Talk:Republicrat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pejorative ?[edit]

If "Republicrat" is putatively pejorative, then what is the neutral word? Is it possible that the billions of $ of propaganda spent boosting the major parties and avoiding the idea they are both corrupt and avoiding the word obscures the use of the word both by critics of the duopoly and neutral commentators? The parties could use the word, but the concept embarrasses them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.54.198 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Use[edit]

I'd like to know who first used this term. Was it Nader?

I rather doubt Nader adopted it from Savage, and also doubt that Savage invented it. It's a rather obvious portmanteau construction that could occur to anybody. In fact see this net.politics.theory usenet post from 1985: [1]Schizombie 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have been using this term to describe myself since sometime in the 70's, and I presume that there were very many before me. However my definition (my word, as far as I knew) is quite different from what I read here. Rather than being pejorative and describing how both parties are the same, it was meant to take the best elements of each, IMHO. In my view, it advocates - in order of priority 1) strong defense, 2) fiscally conservative and small government, 3) high personal liberty (socially liberal) without excessive laws and government intrusion, trying to mold society. The founders believed in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", which both the Democrats and Republicans seem to often forget as government creeps more and more into our private lives. Security, Infrastructure and Freedom are basically all I want from government. I'm a Republicrat. I believe that I am not alone, and that a party with these principles could be very popular, gathering the centrist members of both parties. But I'm not a student of government or politics, and I don't know the history and ramifications. I'd welcome suggestions on how to get this viewpoint incorporated into the article. CDBTH3000 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LibLabCon Redirect?[edit]

Amerocentric much? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republicrat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]