![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I noticed that this party doesn't have a political position. I think that it would be best if it was "right-wing." According to a study by the New York Times, the party is further right than the UK Independence Party, France's National Rally, the Swedish Democrats and the Finns Party. All of these parties are listed as "right to far-right" when it comes to their political position, and I would describe the Republican Party under Trump as this. I think that Trump's beliefs are similar to that of the Polish party Pis' beliefs, and he is definitely on the right of the Republican Party. However, it is worth noting that the party has usually been left of Trump, so I would say that it would be best to put a historical political position of centre-right to right-wing. I think that the party has always been economically right of the standard centre-right main political party in most European countries. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html Dylan109 ( talk) 08:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I second this and the opinion expressed by the writer of "Under 'factions' in the infobox..." (please remember to sign your posts), and I think it's time to update the "Ideology" section of the infobox accordingly, considering the substantial shift further right under the current President's leadership. Specifically, to replace "libertarianism" with "liberal conservatism" and include "far-right politics" amongst one of its more extreme factions. Epicity95 ( talk) 10:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Ragusp: I don't think right-wing or left-wing should be included... The only difference between the two are which side of the aisle they sit on in congress. It just feeds small minds.
An editor keeps on deleting from the lede (along with other deletions) the fact that a politician is Republican. Can someone with experience, who may have an opinion one way or the other on this, take a look? Thanks. Talk:Walter Blackman -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:34ED:B275:BB1D:DF86 ( talk) 08:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this section [ [1]] has turned into a play by play section rather than something out of an encyclopedia. The 100 years of the 20th century section which includes such minor events as WW1, WW2, the cold war (and two associated hot wars), some civil rights stuff at home and probably an election or two, is shorter than the 20 years since the 21st century began. Not that I would discount the impacts of things like 911 or Trump's ability to stir people up but still, does the article really need that much current recent information? Not going to try to cull it myself, just asking. Springee ( talk) 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
RagusP: I agree. The wiki should show the history of how the party came to be. All the heroes of civil rights and such. This platform shouldn't lean against anyone one organization and show the WHOLE TRUTH.
The reference listed as #16 doesn't say anything about the statement preceding it but is just a Time magazine article on Teddy Roosevelt's switch or rather creation of the "Bull" party from the Republican party when he did not secure the Republican party nomination. Anyone know why it was used to support this statement: "After 1912, the Party underwent an ideological shift to the right." ? The statement may be true but the reference used to support certainly doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.18.101 ( talk) 15:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that the other flavors of conservatism have their own descriptors (social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, paleoconservatism, neoconservatism) it makes sense to describe the libertarians within the republican party as libertarian conservative than just libertarian. Left leaning/bleeding heart libertarians tend not to support the GOP and either retain independence or support democrats if they prioritize social liberalism over economic conservatism.
. Akg427 ( talk) 00:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Slavery was to remain in the South to appease the Democrats as to keep the country together and not start a war. I think this should be added into the first few paragraphs. Where the sentence states they were for keeping slavery in the South. They were not. They were anti-war and anti-slavery. As they are today.
Regarding the Wikipedia entry for "Southern Strategy", it's interesting that of the three references that are listed to support the following statement: "In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans." none really provide sufficient referral "proof" of that statement. The NYT article has no references listed to back up the idea, (and really, NYT?) and the book "Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-1965" does not mention anything at all about that. That leaves the #2 reference, the book "From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution" for which there's no reproduction of the page where the statement (concept?) can be verified, so it is considered non-supporting (in my world anyways). To me, this is just sloppy and doesn't belong in a work that is supposed to be about facts about historical happenings. There may well have been such a strategy but shouldn't the references actually show that to be true? I fail to see how the statement is supported outside of a NYT article, which does not cite any sources and another book whose page does not support anything about the strategy nor mention it in any way and a book whose references cannot be verified. At this point, this looks more like a conspiracy theory or based on rumors and the like and not an actual fact. I guess my question is: are there other resources that directly support this "strategy"? If so, why were they not included as references? Just asking, not saying it isn't/wasn't true. I am finding more of this as I go and actually check references whether they be here on Wikipedia or in books etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.18.101 ( talk) 16:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It's clear that in Trump's era, the Republican Party has become predominantly right-wing populist and NOT conservative.Many party leaders, instead of focusing on conservative principles, choose instead to go after liberal Democrats, showing their populism because they're creating an "other" side that is 100% pure evil that must be fought against no matter what. I say that we should move right-wing populism under "Majority" and move "Conservatism" under "Factions" because the conservative Republican officeholders (both former/current) are very few (like John Kasich and Mitt Romney) and usually less outspoken than the right-wing populists (due to the nature of populism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.238.64 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2402:3A80:10C2:ECC:991E:963A:2412:4C4F ( talk) 09:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose to change Harding's picture for that one, as the other presidents have just a head picture.-- 85.131.120.190 ( talk) 13:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Gallup published a 2020 update of those same stats.
