Thread: Republican National Convention

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

If you think electing il Duce President will alter things in the U.S and the world you might just as well go west to the Pacific and get a shovel and shovel the ocean back as it comes in.

Much of what is happening in the world is the result of forces present for many years now whose effects are first being felt now. Things will never go back to what they were and anybody who thinks they will is just plain silly. if you elected Jesus he couldn't change things.

It's a matter of getting the American people to accept reality and move on and not dwell in the past. it's also a waste of time trying to assign blame for the present conditions. There's enough of that to pin it on every politician out there.

Off topic but your words are not valid only in the USA but many other countries as well.

Currently there are now several 'great leaders' who have promised to make their country great avain. Doesn't look so good, specially for their own people.

Originally Posted by Sailor

Off topic but your words are not valid only in the USA but many other countries as well.

Currently there are now several 'great leaders' who have promised to make their country great avain. Doesn't look so good, specially for their own people.

Every Leader promises that


People don't get elected by saying they are not going to improve things

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Wow that changed my mind, I sure don't want to shovel water

Sounds like one of those "Shovel Ready Jobs" Obama was talking about 7 years ago

I'm not trying to change your mind. That would be like going to the ocean with a shovel and....

Yes that's certainly an answer, forget the past stick your head in the sand and every thing is just great. I fear that if status quo is maintained for another 4 or 8 years the candidate to follow will make a guy like Trump look like a puppy.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I'm not trying to change your mind. That would be like going to the ocean with a shovel and....

So exactly the same as you

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Every Leader promises that


People don't get elected by saying they are not going to improve things

As said, it is not my business to try to make anyone change their minds. Conversation should be just conversation without hot feelings. Respecting and sometimes even learning from different views. But also accepting there will be no day when everyone thinks alike.

My comment is not on politicians in US but politicians everywhere.

Every leader might promise to improve things. Make things great again. What makes the difference is that there is no consensus on what great means or if there ever were such times.

Specially when they do not tell exactly how they are trying to keep their promises and what it means in everyday life for everyone. That is why people should think deeply with critic on everything candidates say.

I've lived long enough to learn that if the promise sounds too good to be true, it likely is just a nice talk. Think twice what you wish because sometimes it might come true, but not the way you expected.

Currently there are several politicians in power who have literally promised to make their country great again. And so hard they are really trying to do it, be it Ottoman Empire or CCCP.
Restoring good old days, sounds great is it?

Originally Posted by Sailor

Every leader might promise to improve things. Make things great again. What makes the difference is that there is no consensus on what great means or if there ever were such times.

There it is

I agree, with that right there

Originally Posted by Sailor

Every leader might promise to improve things. Make things great again. What makes the difference is that there is no consensus on what great means or if there ever were such times.

This is exactly the crux of the matter. Some things can still be simplified and the source of political friction in the U.S. is one of those things. It really does boil down to this:

There are people who believe a "great" society is one in which the government plays a significant and wide reaching role in the lives of individuals. A "great" society is one in which the government not only provides an ever increasing array of assistance, programs, subsidies, etc but also regulates, shapes and monitors individual behavior in an ever increasing manner.

Then there are people who believe that a "great" society is one in which government plays a limited role in the lives of individuals and that scaling back what such people believe is already a pervasive over extended and unwelcome assault on personal freedom will make for an even greater society.

A person ascribes to one of the above viewpoints or the other. Not both. On a fundamental level, it's one or the other.

A person can change their viewpoint from one view to the other. However from what I've seen no amount of talk from someone else will change a person's viewpoint. The individual's own experiences foster change in this regard.

Very well put, Sailor.

ChrisL

Originally Posted by ChrisL

This is exactly the crux of the matter. Some things can still be simplified and the source of political friction in the U.S. is one of those things. It really does boil down to this:

There are people who believe a "great" society is one in which the government plays a significant and wide reaching role in the lives of individuals. A "great" society is one in which the government not only provides an ever increasing array of assistance, programs, subsidies, etc but also regulates, shapes and monitors individual behavior in an ever increasing manner.

Then there are people who believe that a "great" society is one in which government plays a limited role in the lives of individuals and that scaling back what such people believe is already a pervasive over extended and unwelcome assault on personal freedom will make for an even greater society.

A person ascribes to one of the above viewpoints or the other. Not both. On a fundamental level, it's one or the other.

A person can change their viewpoint from one view to the other. However from what I've seen no amount of talk from someone else will change a person's viewpoint. The individual's own experiences foster change in this regard.

Very well put, Sailor.

ChrisL

So, who are these people? There are people who love communism and there are people who love socialism. There are people who like all kinds of things. If you are trying to describe those on the right and those on the left you are wrong on both parts. In fact there are many folks on the right who talk the talk about limited government until it comes to forcing their beliefs on others. Of course they know what's good for others. Most left leaners don't want to do anything with individual behaviors, just the opposite.

Viewpoints can be changed if the individual has an open mind and before settling on a viewpoint bases his decision on fact not fantasy.

Originally Posted by jmercer

Is this what you are asking about? I never heard of it.

The Benefits of a Big Tent: Opening Up Government in Developing Countries - UCLA Law Review

I be honest with the thread title of 'Republican National Convention' and after the first few posts it looked like flame bait to me.

Thank you for your question directly related to my original post. Sorry I was under the impression that most people would have a reference to the meaning of the GOP "Big Tent" initiative. It's about inclusiveness by action not just words. A consistent demonstration of both policy and resulting laws that support and enhance the equality of minority rights and freedoms.

After the GOP defeat in the 1996 Presidential election they felt one of the biggest reasons for this failure was the perception of having a very narrow membership makeup (small tent). Is was decided to work on attracting more members from a diverse cross section of ethnic, visible minority, religious & sexual orientation segments of the population (big tent). It was felt this diversity would help the GOP win future elections. You can find some interesting reading about this in the following link (sorry Glen another useless link however I have faith that some will use it). As you can see the diversity push actually started earlier and received early support from then Governor, later President Reagan however it was not until 1996 when the subject was a hot button topic front and center with the Party.

So if anyone wants to get back on topic this would be a good place to start. Otherwise I guess this is no longer the original intention of my first post. I'm good with either you understand.



Log Cabin Republicans | Our History