Social Question

mazingerz88's avatar

Why can't Republicans sell their ideas to the American people without resorting into doing dirty politics to win elections?

Asked by mazingerz88 (22975points) 1 month ago

Democrats do politics dirty as well but not in the same level as Republicans. Is it because Republicans just couldn’t sell their conservative views and vision to voters unless they incite hateful rhetoric which is exactly what Trump used to get attention and win?

Is the future of America liberal by nature? And conservatism as represented by Republicans a lost cause desperately defended by Republicans using shitty and self-demeaning politics?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

35 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

This saying comes to mind.
The Republicans say that government is the problem, and they prove that point every time they win an election.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Because Republican ideas suck. They are environmentally damaging, they hurt most Americans, they make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The repo party tries to sell the past – The democratic party looks at the future

Yellowdog's avatar

If you look over a map of the country, it is overwhelmingly red.

there were more people in line at the Trump kick-off rally 24 hours before the event than there were at Disney World.

Basically, all the Democrats do is slander and call people Nazis, racists, etc.
—aren’t those dirty tricks? Do you see anyone on the right or center doing this to your party?
I saw a lot of people shy about voting for Trump in 2016 because of the made-up lies pushed by the media about Russia collusion. I don’t see anyone shy about voting for Trump now. The rallies are burgeoning and 100,000 people waiting to get in.

I don’t think there is any doubt that the country is overwhelmingly Republican, and the American public have seen quite a bit about what the Democrats stand for.

As far as dirty politics, I think fabricating a Russian-disinformation dossier and foisting it on the American people through the media and our powerful intelligence agencies, might count as a dirty trick. to win an election. So what dirty tricks on the Republican side are YOU referring to?

Patty_Melt's avatar

The question relies on the assumption that Republicans use dirty tricks, and in fact more dirty tricks than democrats.

Since no proof has been offered to either support or refute those assumptions, the question itself must be considered invalid.

If the topic were brought up in a formal debate, you would lose on technicality at this point.

However, this site being what it is, I think, “he who smelt it dealt it” best fits here.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog when you look at that map, you should also notice that you can gauge how quickly such places are emptying out by the degree of red they attain, as the people who trick the local suckers into voting red loot such places and deposit their “winnings” in blue banks. It cracks me up that the very places most violently resistant to socialism, become ever more defined as places that would disappear were it not for infusions of cash from the government they despise. Keep on voting red you dummies, as your kids abandon your backward asses for the places with the jobs.

chyna's avatar

And why oh why is trump still slamming Hilary? She’s not even running this time.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

They don’t have to sell anything. Most people vote republican to keep the democrats from doing what they want to do in one form or another.
Outside of this artificial divide when votes swing more republican it’s sign that the left is going too far with things and it’s time to apply the brakes a little.

Demosthenes's avatar

Why can’t Republicans get re-elected without started wars the year before the election?

(Well, let’s hope that’s not what’s happening here).

SaganRitual's avatar

Let’s cut through some of the debris here.

You say the Ds play dirty too, but not as dirty as the Rs? So I guess D stands for “Dexter” rather than “Democrat”. They do bad only when the eventual outcome is good? Something like that? D for “Doubtful.”

If the Rs use dirty politics to sell us bad ideas, then the Ds do it for the same reason. Maybe the D ideas are less bad than the R ideas. I hate to say it, but “We’re no worse than those guys” is a terrible campaign slogan.

No, the future of the US is not liberal, not if we stay on the course we’re on. And I don’t mean President Trump; he is a symptom, not the problem. I mean division among the people. “Questions” like yours, jumbles of inflammatory and incoherent comments with a few question marks thrown in to make it look like a question. That’s not liberalism. But it is our future, until we do something about it. Our politicians won’t.

The system created by the Holy and Worshipful Founding Fathers is grotesquely flawed; it collapsed into a rigged, two-party system almost as soon as it was brought online. There’s no incentive for politicians to have a vision for the future of the nation (beyond the next election). There’s no incentive for them to care what their constituents want, no incentive to seek unity and cooperation,. There’s only one incentive provided by the Holy Constitution: win elections.

Our politicians play dirty politics because we let them. We don’t demand that they behave better. In fact, we reward them. They get rich from our taxes, because we don’t demand that they stop. We need a new system, less naive, one that addresses the fact that we’re humans, prone to human error.

But that’s not going to happen, because we aren’t going to demand it of our politicians. The future is going to be more of what we have now, and whatever fallout comes from it, like rising sea levels and people going broke from medical expenses. The politicians don’t care. The system doesn’t give them any incentive to care. It has nothing to do with what side of the aisle they’re on. It has everything to do with inaction on the part of us, the American voters.

Peace and luck

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly Actually I don’t find that to be true, that people are leaving for jobs. The only people I see leaving are uber-liberals, and that’s fine with us.

