FAQ
Search
Members
Groups
Register
User Control Panel
Log in to check your private messages.
Login
How do they get Republican out of GOP?
Shouldn't they be called 'the Goperos'?
How do you get Republican out of GOP?
Moderator: Moderators
How do you get Republican out of GOP?
In the States there are two major political parties, the Democrats whom we call (duh) the Democrats, and the GOP. Even though GOP stands for Grand Old Party they call themselves the Republicans.
How do they get Republican out of GOP?
Shouldn't they be called 'the Goperos'?
How do they get Republican out of GOP?
Shouldn't they be called 'the Goperos'?
You've got the cart before the horse. From Wikipedia.com:
"GOP Name and the Elephant
The Republican party is known as the G.O.P.. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the first known reference to the Republican party as the "grand old party" came in 1876. The first use of the abbreviation G.O.P. is dated 1884. The symbol of the Republican party, an elephant, dates from an 1874 cartoon by Thomas Nast. is considered the first important use of the symbol. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic rooster. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.
Since the 1940s the leaders of the Republican party have often referred to the opposition as the Democrat party (instead of Democratic) to suggest that party is not internally democratic. Use of "Democrat" as an adjective is not standard usage. See Democrat Party (United States)"
"GOP Name and the Elephant
The Republican party is known as the G.O.P.. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the first known reference to the Republican party as the "grand old party" came in 1876. The first use of the abbreviation G.O.P. is dated 1884. The symbol of the Republican party, an elephant, dates from an 1874 cartoon by Thomas Nast. is considered the first important use of the symbol. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic rooster. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.
Since the 1940s the leaders of the Republican party have often referred to the opposition as the Democrat party (instead of Democratic) to suggest that party is not internally democratic. Use of "Democrat" as an adjective is not standard usage. See Democrat Party (United States)"
How about "golperos" or "golpistas"? [I don't think "golperos" is a word, but it reminds me of "one who punches or beats someone". "Golpista" is someone who participates in a coup.]
I'm a literalist in many ways. So the way we use the words "republican" and "democrat" have bothered me because, as the Wikipedia definition says, Democrats have often not been democratic and Republicans have often not upheld the ideals of a republican form of government.
Maybe the Dems should be called "Derailed" for forgetting or being afraid of their traditional values.
Or have we citizens changed so much that we no longer hold those traditional political values and thus we set adrift our parties (both)?
----------------
¿Cómo te parece "golperos" o "golpistas"?
Soy uno que interpreta cosas literalmente más que debería. Entonces, la manera en que utilizamos las palabras “republicano” y “demócrata” me ha incomodado porque, como la definición de Wikipedia dice, los demócratas a menudo no ha sido democráticos y los republicanos a menudo no han mantenido los ideales de una forma de gobierno republicano.
Quizá los Dems se debe llamar “los descarrilados” para olvidarse o estar asustado de sus valores tradicionales.
¿O hemos -- los ciudadanos -- cambiado tanto que ya no valoramos más esos valores políticos tradicionales y así dejamos a la deriva nuestros partidos políticos (ambos)?
I'm a literalist in many ways. So the way we use the words "republican" and "democrat" have bothered me because, as the Wikipedia definition says, Democrats have often not been democratic and Republicans have often not upheld the ideals of a republican form of government.
In recent years some of the highest leaders of the GOP have attempted to reduce voting rights and have ignored the rule of law.in one of the definitions, Merriam Webster wrote:Republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
Maybe the Dems should be called "Derailed" for forgetting or being afraid of their traditional values.
Or have we citizens changed so much that we no longer hold those traditional political values and thus we set adrift our parties (both)?
----------------
¿Cómo te parece "golperos" o "golpistas"?
Soy uno que interpreta cosas literalmente más que debería. Entonces, la manera en que utilizamos las palabras “republicano” y “demócrata” me ha incomodado porque, como la definición de Wikipedia dice, los demócratas a menudo no ha sido democráticos y los republicanos a menudo no han mantenido los ideales de una forma de gobierno republicano.
En años recientes, algunos de los dirigentes más poderosos del GOP han intentado reducir los derechos de votación y han ignorado el imperio de la ley.en una de las definiciones, Merriam Webster dice... wrote: [trans. Art] República: un gobierno en el cual el poder supremo reside en un cuerpo o corporación de los ciudadanos dados derecho a votar y es ejercitado por los oficiales y representantes elegidos y responsables a los ciudadanos, y gobernando según la ley.
Quizá los Dems se debe llamar “los descarrilados” para olvidarse o estar asustado de sus valores tradicionales.
¿O hemos -- los ciudadanos -- cambiado tanto que ya no valoramos más esos valores políticos tradicionales y así dejamos a la deriva nuestros partidos políticos (ambos)?
It seems that we are living in an era of corporate oligarchy in which the two major parties (mine included) represent a small group of business interests (who control 90% of the money) instead of the people that sent them to D.C.
It's pretty sickening, actually. Until we get significant and substansive controls on election funding, we are doomed to be at the mercy of the corporations, I'm afraid.
It's pretty sickening, actually. Until we get significant and substansive controls on election funding, we are doomed to be at the mercy of the corporations, I'm afraid.
I'd be fine with minimal participation by corporations in funding elections. After all, their being healthy is good for all of us. But the way power works, I don't see how we'd be able to keep them to a modest role.
Of course, using that same logic about the way power (and money) work, it's highly unlikely that big money interests could be forced outside the political process. Maybe the truth is that we'll always have to keep an eye on the latest methods that moneyed interests use to exercise power.
------------------
Me haría feliz permitir que las corporaciones participen mínimamente en el financiamiento de elecciones. Después de todo, su salud es bueno para todos nosotros. Pero dado la manera en que funciona el poder, no creo que podríamos mantenerlos con un papel modesto.
Por supuesto, usando esa misma lógica sobre la manera que funciona el poder (y dinero), es altamente inverosímil que los intereses adinerados podrían ser forzados fuera del proceso político. Quizás la verdad es que siempre tendremos que vigilar los métodos últimos que los intereses adinerados utilizan ejercitar su poder.
Of course, using that same logic about the way power (and money) work, it's highly unlikely that big money interests could be forced outside the political process. Maybe the truth is that we'll always have to keep an eye on the latest methods that moneyed interests use to exercise power.
------------------
Me haría feliz permitir que las corporaciones participen mínimamente en el financiamiento de elecciones. Después de todo, su salud es bueno para todos nosotros. Pero dado la manera en que funciona el poder, no creo que podríamos mantenerlos con un papel modesto.
Por supuesto, usando esa misma lógica sobre la manera que funciona el poder (y dinero), es altamente inverosímil que los intereses adinerados podrían ser forzados fuera del proceso político. Quizás la verdad es que siempre tendremos que vigilar los métodos últimos que los intereses adinerados utilizan ejercitar su poder.
When we file our taxes there is a little checkbox on the bottom that says 'check here if you want one dollar to go to the presidential elections' or something of the sort. Think we should figure out how much money would be acceptable to use in political campaigns say 200 million for the presidential elections and one million for each senator, congressman. We then pay for it out of public funds, that gets divided equally among both parties and they become accountable for how it's spent, any monies not spent go back to the treasury (unlike today any unspent campaing funds raised go to fill the pockets of the would be representatives, think tax free). People and corporations would be able to donate to the fund but since it would go equally to both parties it would negate any political advantages they may intend to gain from it.