As of May:
- Of Rep./lean Rep.: 61% are socially conservative, 28% socially moderate, 10% socially liberal; 65% economically conservative, 26% economically moderate, 7% economically liberal.
- Of Dem./lean Dem.: 14% are socially conservative, 38% socially moderate, 47% socially liberal; 18% economically conservative, 45% economically moderate, 37% economically liberal.
105.98.168.224 ( talk) 12:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Are we ever going to add Climate Change Denial to a list of ideologies? It's clearly prevalent - withdrawal from Climate Paris Accord, against climate tax, against cap & trade, against many environmental regulations involving carbon/methane emissions, W. Bush calling Al Gore "crazy" on global warming, Romney laughing at Obama for trying to slow the rates of sea level rise, & Trump calling the whole thing a hoax? Some 30-odd% of Americans don't think climate change has significant man-made contributions, and those are disproportionally almost all Republicans. Quintdamage ( talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Quintdamage - It's mentioned under "Environmental policies".
WikiJoe24 ( talk) 00:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@(The OP) - Done.
WikiJoe24 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead says "The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas, men, the Silent Generation, and white evangelical Christians." Is it worth changing this, given that the Silent Generation is a decreasing portion of the population? Alternatively, it could say senior citizens/the elderly or similar which is more robust. Also the correlation is arguably somewhat overstated. thorpewilliam ( talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
According to a June 14-16, 2020 poll by The Economist/YouGov [1], Republicans rank news organizations trustworthiness as the following: Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, One America News (OAN), etc. Additionally, about 1/3 of Fox News viewers trust OANN. President Donald J Trump has even promoted OANN as a "great alternative" to Fox News in a tweet [2]. There is further evidence [3] of conservative media moguls' interest in OANN. Moreover, OANN correspondents are part of the news organizations that get seats in the White House briefing room. I'm not sure why Toa Nidhiki05 says adding OANN is "inflammatory" when it is part of the influential conservative online media outlets. Derschluessel ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Should liberalism be mentioned as a faction in the template? There remains a minority of liberal republicans today. [1] [2] thorpewilliam ( talk) 11:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I know you wikipedians are AOC worshippers, but trump did win, the democrats stole the elections, with the help of fake news websites like this one. 2A02:A03F:8B18:9300:41CF:F84F:7304:66D1 ( talk) 05:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The center-right and center-left concept should be introduced to this article and the Democratic Party article. There is no need to play around with words. Republican Party is right wing party. Stop all these nonsense 202.9.46.101 ( talk) 15:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
___ I second this
Gdeblois19 23:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
!It was discussed before and editors at the time decided not to include it. The main reason is that it is not an ideological party in the sense that it has stated principles to which members must adhere. So there have been both left-wing and far right politicians elected under the party banner. The other problem is that exact location in the linear political spectrum is subjective. It would be an extreme coincidence if the dividing line between left and right in the world lay where the Democratic and Republican parties met. ` TFD ( talk)
Should the text in bold (which provides a back-and-forth between Republicans and Biden on Garland) be included in the article: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
"Senate Republicans justified this move by pointing to a 1992 speech from then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden; in that speech, Biden argued that hearings on any potential Supreme Court nominee that year should be postponed until after the Election Day; Biden contested this interpretation of his 1992 speech. At the time, there was no vacancy, no nominee, no action taken, and the delay argued for was only until after the next president-elect was determined, and not as McConnell decided, until after the next president began his term.[14] Any version mentioning Biden or these arguments without the bolded text gets an Oppose from me. starship .paint ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In looking at the replies it I think it is important to note that many of the oppose replies include concerns that the non-bold text is also problematic. It would probably be important that any closing include a discussion not only of the bold text but the rest of the text as well. I personally don't see how any of this content directly supports the subsection were it is included. It seems like this is being shoehorned in based on current events vs because it supports the subheading. To be honest, it's not really clear what "Democracy" is supposed to mean in terms of this section. Springee ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The center-right and center-left concept should be introduced to this article and the Democratic Party article. There is no need to play around with words. Republican Party is right wing party. Stop all these nonsense 202.9.46.101 ( talk) 15:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
___ I second this
Gdeblois19 23:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
!It was discussed before and editors at the time decided not to include it. The main reason is that it is not an ideological party in the sense that it has stated principles to which members must adhere. So there have been both left-wing and far right politicians elected under the party banner. The other problem is that exact location in the linear political spectrum is subjective. It would be an extreme coincidence if the dividing line between left and right in the world lay where the Democratic and Republican parties met. ` TFD ( talk)
Should the text in bold (which provides a back-and-forth between Republicans and Biden on Garland) be included in the article: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