Number ONE on the list of receiving THE MOST fed money is New Mexico, which has long been Democratic. Try again.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Not very nice to use ‘dummies’ and ‘backward asses’, which you always do.
Have you ever noticed that many of us conservatives don’t do that to you? Very childish.

Yellowdog's avatar

@Demosthenes Republicans, and most Americans, don’t start wars. America, i.e. Trump, has unified most of the Middle East—even with Israel.

Iran has already started a war with the U.S. but I don’t think the U.S. has done anything to strike back. I don’t think the Republicans are shooting down U.S. drones in universal airspace like Iranians are, to win elections, or firing on oil tankers (although some on this site actually want to maintain this). But I DO know that Iran’s arsenal was backed by U.S. taxpayer dollars from the previous administration.

Seems kind of strange that so many on the Left cannot use civil language and mostly resort to personal attacks. It has never entered my mind to resort to such to win an argument or participate in a discussion. If I were to use such personal attacks I’d probably be moderated anyhow, but all you are doing is taking a disagreement as an opportunity to bash someone or pile on someone you disagree with.

Demosthenes's avatar

@Yellowdog They absolutely do start wars, on shaky pretexts. Iraq being the most obvious example. Right now signs are pointing in that direction, although Trump himself seems to still be at odds with hawks like Bolton. Thankfully.

To be clear, I can’t stand either party and I think this question is ridiculously one-sided, but I will call out what I see as a needless repeat of history in the making here.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Demosthenes I don’t know how old you are, but I am 46 and was extremely interested in the Iraq War. From my point of view, it was justified in some ways.

Here is a good article with timeline that doesn’t even include the atrocities committed by Hussein and his family, against his own people.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218

From Wiki
Iraq’s era under President Saddam Hussein was notorious for its severe violations of human rights. Secret police, state terrorism, torture, mass murder, rape, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical warfare, and the destruction of southern Iraq’s marshes were some of the methods the country’s Ba’athist government used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.

Demosthenes's avatar

It’s not our job to police the world and remove leaders who are bastards. My disagreement with the invasion of Iraq was not because I thought Saddam was a saint who should’ve stayed in power. But given the rise of ISIS and the ensuing war in Syria, I’m not sure that either Saddam remaining in power or what we have now is better. We will never know. Iraq was targeted initially because we wanted a nation to punish for 9/11. The pretext for the war continued to change the more it became clear they had nothing to do with 9/11. And the invasion ultimately was commenced on the flimsiest of pretexts, the WMDs. Nonetheless, if we are going to invade a country and depose its leader, we cannot replace what we’ve removed with chaos. That seems to be what we do now (Libya being another example, even if our involvement was not as direct).

Yellowdog's avatar

I hate to keep bringing up the Jews and the Holocaust, but yes, it has befallen us to defeat terror, dictators, and evil regimes in the world. If we hadn’t—Hitler would have won all of Europe and exterminated most of the Jews and other populations.

There are countless examples closer to our own time, that could not have been left unchecked.

Some cells within our own nation, even.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Demosthenes I agree with you on a few things, we are not the world police, BUT what would have happened if the Allies hadn’t helped take out the Nazi’s?

I guess I’d ask what your criteria for intervention is, if it’s not human atrocities, nuclear threats, wmd’s or oil reserves.

As far as leaving them with chaos, I agree, but I feel they dropped the ball on that, not us. AT some point, after you take out the trash, someone has to step up and lead them in a positive direction. Is that our responsibility, that could be debated.

Demosthenes's avatar

I’m going to ask another question about this, so as to not further derail this thread. Ultimately I don’t have the answer, but I don’t think every example is the same. Some wars are justified, some are not. A reason used in one war can’t necessarily be used in another given the vastly different historical context.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Yellowdog Almost beat you to the Nazi mention. But I think we’re both right in that that was necessary and justified.

mazingerz88's avatar

@Patty_Melt Do you review every question on Fluther and call them invalid if they don’t satisfy your criteria? Or only with questions that pisses you off because you’re an orange blob believer?

Seriously @Yellowdog you’re siding with how trump and his puppeters are dealing with the issue of Iran? And btw, Iran already started a war? That’s just nuts that statement.

@SaganRitual My point exactly. trump won because of filthy politics he capitalized on and Republicans ate all his shit up like ravenous pigs on a trough. Had trump ran as a Democrat, he won’t get past the nomination stage.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@mazinger Do you mean Iran started a war shooting down our drone in Intl waters?

SaganRitual's avatar

@mazingerz88 No, actually, I’m not supporting your point. You’re not making a point. You’re trash-talking. Moralizing. Us-and-them-ing. Rather…dirty…I can’t help but notice. You are the future. You are going to decide what the future looks like for the US. If we never make any progress as a society, it won’t be due to filthy politics on either side. It will be due to voters who treat the political process like a sports event, an adversarial competition in which one side wins and the other side loses.

