Why did the Republican Party get so small in California? (Los Angeles: sales, mortgages)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ysr_racer

I'll ask again, how many of you are willing to host an immigrant family? And before you start spewing about service to your country, post up your DD214 and I'll post mine.

What’s hosting an immigrant family have to do with military service?

You sure post a lot of non-sequiturs.

Here’s a better idea about earning citizenship that does relate:

No one should be granted automatic citizenship by birthright. Not if you are born here. Not if your parents are citizens.

Children of citizens, or born on U.S. soil would be granted a “path-right to citizenship” which has to be earned through some form of service to the country. Military service would be one, but so could participating in litter patrols verified over time. Any form of registered, long-term participation in supporting civic benefits would do. Tutoring school kids is just as important as shooting bad guys in jungles and deserts (if not more so).

Thus, ysr, if you served in the military, you’d be eligible to take and pass a citizenship test - say, based on also demonstrating some basic grasp of how our country is structured constitutionally. That sort of thing.

I’m all for it and been saying so since about my own military years.

There are ten’s of millions of wonderful American citizens. There are ten’s of millions who are leeches and have never contributed a damn thing for the benefits they enjoy and their right to vote. There are millions of hard-working immigrants and foreigners who would value the opportunity to contribute to our society to prove their worth.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

The shrinking of Republican influence in CA has been going on for decades. I don't think it is about fiscal issues or size-of-government issues or role-of-government issues.



From my perspective, more and more Californians are socially liberal compared to solidly Republican states - for example, more are in favor of gay marriage, LBGTQ rights, abortion rights, regulation of firearms, and the like.



This dates back to at least the 1960s; California was home to the sexual revolution, to the anti-war movement, and to the college free speech movement, for example.



Republicans have tied themselves to traditional Southern Religious cohort and to the traditional family values cohort in their tent to get enough voting people to matter. In large part, that sub-group tends not to be socially liberal.



Personally, I'd be in favor of a fiscally responsible, socially liberal party. If Democrats shifted to become fiscally responsible while keeping the socially liberal stance, I think they would run the table.

i am registered GOP..socially liberal but fiscal conservative..i dont really care about those LGBT issues as long as it doesnt hurt my pocket

deficit, federal debt, these are the issues that matter..but it seems they only matter to the GOP political class when they are not in power or during elections. once they are in power..everything is forgotten

like the tax cuts..i mean, you have a debt to pay and you cut taxes? and then you increase spending?

thats not responsible government

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by semispherical

If the Republicans would go back to their traditional stance of being the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, they'd get more traction in diverse, non-gerrymandered states like CA. Instead, what the Republicans are peddling as their current party platform is a combination of scary assaults on the civil rights of anyone who's not a straight white Christian male, unraveling even the minimum social safety net we have in this country (started with the ACA and are now working on dismantling the Great Society and New Deal programs), removing even modest environmental protections -- including pretending, ostrich-like, that global warming doesn't exist while CA goes up in smoke, and enriching the already fabulously wealthy with more tax advantages while the above-mentioned goal of fiscal responsibility get kicked to the curb. And don't get me started on the crazy and disruptive international maneuvers.

So gosh, what's not to love?

Honestly, most of that is exaggerated or just BS Democrat talking points that people believe because they are repeated over and over again in the universities and most mainstream media outlets.

I will agree that the Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility they claim to be. Unfortunately, I don't find Democrats to be any better.

And quite honestly, I kind of find all this talk about political parties to be a bit of a moot point. There are several layers of power that lie beyond the political system, anyway. President Eisenhower, a Republican, warned about 'the military industrial complex'. People think that just means tanks and guns and wars in foreign lands, but it encompasses so much more. So. Much. More.

President Kennedy, a Democrat, warned about secret societies, yet people still deny them and scoff at 'conspiracy theorists'.

I wonder when people will wake up and start seeing how manipulated our world really is.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

i am registered GOP..socially liberal but fiscal conservative..i dont really care about those LGBT issues as long as it doesnt hurt my pocket

deficit, federal debt, these are the issues that matter..but it seems they only matter to the GOP political class when they are not in power or during elections. once they are in power..everything is forgotten

like the tax cuts..i mean, you have a debt to pay and you cut taxes? and then you increase spending?

That's not responsible government

I couldn't agree more.

I really think America is doomed. I really don't think most people have a clue as to how corrupt things really are under the surface--and I think most people are afraid to really find out. So we argue about which politicla party is the lesser evil. It's safe and it makes us feel better about ourselves and our 'tribe'. But it ultimately accomplishes nothing. It reveals nothing. It's just a method used by elites to divert and distract us from all the corruption going on.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

They had been helping xyz country with infrastructure, education, etc., but a funny thing happened on the way to foreign aid; Newt Gingrich and his Holy Rollers back in the mid-90's slashed the foreign aid budget to the point of throwing the institutions tasked with distributing foreign aid, --what are called the "area foundations", like Asia Foundation, Inter-America Foundation, Africa Foundation--, on the mercy of charitable foundations like Ford, McArthur, etc. The Gingrich Congress cut them off and sent them begging. Their projects are now paid for by generous Dem and Repub business sponsorships and individual donations, as well as private grants.

And you keep ignoring the fact that it was the Republicans who were all for importing cheap labor illegally from Mexico, and got Reagan's support. (Please review thread for details.)

So again, I need to point out, that your issues are matters to be taken up with your own Party leadership. All you succeed in doing by playing your broken records, is demonstrating how uninformed you are about the issues your raise.

Good points! ...And let's not forget how the Religious Right -- under George W. Bush -- pressured the federal government to cut funding of birth control measures from foreign aid and foreign development.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What’s hosting an immigrant family have to do with military service?

You sure post a lot of non-sequiturs.

Here’s a better idea about earning citizenship that does relate:

No one should be granted automatic citizenship by birthright. Not if you are born here. Not if your parents are citizens.

Children of citizens, or born on U.S. soil would be granted a “path-right to citizenship” which has to be earned through some form of service to the country. Military service would be one, but so could participating in litter patrols verified over time. Any form of registered, long-term participation in supporting civic benefits would do. Tutoring school kids is just as important as shooting bad guys in jungles and deserts (if not more so).

Thus, ysr, if you served in the military, you’d be eligible to take and pass a citizenship test - say, based on also demonstrating some basic grasp of how our country is structured constitutionally. That sort of thing.

I’m all for it and been saying so since about my own military years.

There are ten’s of millions of wonderful American citizens. There are ten’s of millions who are leeches and have never contributed a damn thing for the benefits they enjoy and their right to vote. There are millions of hard-working immigrants and foreigners who would value the opportunity to contribute to our society to prove their worth.

Hey Mutt, I agree with you regarding citizenship. I’d like to see it earned.

What benefits would being a citizen bestow? The right to vote? Something else?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

IHey Mutt, I agree with you regarding citizenship. I’d like to see it earned.

What benefits would being a citizen bestow? The right to vote? Something else?

Same benefits we have now, sure.
Right to vote.
Protections and aid when travelling in foreign countries.
Right to run for/hold public office.
... to petition the government / protest.

Maybe some restrictions for non-citizens to types of property ownership (real estate).
... possibly restrict some kinds of business ownerships.

Not sure about those two last ... debate and study required ... but rationales may exist.

Born a “resident” ... “citizenship” earned.

Some regular forum contributors like to assign me “liberal status”, to extremes. Socialist, communist labels have been applied. But I am considered otherwise by numerous folks who know me better than here. Huge fan of state rights and restricted federal reach. Hard on immigration. Dead against birthright citizenship. *shrug*.

I’m not sure America can endure under the direction of federal reach we have evolved. Too big a country and too diverse. Much bettr we should reconfigure states into several commonwealths of states ... the sum of which cooperate in the larger federation for defense and trade and economic security benefits. We have deep regional differences that go ideologically different ways. Better to honor that than try to conform everyone.

But who would listen to a highschool dropout retired printer, eh?

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

Good points! ...And let's not forget how the Religious Right -- under George W. Bush -- pressured the federal government to cut funding of birth control measures from foreign aid and foreign development.

For the record, I strongly objected to that cut. Look at the exploding population in one part of the world in particular. Disastrous.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

For the record, I strongly objected to that cut. Look at the exploding population in one part of the world in particular. Disastrous.

I'm sure you did. I actually like a lot of your posts and I'm certain you're fairly well-educated.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by semispherical

what the Republicans are peddling as their current party platform is a combination of scary assaults on the civil rights of anyone who's not a straight white Christian male, unraveling even the minimum social safety net we have in this country (started with the ACA and are now working on dismantling the Great Society and New Deal programs), removing even modest environmental protections -- including pretending, ostrich-like, that global warming doesn't exist while CA goes up in smoke, and enriching the already fabulously wealthy with more tax advantages while the above-mentioned goal of fiscal responsibility get kicked to the curb.

Along with those issues, attempts to restrict reproductive rights and a lack of more reasonable gun control laws are pretty much why the Republican party has gotten so small in California.