Reply With Quote
The lib s here just don't get it, and I doubt they ever will.
This thread delivers.
The lib s here just don't get it, and I doubt they ever will.
There is one. They're called Libertarians!
An atheist would never win the presidency in today's America.
hopefully Ron Paul's "Revolution" will help shake up the party
Playing the 'but we have a token black guy' card...but...but...Demos have a black guy as President...there you go..
The OP does have a minor point though.
It seems this modern version of the Republican party stands for extreme intolerance. The disgusting videos of the McCain/Palin rallies sums up the Republican party nicely. And it's why they lost miserably and are a minority party now after having complete control a few short years ago.
It's been growing that way for a long time, it's just that previous GOP candidates have done a better job of keep a lid on it from the media....blame talk-radio, they've alienated the sane members of their own party and emboldened the ideological hacks...
You're insane if you think the Republican party of 1860 is the same party as it is in 2008. it's not even the same party it was in 1960 that it is today.
As for your second thread...that maybe true. But the Democrats have the first black President....period. That point you make is moot...and I don't think anyone...not 50 years ago or now would have ever even considered the Republican party to have the first minority President.
20 years ago if you asked someone if the Republican party would ever have a minority as their Presidential candidate they'd laugh in your face. The same holds true now...I doubt the Republican party will ever have a minority Presidential candidate.
I'll be the front runner in 2012.
Could you have found a worse picture for your Romney troll?
No, I think that, like any political party of this age, the Republican party is made of factions. There are tons of one-issue voters, perhaps a majority of the electorate, though there are many issues and "that" issue may change for individuals over the course of several elections. A good 1/3 or even 1/2 of the Republican party maintains its loyalty because of its stances on gay marriage and abortion. Those same people were probably (imho) the same 25% of the electorate that continued to believe that Obama was a Muslim up until election day. I don't think that the three issues are in any way connected other than by a general Evangelical or Catholic identification with them.
There is an increasingly small (but still notable) subset of the above people which put anti-terrorism and ever-increased defense spending into their personal credos. This subset is almost perfectly overlapped with gun rights/hunter types.
Another one-issue group that is strong within the Republican base is the anti-immigration group, which doesn't always correspond to the above "social issues" Republican caucus.
The rest of the Republicans are likely libertarians and libertarian-lites, who believe very firmly in an Adam Smith-style "totally free market TM", and genuinely think that unshackling our economy from its governmental connections will result in increased productivity. They want to return to Goldwater as much as Reagan, and generally disavow the social conservative focus. Tend to be socially moderate or even socially liberal themselves, but not always.
The corporate wing of the Republican party and its lobbies tends to agree with the libertarians, but methinks some in this smaller (but obviously powerful) group do so with a bit of an alterior motive - greed and exploitation.
Democrats fall into their own categories as well - there are the Minority groups like African Americans and Native Americans that pretty much vote straight-ticket Democrat. African Americans have been doing this pretty much since the Southern Strategy effectively flopped the last remaining civil rights vestiges from the Republican party.
Then there are the Euro-Idealists (of which I would admit I am one). They believe more in Social Democracy. They see a "Totally Free Market TM" as having led to all of the negative developments for the working class, and that GINI coefficients (disparity between rich and poor) increase dramatically with decreasing government intervention. They point to the libertarians that upward mobility in this country is worse than all but two of the OECD countries and existing wealth centralizations ABOVE income level tends to mute any positive actions a theoretical free market meritocracy would have.
Then there are the Democratic special interests, which tend to be more diverse: The solar and wind energy buffs, the We-don't-actually-have-a-solution environmentalists, and the more knowledgeable environmentalists. The pro-choice lobby is well-monied and sometimes scarily close to actually being pro-abortion. The gay rights lobby is also pretty strong and key. There are also the anti-war activists.
Then there are the Unions, which tend to be blue-collar whites. Other blue-collar whites who are not in unions or are unemployed tend to sometimes follow the lead of the Union group.
Nearly all of the above groups agree on Universal Health Care (over 90% of registered Democrats and Liberals want it, based on studies).
I think that these are the best generalizations I could come up with, and while I am quite liberal, I understand the desires and ideals of the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but I simply think that the ideal is based on a series of false premises dealing with the underlying inequalities in humanity that make hard work NOT correlate directly with better rewards.
The religious zealotry of the first part of the Republican base is the most disturbing aspect of the political process, as they are unable to comprehend the fact that separation of church and state was meant to PROTECT religious minorities as much as anything (including smaller Christian groups). That being said, I think that there is a VERY reasonable non-religious argument to be made against Abortion.
No one will read this all the way, but I..damn....this is my third post. I'm starting out WAY too pretentious.Eh. Okay.
bro u r beyond insane if u think this is the same democrat party of hold. you mindless sheep have been hijacked by extreme liberals and marxists
I don't think it's the same democrat party either. Not by a whole of alot. But the fact is for the most part since 1960 the Democratic party has stayed relatively stable while the Republican party has been hijacked by the christian right and evangelicals.
Some of us read all the way, and as a new poster we appreciate your comprehensive introduction...No, I think that, like any political party of this age, the Republican party is made of factions. There are tons of one-issue voters, perhaps a majority of the electorate, though there are many issues and "that" issue may change for individuals over the course of several elections. A good 1/3 or even 1/2 of the Republican party maintains its loyalty because of its stances on gay marriage and abortion. Those same people were probably (imho) the same 25% of the electorate that continued to believe that Obama was a Muslim up until election day. I don't think that the three issues are in any way connected other than by a general Evangelical or Catholic identification with them.
There is an increasingly small (but still notable) subset of the above people which put anti-terrorism and ever-increased defense spending into their personal credos. This subset is almost perfectly overlapped with gun rights/hunter types.
Another one-issue group that is strong within the Republican base is the anti-immigration group, which doesn't always correspond to the above "social issues" Republican caucus.
The rest of the Republicans are likely libertarians and libertarian-lites, who believe very firmly in an Adam Smith-style "totally free market TM", and genuinely think that unshackling our economy from its governmental connections will result in increased productivity. They want to return to Goldwater as much as Reagan, and generally disavow the social conservative focus. Tend to be socially moderate or even socially liberal themselves, but not always.
The corporate wing of the Republican party and its lobbies tends to agree with the libertarians, but methinks some in this smaller (but obviously powerful) group do so with a bit of an alterior motive - greed and exploitation.
Democrats fall into their own categories as well - there are the Minority groups like African Americans and Native Americans that pretty much vote straight-ticket Democrat. African Americans have been doing this pretty much since the Southern Strategy effectively flopped the last remaining civil rights vestiges from the Republican party.
Then there are the Euro-Idealists (of which I would admit I am one). They believe more in Social Democracy. They see a "Totally Free Market TM" as having led to all of the negative developments for the working class, and that GINI coefficients (disparity between rich and poor) increase dramatically with decreasing government intervention. They point to the libertarians that upward mobility in this country is worse than all but two of the OECD countries and existing wealth centralizations ABOVE income level tends to mute any positive actions a theoretical free market meritocracy would have.
Then there are the Democratic special interests, which tend to be more diverse: The solar and wind energy buffs, the We-don't-actually-have-a-solution environmentalists, and the more knowledgeable environmentalists. The pro-choice lobby is well-monied and sometimes scarily close to actually being pro-abortion. The gay rights lobby is also pretty strong and key. There are also the anti-war activists.
Then there are the Unions, which tend to be blue-collar whites. Other blue-collar whites who are not in unions or are unemployed tend to sometimes follow the lead of the Union group.
Nearly all of the above groups agree on Universal Health Care (over 90% of registered Democrats and Liberals want it, based on studies).
I think that these are the best generalizations I could come up with, and while I am quite liberal, I understand the desires and ideals of the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but I simply think that the ideal is based on a series of false premises dealing with the underlying inequalities in humanity that make hard work NOT correlate directly with better rewards.
The religious zealotry of the first part of the Republican base is the most disturbing aspect of the political process, as they are unable to comprehend the fact that separation of church and state was meant to PROTECT religious minorities as much as anything (including smaller Christian groups). That being said, I think that there is a VERY reasonable non-religious argument to be made against Abortion.
No one will read this all the way, but I..damn....this is my third post. I'm starting out WAY too pretentious.
What is your bases for this opinion? Was Clinton a 'extreme marxist and "liberal"' or are you just talking out of your right-wing radio ass again?
Medicaid, Social Security.
The big bad "socialist" things that Republicans gnash their teeth over.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