It’s not like that. We either all win or we all lose. It’s up to you. It really is, like it or not. Peace

Stache's avatar

^Trash talking on the internet is just that. It’s trash. It does not decide our future. This is why I have been saying I give up with some of the people here and elsewhere on the internet. It’s a waste of time. Bickering on the internet does not and will not define our future.

Peace~

Patty_Melt's avatar

@mazi, I pointed out that it was unsupported, and in a formal debate was technically an automatic loss.
I took no side in my statement, and by calling me out you just make it obvious how much you want to argue only for the sake of arguing.
Hey, I would like to help you.
You know those jumpy seats they have for babies, you hook up in a doorway, and they sit in that and bounce all day if they want?
They have them in grown up sizes now I think, to use outside. You should get one of those, and then you could jump away all that bottled up hate and frustration.
You would feel better. I am sure of it.

Yellowdog's avatar

@mazingerz88 Actually, Iran has been at war with the United States since November 4, 1979, or at least they believe they have. They have been the Number One sponsor of Terrorism in the world since the early 1980s.

Trump outlined in the Summer of 2016 that his policy was not to involve us in wars in the middle east but work for gradual change. Trump has given Iran every opportunity to own up to this, and seems to be giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt.

Even Pelosi and Schumer believe the incontrovertible account, supported by satellite as well as information from all military technology in the area, that the missile hit a U.S. drone twenty miles from Iran’s coast, in international waters

Whereas it is true that Iran offered a hand-drawn map showing that the drone was eight miles off the coast, in Iranian waters, there is no evidence to support it. You can take that position if you want to, This is not the first time a drone has been fired at by Iranians in recent weeks, just the first time one was hit.

You would support an Iranian victory if it made Trump look ineffectual—maybe you should consider the reality of Islamic jihadists with nuclear warheads and dirty=bombs at American cities, to serve in their 39 year war to annihilate us. The Iranians are definitely trying to rally for war with the United States.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Do we still have some of those Avon lady bombs?

mazingerz88's avatar

@Yellowdog I’m glad you are ready to go to war. Onward trump soldier. From reality TV show hosting to ordering American soldiers to their potential deaths. Makes your day huh?

@SaganRitual So what is your point again? Dems and Republicans do dirty politics on equal level?

SaganRitual's avatar

@mazingerz88 My point is that you have answered your own question about the future of the US. It will continue to be stagnant until people figure out that us-versus-them doesn’t work. Your posts make it pretty clear that it’s not going to happen any time soon.

stanleybmanly's avatar

From my perspective the problem is with the narrative. And as you can tell from my rhetoric, it frustrates the hell out of me that people can’t see past the current layout from either political party. I have no problem with people faulting either party, but the absolute absurdity of Trump as a remedy for ANYTHING is just beyond delusional.

Yellowdog's avatar

Agreed.

If the United States weren’t so energy independent under Trump’s policies, we would have a greater stake in Venezuelan oil or the Middle East conflicts and would probably get this mess over with quickly. We’d probably be cozyiing up to Iran right now rather than standing by waiting for war to break out.

stanleybmanly's avatar

We were oil and gas independent prior to the fool. Fracking gas been running wild for better than 12 years.

mazingerz88's avatar

@SaganRitual Pretty silly judging me now and stating what I’m going to do in the future simply because I trash talk and bash.

And you seem to conclude an entire generation of bashers and trash talkers today would do the same. You assume too much.

Now, can you answer this question, do you think Dems and Repubs do dirty politics at the same level?

SaganRitual's avatar

@mazingerz88 I’m not judging you. I’m telling you that the thing you’re doing is unproductive. I didn’t state what you’re going to do in the future. I said your posts make it pretty clear what you’re going to do in the future: and why not? You clearly think you’re doing a good thing, why would you stop? Why would you be bothered if I said you were going to keep doing it? It’s the thing you want to do (unless someone forced you to post the question).

Generation? No, I don’t even know what generation you’re in. It’s our whole society. It’s Fox News, Rachel Maddow, Fluther, etc.

Do I think Ds and Rs do dirty at the same level? I don’t care. And I’m sad that you do care. The fact that you think in those terms is the problem.

It’s not going to change until you do something about it. Peace

mazingerz88's avatar

@SaganRitual My goodness you even know that I consider what I do to be clearly a good thing because I do it. You have no idea how strange that is do you? These assumptions of yours.

So you don’t care. I think that’s the problem. But thanks for answering.

SaganRitual's avatar

@mazingerz88 I must ask your forgiveness. It never occurred to me that you might be spewing toxins into the discussion against your will. You have my sympathy. Allow me to suggest that you consider seeing a health care professional about it.

mazingerz88's avatar

@SaganRitual Oh no need to bother. No one wants your trash talk/ sarcasm.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther