Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 2

message: the Republican platform headers I think appear best if italicized, is there a rule about this sort of approach? Salazar 21:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style indicates italics for titles of works or when using words as words. I do not think these platform headers qualify as titles of works (if you can show that they are publications under those names, then that's different, but I'm not aware of this being the case). I think quotation marks are the appropriate style here as the remarks are likely quotations from the platform (or of people speaking or writing about the platform). older≠wiser 22:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
i like you I feel most of you at night ;). Thanks for the pointer to the Manual of Style, that's exactly what I wanted. The relevant part:
Italics are generally used for titles of longer works. Titles of shorter works, such as the following, should be enclosed in quotation marks (""):
    * articles, essays, or papers
    * chapters of a longer work
    * episodes of a television series
    * short poems
    * short stories
    * songs
They "chapters of a longer work", within the Republican platform. So it is correct to have them in quotation marks, not italics as I thought. Salazar 23:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics or quotation marks

message: Culture War was removed as a red link.  The article actually exists at Culture war, but I'm not sure if I should add it in myself as it doesn't seem quite directly relevant like Republican National Convention.  If someone wants to add it back, it would probably fit better integrated into the narrative of the text than as a 'see also'.--Pharos 06:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture war 

message: I've removed
:It's original primary political principles were a strong national defense along with libertarian beliefs such as deregulated free-market capitalism, low taxation, the protection of gun rights and smaller government. While these issues are still the stated focus of the party, new issues such as religiosity, Social Security reform and repair, and opposition to both same-sex marriage and abortion have become new priorities for many in the party. Meelar (talk) 01:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
I will now be rewriting something, but this was just inaccurate. The GOP favored high tariffs, for example--the South (and thus Democrats at the time) wanted lower tariffs so they could sell their cotton abroad. Also, "Social Security reform and repair" is hopelessly POV.
:Well that's good. I agree about social security. I do think that opposition to gay rights and abortion have indeed become new priorities for the party, as one can see in the 2004 platform (linked to in the article). Perhaps we could get some sources for founding philosophies. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the change for NPOV on "partial privatization of Social Security?"  The term seems accurate in the sense that the President's plan that Congress is addressing would be a change to part of the system, including a shift to private accounts invested in the private sector.  Maybe just let me know who would object to the term so I can work on rewording. Rkevins82 03:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well even though the President himself has used the term, and long-time proponents have used "privatization" for years, the current Republican party line is "personalization," never privatization. Apparently public support for "personalization" is higher than "privatization." I think personalization just doesn't convey the actual meaning of the proposal; everyone has their own personal Social Security account already. The change would be to privatize part of it so that you could invest in the private sector. I don't know if any real people (i.e. not politicians) would object to "partial privatization," but I say it's worth a shot. TIMBO (T A L K) 18:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My removal and rewrite

message: I have commented out the swastika image. This is the work of a Anti-NPOV Democrat. Andros 1337 03:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly is the swastika? I can't find it in the current revision or in the history. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: And to be honest, vandalism could be the work of any opposing political viewpoint such as socialism, anarchism, etc. as well as none at all - just a vandal. Let's not needlessly elevate any animosity here. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have used the revert function of the image.  I guess the cache hasn't updated properly on my PC.  I will now change back to the PNG. Here is Image:Republicanlogo.png. Revision 18:18, 23 Apr 2005 by Enpsychopedia contains the swastika. Andros 1337 20:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  swastika image 

message: Hi, I would like to start an article on the various ballot symbols used by U.S. political parties in different states.  I have never seen a source for these anywhere.  I think with the diverse knowledge of Wikipedians, we can compile a comprehensive resource right here.  Help out at User:Pharos/List of political party ballot symbols by U.S. state.  I've already added a few for New York.  Thanks.--Pharos 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballot symbols 

message: (Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages; besides, it's just a talk page]])
I will withhold my own commentary for now and see what happens. See also Talk:Democratic Party (United States)#Fascism project.
:See WP:POINT please. And other contributors, please don't reply. Meelar (talk) 03:39, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, it seems clear that the Republican Party (United States) fits the definition of fascism.  Make a note of it. Dschor 12:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The GOP uses nationalism to manufacture consent for policies of a fascist nature.  The 'P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act' is a prime example of using nationalism and patriotism as a front for a fascist agenda.  Under the GOP, it is clear that government is the problem, and that the solution is to remove the GOP from government.  Federal bureaucrats are routinely ignored and ridiculed by the GOP because they insist on accuracy and honesty, both of which Republicans consider to be quaint at best, and terrorist at worst.  See the bureaucrats on tax policy, war policy, intelligence, poverty, etc.;  the GOP ignores accuracy and honesty because their policies are not compatible with the truth.  Loyalty to a single leader, although stipulated as a condition for fascism, is rather antiquated in a time of term limits.  The GOP is loyal to fascism, whatever leader espouses it at the moment (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, etc), and is loyal to each successive figurehead in turn.  Harriet Miers' nomination was purely a political stunt, in order to make the confirmation of a truly fascist judge more possible (see Alito).  Americans certainly have seen party-sponsored violence, though increasingly the operations of censorship and suppression of dissent have become official functions of the government itself.  Assassination has been used less frequently as election fraud has made such messy tasks obsolete.  The GOP claims to be in favor of limited government, but in reality the policies of the party increasingly focus on making the government larger and more robust, with enhanced police powers, and extensive regulation of the private lives of citizens.  The only regulations they hope to remove are those that involve progressive taxation and environmental protection.  The GOP is unquestionably the party of corporations - all the major figures in this administration have extensive business connections, and the Supreme Court nominees have been corporatists.  The GOP has been implementing totalitarianism here and abroad, with secret prisons, fraudulent elections, and an illegal war against "them".  There is every reason to believe that the GOP is not only fascist, but is gaining the power to remold the United States into a permanently fascist state.  These developments deserve to be noted, not suppressed. --Dschor 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how the modern Republican Party fits the first three criteria pretty neatly, but the remaining three, I don't see. Kevin baas 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism project 