"Senate Republicans justified this move by pointing to a 1992 speech from then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden; in that speech, Biden argued that hearings on any potential Supreme Court nominee that year should be postponed until after the Election Day; Biden contested this interpretation of his 1992 speech. At the time, there was no vacancy, no nominee, no action taken, and the delay argued for was only until after the next president-elect was determined, and not as McConnell decided, until after the next president began his term.[22] Any version mentioning Biden or these arguments without the bolded text gets an Oppose from me. starship .paint ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In looking at the replies it I think it is important to note that many of the oppose replies include concerns that the non-bold text is also problematic. It would probably be important that any closing include a discussion not only of the bold text but the rest of the text as well. I personally don't see how any of this content directly supports the subsection were it is included. It seems like this is being shoehorned in based on current events vs because it supports the subheading. To be honest, it's not really clear what "Democracy" is supposed to mean in terms of this section. Springee ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
In all other developed nations on Earth, a party that conducts maneuvering to pull off a majority in the highest court, favors absolute or near absolute deference to an authoritarian-style president, denies of climate change science, practices established intolerance of certain groups and bashing of women's rights, has a primary base of mostly religious fundamentalist voters, amongst others things, would label such a party as far-right. Open for discussion on whether this should be added or not. 129.246.254.12 ( talk) 16:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21449634/republicans-supreme-court-gop-trump-authoritarian https://prospect.org/culture/books/how-the-right-went-far-right/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/16/gop-far-right-trump/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-there-are-so-few-moderate-republicans-left/ 2600:1003:B101:340C:20AA:8BBA:CCBC:6E2F ( talk) 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
TFD, here are a few academic sources to backup the claim that the GOP has shifted more to the far-right: https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/750/html?t=1∓cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email&iid=ddaa72fbb4b64454854fea56e6e2fc1b&uid=1188008143&nid=244+272699400 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2020.1749688 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/koch-network-and-republican-party-extremism/035F3D872B0CE930AF02D7706DF46EEE https://www.jstor.org/stable/41622724?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents 129.246.254.12 ( talk) 21:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Go4thProsper ( talk) 13:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that Trump's behaviour and mannerism over the current Presidential Elections really underscores the fundamental lack of respect for voter rights, media freedoms, and let alone democracy. As far as I am concerned, the US Republican Party is by definition a far-right party. Epicity95 ( talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
At least in my opinion, some republicans, such as Donald Trump are far right, some are center of right, such as Lisa Murkowski, and some are moderate, such as Mitt Romney. 72.134.116.163 ( talk) 21:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
After his clear defeat in the election of 2020, there were numerous examples of anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies by Trump: his behavior of not conceding to the incoming winner, not having his government assist with the incoming Biden transition, numerous examples promoting the idea of states that went for Biden should not be certifying the votes, or have state legislatures declare him the winner (illegally?), or have courts throw out state results. Several within the Republican Party either ignored or outright assisted in promoting his conspiracy theories about the election, and/or assisted him in his efforts to overturn the results. If none of this is an indication that the Republican Party, at least in 2020, was increasingly close to an authoritarian party, and definitely a far-right party, I don't know what other evidence we need to make this determination. And these new examples as of November 2020 obviously were not part of the V-Dem study. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/b6/55/b6553f85-5c5d-45ec-be63-a48a2abe3f62/briefing_paper_9.pdf Do we find examples of such behavior in other modern "democratic" parties, or in "authoritarian" ones? If we don't find similarities with other "democratic" parties, then I think the V-dem study has enough merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9196:99E2:946:C095:CAD7:3DC9 ( talk) 21:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I noticed that this party doesn't have a political position. I think that it would be best if it was "right-wing." According to a study by the New York Times, the party is further right than the UK Independence Party, France's National Rally, the Swedish Democrats and the Finns Party. All of these parties are listed as "right to far-right" when it comes to their political position, and I would describe the Republican Party under Trump as this. I think that Trump's beliefs are similar to that of the Polish party Pis' beliefs, and he is definitely on the right of the Republican Party. However, it is worth noting that the party has usually been left of Trump, so I would say that it would be best to put a historical political position of centre-right to right-wing. I think that the party has always been economically right of the standard centre-right main political party in most European countries. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html Dylan109 ( talk) 08:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I second this and the opinion expressed by the writer of "Under 'factions' in the infobox..." (please remember to sign your posts), and I think it's time to update the "Ideology" section of the infobox accordingly, considering the substantial shift further right under the current President's leadership. Specifically, to replace "libertarianism" with "liberal conservatism" and include "far-right politics" amongst one of its more extreme factions. Epicity95 ( talk) 10:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Ragusp: I don't think right-wing or left-wing should be included... The only difference between the two are which side of the aisle they sit on in congress. It just feeds small minds.
