements is that most of them aren't faithful to free-trade ideals. They've got all kinds of exceptions for farmers and other influential lobbies. Get rid of those, and you'll see more popular support. After all, free trade has only made people more prosperous. Clearly Some small portion of the economy will not see free trade working for them. But just as clearly, if free trade truly works then said individuals will be in the extreme minority, and there is no need what so ever to worry about them. After all, free trade has only made people more prosperous.

How would you feel if you had to pay a tax on interstate commerce? This argument is specious.

A majority of the US holds anti-immigrant views. No way to jettison that faction, although I agree that it would be great if we could.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think in the long term the Republicans need to jettison their anti-immigrant faction. They border (and sometimes not just border) on xenophobia against Hispanics. As Hispanics are growing solidly AND are homophobic, this could be a way to win in the future. Rallying bigots to your party in order to win. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ons/icon13.gif

Originally posted by snoopy369
Both arguments have some merit No.

We need the rest of the party to follow in McCain (and yes, Bush's) immigration ideals. At the very least, Gingrich's immigration ideals.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We need the rest of the party to follow in McCain (and yes, Bush's) immigration ideals. At the very least, Gingrich's immigration ideals. McCain and Bush on immigration and trade: http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Originally posted by Whoha in reference to interstate trade barriers
This argument is specious. It's not specious at all. If the rational is that less developed economies need protection from better developed economies, then why aren't poor states protected from rich states? Why can't Maryland farmers use tariffs to protect their agriculture from the rest of the country? Why can't Michigan use tariffs to protect its automotive industry from lower cost plants in the south?

Here's a simple question. Please don't dismiss it with some cowardly quip. Would you support a Constitutional amendment to allow interstate tariffs?

Much of the illegal immigration debate is framed in xenophobic terms. Makes me believe those who are most stridently against it have some problems with "the other".

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
spit on the troops coming home.) evidence?

Oh wow! One Vietnam veteran. Could he have been an exception to the rule that the vast majority of vets were NOT spat on?

Originally posted by Felch


It's not specious at all. If the rational is that less developed economies need protection from better developed economies, then why aren't poor states protected from rich states? Why can't Maryland farmers use tariffs to protect their agriculture from the rest of the country? Why can't Michigan use tariffs to protect its automotive industry from lower cost plants in the south?

Here's a simple question. Please don't dismiss it with some cowardly quip. Would you support a Constitutional amendment to allow interstate tariffs? No I would not. States don't have to accept debt or asset sales to purchase things from other states. Dollars are good for all debts public and private. Dollars furthermore are not controlled by any one state. And this entity that controls the dollar also oversees trade to make sure that tariff and non-tariff barriers don't prolifigate like wildfires. The argument is specious.

States don't have to accept debt or asset sales to purchase things from other states.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ons/icon13.gif http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ons/icon13.gif http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/neeschud.gif