message: I removed this line added to the 2nd paragraph:
:Although Democrats had a majority in the house and senate for a while, the Republican Party currently has majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as in governorships and the majority of state legislatures.
True, perhaps, but not accurate enough in its details.  I assume that "for a while" means the 30-40 years or whatever it was that the Democrats had a lock on the Congress.  Firstly (if it's not already in the article but is salient), it should be presented with a bit more detail than "for a while."  Secondly, it may not belong in this particular paragraph. -- Kbh3rd 18:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of edit by "Lima bean of the north" &ndash; majorities 

message: I've removed the NPOV tag, added by an anon IP who keeps claiming at George W. Bush that he is responsible for x number of murders.  No reasons were given for the tag.--Scimitar parley 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: [[Media:ithink that this is bullshit and i hate learning about this crap everyday of my little life.i]]
:I'm sorry you feel this way. Is there something we can do to help you out? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  republican party 

message: Thanks for fixing that, Rkevins82, I wasn't exactly sure how to word it properly. Sigma 03:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Rights Movment 

message: Should this include "Party leader: G W Bush"? If so does he go above or below Party Chairman? If not, why not? -- SGBailey 11:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box at top of article 

message: I switched the color photograph of Lincoln that somebody posted earlier today with a black and white - the coloring was just some patches of orange on Lincoln's face that made him seem very, very ill.  Plastic Editor Dec. 5 2005
::Play nice. No need for that here. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln Photo 

message: Is someone opposed to covering the history of the GOP in the 20th century? I'd say that's what Encyclopedias cover. Rjensen 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 20th century history??

message: r u guys biased because i saw that the republican party was deranged and selfish..... If so the republicans are dumb and uncomperable
:That was just petty vandalism. I'm sure it has already been removed. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased???? 

message: "the latter being a landslide in which Reagan won nearly 59% of the popular vote and carried 49 of the 50 states." - is this accurate? It seems unlikely that he should win 49 of the 50 sates, while those states were only, on average, 59% for him.
: All the sources I have found so far indicate that this statement is accurate.  It should be noted that Minnesota was that 50th state, and that Washington, D.C. also voted for Mondale.  Just goes to show how poorly distributed Democratic voters are.  --Dschor 11:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing happened to Bob Dole in 96.  Had the Republican voters been distributed more strategically he would have won in a landslide.  Bjsiders 15:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, it's worth noting that "only 59%" is a huge portion of the popular vote.  Only Lyndon Johnson, I believe, ever got a larger percentage of the popular vote than Reagan got in 1984.  Presidents who win landslides in the electoral college still rarely garner a significant majority of the popular vote, and sometimes not even a simple majority of it, nor even a plurality. Bjsiders 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, Nixon won 49 of the 50 states in 1972. Only lost Massachusetts, home state of the Kennedys who have a connection to the Democratic VP candidate of that year, Sargent Shriver. Not that that had anything to do with it, it is just an interesting aside. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  accurate about 1984? 

message: I thought that the line about the problems with the touch screen voting in 2004 should be followed up with the information that the electoral vote were officially challenged by the members of Congress.I added this part from the Wikipedia entry on Senator Boxer.
Despite the $3.8 billion in funding towards this endeavor, a number of problems surfaced during and after the election. As with the 2000 election.
"On January 6, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a Cogressional objection to the certification of Ohio's Electoral College votes in the 2004 U.S. presidential election."
Details from sworn testimony of said problems are documented in the House report "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio"
* House.gov (pdf) - 'Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio: Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff', (prepared at the request of Congrssman John Conyers, January 5, 2005)
: We are getting further and further from the national party and deeper and deeper into election 2004. The paragraph was fine, there were no significant challenges to election results. If anyone wants any details they can goto the Election 2004 article thats where it belongs, it might (and I stress the might) also have a place in the election 2004 section on the GWB article, but it has no place in the party article. PPGMD 14:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: REPUBLICAL PARTY -- what a novel idea for an article.  Wikipedia should have an article devoted to that subject, shall we say?
Rjensen 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a number of problems surfaced in Ohio 2004