An editor keeps on deleting from the lede (along with other deletions) the fact that a politician is Republican. Can someone with experience, who may have an opinion one way or the other on this, take a look? Thanks. Talk:Walter Blackman -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:34ED:B275:BB1D:DF86 ( talk) 08:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this section [ [1]] has turned into a play by play section rather than something out of an encyclopedia. The 100 years of the 20th century section which includes such minor events as WW1, WW2, the cold war (and two associated hot wars), some civil rights stuff at home and probably an election or two, is shorter than the 20 years since the 21st century began. Not that I would discount the impacts of things like 911 or Trump's ability to stir people up but still, does the article really need that much current recent information? Not going to try to cull it myself, just asking. Springee ( talk) 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
RagusP: I agree. The wiki should show the history of how the party came to be. All the heroes of civil rights and such. This platform shouldn't lean against anyone one organization and show the WHOLE TRUTH.
The reference listed as #16 doesn't say anything about the statement preceding it but is just a Time magazine article on Teddy Roosevelt's switch or rather creation of the "Bull" party from the Republican party when he did not secure the Republican party nomination. Anyone know why it was used to support this statement: "After 1912, the Party underwent an ideological shift to the right." ? The statement may be true but the reference used to support certainly doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.18.101 ( talk) 15:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that the other flavors of conservatism have their own descriptors (social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, paleoconservatism, neoconservatism) it makes sense to describe the libertarians within the republican party as libertarian conservative than just libertarian. Left leaning/bleeding heart libertarians tend not to support the GOP and either retain independence or support democrats if they prioritize social liberalism over economic conservatism.
. Akg427 ( talk) 00:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Slavery was to remain in the South to appease the Democrats as to keep the country together and not start a war. I think this should be added into the first few paragraphs. Where the sentence states they were for keeping slavery in the South. They were not. They were anti-war and anti-slavery. As they are today.
Regarding the Wikipedia entry for "Southern Strategy", it's interesting that of the three references that are listed to support the following statement: "In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans." none really provide sufficient referral "proof" of that statement. The NYT article has no references listed to back up the idea, (and really, NYT?) and the book "Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-1965" does not mention anything at all about that. That leaves the #2 reference, the book "From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution" for which there's no reproduction of the page where the statement (concept?) can be verified, so it is considered non-supporting (in my world anyways). To me, this is just sloppy and doesn't belong in a work that is supposed to be about facts about historical happenings. There may well have been such a strategy but shouldn't the references actually show that to be true? I fail to see how the statement is supported outside of a NYT article, which does not cite any sources and another book whose page does not support anything about the strategy nor mention it in any way and a book whose references cannot be verified. At this point, this looks more like a conspiracy theory or based on rumors and the like and not an actual fact. I guess my question is: are there other resources that directly support this "strategy"? If so, why were they not included as references? Just asking, not saying it isn't/wasn't true. I am finding more of this as I go and actually check references whether they be here on Wikipedia or in books etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.18.101 ( talk) 16:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It's clear that in Trump's era, the Republican Party has become predominantly right-wing populist and NOT conservative.Many party leaders, instead of focusing on conservative principles, choose instead to go after liberal Democrats, showing their populism because they're creating an "other" side that is 100% pure evil that must be fought against no matter what. I say that we should move right-wing populism under "Majority" and move "Conservatism" under "Factions" because the conservative Republican officeholders (both former/current) are very few (like John Kasich and Mitt Romney) and usually less outspoken than the right-wing populists (due to the nature of populism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.238.64 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Republican Party (United States) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2402:3A80:10C2:ECC:991E:963A:2412:4C4F ( talk) 09:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose to change Harding's picture for that one, as the other presidents have just a head picture.-- 85.131.120.190 ( talk) 13:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Gallup published a 2020 update of those same stats.
As of May:
- Of Rep./lean Rep.: 61% are socially conservative, 28% socially moderate, 10% socially liberal; 65% economically conservative, 26% economically moderate, 7% economically liberal.
- Of Dem./lean Dem.: 14% are socially conservative, 38% socially moderate, 47% socially liberal; 18% economically conservative, 45% economically moderate, 37% economically liberal.
105.98.168.224 ( talk) 12:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Are we ever going to add Climate Change Denial to a list of ideologies? It's clearly prevalent - withdrawal from Climate Paris Accord, against climate tax, against cap & trade, against many environmental regulations involving carbon/methane emissions, W. Bush calling Al Gore "crazy" on global warming, Romney laughing at Obama for trying to slow the rates of sea level rise, & Trump calling the whole thing a hoax? Some 30-odd% of Americans don't think climate change has significant man-made contributions, and those are disproportionally almost all Republicans. Quintdamage ( talk) 18:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Quintdamage - It's mentioned under "Environmental policies".
WikiJoe24 ( talk) 00:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@(The OP) - Done.
WikiJoe24 ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead says "The party's 21st-century base of support includes people living in rural areas, men, the Silent Generation, and white evangelical Christians." Is it worth changing this, given that the Silent Generation is a decreasing portion of the population? Alternatively, it could say senior citizens/the elderly or similar which is more robust. Also the correlation is arguably somewhat overstated. thorpewilliam ( talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
According to a June 14-16, 2020 poll by The Economist/YouGov [1], Republicans rank news organizations trustworthiness as the following: Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, One America News (OAN), etc. Additionally, about 1/3 of Fox News viewers trust OANN. President Donald J Trump has even promoted OANN as a "great alternative" to Fox News in a tweet [2]. There is further evidence [3] of conservative media moguls' interest in OANN. Moreover, OANN correspondents are part of the news organizations that get seats in the White House briefing room. I'm not sure why Toa Nidhiki05 says adding OANN is "inflammatory" when it is part of the influential conservative online media outlets. Derschluessel ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Should liberalism be mentioned as a faction in the template? There remains a minority of liberal republicans today. [1] [2] thorpewilliam ( talk) 11:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I know you wikipedians are AOC worshippers, but trump did win, the democrats stole the elections, with the help of fake news websites like this one. 2A02:A03F:8B18:9300:41CF:F84F:7304:66D1 ( talk) 05:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The center-right and center-left concept should be introduced to this article and the Democratic Party article. There is no need to play around with words. Republican Party is right wing party. Stop all these nonsense 202.9.46.101 ( talk) 15:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
___ I second this
Gdeblois19 23:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
!It was discussed before and editors at the time decided not to include it. The main reason is that it is not an ideological party in the sense that it has stated principles to which members must adhere. So there have been both left-wing and far right politicians elected under the party banner. The other problem is that exact location in the linear political spectrum is subjective. It would be an extreme coincidence if the dividing line between left and right in the world lay where the Democratic and Republican parties met. ` TFD ( talk)
Should the text in bold (which provides a back-and-forth between Republicans and Biden on Garland) be included in the article: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
"Senate Republicans justified this move by pointing to a 1992 speech from then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden; in that speech, Biden argued that hearings on any potential Supreme Court nominee that year should be postponed until after the Election Day; Biden contested this interpretation of his 1992 speech. At the time, there was no vacancy, no nominee, no action taken, and the delay argued for was only until after the next president-elect was determined, and not as McConnell decided, until after the next president began his term.[14] Any version mentioning Biden or these arguments without the bolded text gets an Oppose from me. starship .paint ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In looking at the replies it I think it is important to note that many of the oppose replies include concerns that the non-bold text is also problematic. It would probably be important that any closing include a discussion not only of the bold text but the rest of the text as well. I personally don't see how any of this content directly supports the subsection were it is included. It seems like this is being shoehorned in based on current events vs because it supports the subheading. To be honest, it's not really clear what "Democracy" is supposed to mean in terms of this section. Springee ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The center-right and center-left concept should be introduced to this article and the Democratic Party article. There is no need to play around with words. Republican Party is right wing party. Stop all these nonsense 202.9.46.101 ( talk) 15:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
___ I second this
Gdeblois19 23:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
!It was discussed before and editors at the time decided not to include it. The main reason is that it is not an ideological party in the sense that it has stated principles to which members must adhere. So there have been both left-wing and far right politicians elected under the party banner. The other problem is that exact location in the linear political spectrum is subjective. It would be an extreme coincidence if the dividing line between left and right in the world lay where the Democratic and Republican parties met. ` TFD ( talk)
Should the text in bold (which provides a back-and-forth between Republicans and Biden on Garland) be included in the article: Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
"Senate Republicans justified this move by pointing to a 1992 speech from then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden; in that speech, Biden argued that hearings on any potential Supreme Court nominee that year should be postponed until after the Election Day; Biden contested this interpretation of his 1992 speech. At the time, there was no vacancy, no nominee, no action taken, and the delay argued for was only until after the next president-elect was determined, and not as McConnell decided, until after the next president began his term.[22] Any version mentioning Biden or these arguments without the bolded text gets an Oppose from me. starship .paint ( talk) 10:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In looking at the replies it I think it is important to note that many of the oppose replies include concerns that the non-bold text is also problematic. It would probably be important that any closing include a discussion not only of the bold text but the rest of the text as well. I personally don't see how any of this content directly supports the subsection were it is included. It seems like this is being shoehorned in based on current events vs because it supports the subheading. To be honest, it's not really clear what "Democracy" is supposed to mean in terms of this section. Springee ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
In all other developed nations on Earth, a party that conducts maneuvering to pull off a majority in the highest court, favors absolute or near absolute deference to an authoritarian-style president, denies of climate change science, practices established intolerance of certain groups and bashing of women's rights, has a primary base of mostly religious fundamentalist voters, amongst others things, would label such a party as far-right. Open for discussion on whether this should be added or not. 129.246.254.12 ( talk) 16:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21449634/republicans-supreme-court-gop-trump-authoritarian https://prospect.org/culture/books/how-the-right-went-far-right/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/16/gop-far-right-trump/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-there-are-so-few-moderate-republicans-left/ 2600:1003:B101:340C:20AA:8BBA:CCBC:6E2F ( talk) 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
TFD, here are a few academic sources to backup the claim that the GOP has shifted more to the far-right: https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/750/html?t=1∓cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email&iid=ddaa72fbb4b64454854fea56e6e2fc1b&uid=1188008143&nid=244+272699400 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2020.1749688 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/koch-network-and-republican-party-extremism/035F3D872B0CE930AF02D7706DF46EEE https://www.jstor.org/stable/41622724?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents 129.246.254.12 ( talk) 21:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Go4thProsper ( talk) 13:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that Trump's behaviour and mannerism over the current Presidential Elections really underscores the fundamental lack of respect for voter rights, media freedoms, and let alone democracy. As far as I am concerned, the US Republican Party is by definition a far-right party. Epicity95 ( talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
At least in my opinion, some republicans, such as Donald Trump are far right, some are center of right, such as Lisa Murkowski, and some are moderate, such as Mitt Romney. 72.134.116.163 ( talk) 21:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
After his clear defeat in the election of 2020, there were numerous examples of anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies by Trump: his behavior of not conceding to the incoming winner, not having his government assist with the incoming Biden transition, numerous examples promoting the idea of states that went for Biden should not be certifying the votes, or have state legislatures declare him the winner (illegally?), or have courts throw out state results. Several within the Republican Party either ignored or outright assisted in promoting his conspiracy theories about the election, and/or assisted him in his efforts to overturn the results. If none of this is an indication that the Republican Party, at least in 2020, was increasingly close to an authoritarian party, and definitely a far-right party, I don't know what other evidence we need to make this determination. And these new examples as of November 2020 obviously were not part of the V-Dem study. https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/b6/55/b6553f85-5c5d-45ec-be63-a48a2abe3f62/briefing_paper_9.pdf Do we find examples of such behavior in other modern "democratic" parties, or in "authoritarian" ones? If we don't find similarities with other "democratic" parties, then I think the V-dem study has enough merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9196:99E2:946:C095:CAD7:3DC9 ( talk) 21:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)