Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the new deal was a major expansion of the power of the federal government with mixed results. Interestingly enough it was under fdr that blacks began to vote dramatically for the democrats. The democrats then were far more racist than the gop at the time or even the gop today.
Let my clue you in to an aspect of human nature you should have learned in elementary school: When you insult someone, he feels insulted. That means he's less likely to support any of your other ideas, regardless of how good they may otherwise be.
The entire Republican party needs to relearn this basic lesson, I think.
They never will. It takes away from whatever they are proposing at the time. Obviously, it also turned off a large amount of voters.
When the leader if your party is Rush Limbaugh - I'm not sure why we would expect anything different from this group.
Hispanics aren't stupid. They know Fox News viewership skews heavily white and conservative, and the Fox News conflates Hispanic votes and people illegally crossing the border precisely because they know it validates the assumptions of their predominantly Republican-voting audience of Hispanics as law-breaking invaders and despoilers of 'Anglo culture'.
I don't expect the party as a whole to change much, but there might be hope for individual candidates in the GOP. The smartest thing that a singular republican candidate could do would be to go straight for the political center. Do it early. Do it often. Completely and unambiguously disavow the party's nonsense while still espousing what are probably the party's historically more appealing selling points. There was once a time when a republican president Ike Eisenhower struck a reasonable balance between advocating state's rights while simultaneously respecting the federal courts and understood clearly the effects of the civil rights movement that was beginning to take place during his term. There was a time when Republican presidents advocated enlightened policies, such as creating the state of the art interstate highway system, and the Environmental Protection Agency. There was a time when Republicans actually advocated fiscal responsibility. There was a time when republicans and conservatives actually had some intellect and could intellectually defend their ideas.
There is none of that evident in the republican party of today. All we have is a party that believes that women were better off in the Victorian Era; that Blacks were better off under slavery; that Exclusion Acts of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries should be revived today; that the era in which banking panics occurred once every 15 years was America's greatest period of economic advancement; and worst of all, a party that picks and chooses the science that it wants to believe in. I cannot vote republican until I see the tea party and the religious right expelled from the party.
Republicans would do well to discredit Fox News; to distance itself from polarizing characters such as Rush Limbaugh. They cannot win national elections legitimately otherwise -- I do emphasize the word legitimately. They can always tinker with the courts, and they can always tinker with statewide voting rules, and I'm sure they'll continue to work feverishly toward those ends. I don't think it's a winner in the long-run though. Like it or not, "their America," is being replaced by a more multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multi-polar one. And they're just going to have to deal with it.
I don't expect the party as a whole to change much, but there might be hope for individual candidates in the GOP. The smartest thing that a singular republican candidate could do would be to go straight for the political center. Do it early. Do it often. Completely and unambiguously disavow the party's nonsense while still espousing what are probably the party's historically more appealing selling points. There was once a time when a republican president Ike Eisenhower struck a reasonable balance between advocating state's rights while simultaneously respecting the federal courts and understood clearly the effects of the civil rights movement that was beginning to take place during his term. There was a time when Republican presidents advocated enlightened policies, such as creating the state of the art interstate highway system, and the Environmental Protection Agency. There was a time when Republicans actually advocated fiscal responsibility. There was a time when republicans and conservatives actually had some intellect and could intellectually defend their ideas.
There is none of that evident in the republican party of today. All we have is a party that believes that women were better off in the Victorian Era; that Blacks were better off under slavery; that Exclusion Acts of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries should be revived today; that the era in which banking panics occurred once every 15 years was America's greatest period of economic advancement; and worst of all, a party that picks and chooses the science that it wants to believe in. I cannot vote republican until I see the tea party and the religious right expelled from the party.
Republicans would do well to discredit Fox News; to distance itself from polarizing characters such as Rush Limbaugh. They cannot win national elections legitimately otherwise -- I do emphasize the word legitimately. They can always tinker with the courts, and they can always tinker with statewide voting rules, and I'm sure they'll continue to work feverishly toward those ends. I don't think it's a winner in the long-run though. Like it or not, "their America," is being replaced by a more multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multi-polar one. And they're just going to have to deal with it.
For those too young to remember, the Federal response to Little Rock school crisis occured under Ike, and Nixon tried to work with Congress on a NHC plan. Bush I brought in ADA, Bush II NCLB. RR had struck a deal with PATCO offering raises, and they betrayed his trust via their strike. "Shining City on the Hill" was hardly in sync with the angry, insurgent TP.
We need at minimum two viable parties for POTUS, and when the GOP averages just 203 electoral over 6 tries, with a peak 286, 46 below the lowest winning Dem of said era, we lack a 2nd viable party for the POTUS.
Whether we call Obama's 332 a electoral "shellacking", "landslide", etc..the scary stat for the GOP is in 3 of the l 6 elections, the Democrat has won a few dozen MORE electoral votes.
LOL...this might be the most amazing thing i've ever seen posted on C-D. I mean, i know that you're on a mission to say something more outrageous than you last said...that's obvious. But you're getting into territory that is starting to bring your sanity into question.
"Sore winner" is oxymoronic. And there's no hatred of the Right. We simply want to dispense of them. Then we can get on with universal healthcare, combating climate change and exploring alternative fuel sources.
You want to "dispense" of people but don't hate them? Sorry, you can't just "dispense" of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
The institutions that are moving the world economy forward are in Blue States. Sorry, but Sewanee is no match for Yale, Caltech, M.I.T. and Stanford.
Yeah, and there are plenty of better schools than Sewanee in red states. Anyway... BTW, take a look at all the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in red states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
We don't need T. Boone Pickens. We'll just take our software developers, scientists, engineers, architects, medical researchers, etc. You know, all of the people that develop the technology we all depend on.
Romney won those with Bachelor's degrees (most architects, some engineers, plenty of software developers, etc. just have Bachelor's degrees). Obama won the high school dropouts by a larger margin than he won those with advanced degrees by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Red states take more than they put in. Period. Yet they're constantly complaining about being overtaxed.
No, it's not "period." The largest red state (TX) sends more than it gets back. Period. TX is not the only red state that does this.
Take a look at the list in the right box of your link. #1 - New Mexico. That's a blue state. #2 - West Virginia. A red state in presidential elections, but the state is run by Democrats. #4 - DC. #5 - Hawaii. #10 - Maine. So 50% of the states taking the most are blue or primarily run by Democrats.
Anyway, this is way off topic.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 11-22-2012 at 10:43 PM..
This post makes a great point. Why are these things bad to some people?
The point of this thread is not to debate liberalism vs. conservatism. It's to determine what's keeping minorities who may be conservative on many or most issues from voting Republican more. It's not to determine what's keeping liberals - be they minority or white - from voting Republican.
See theres the problem OP. You try to make light of such comments as is often done by the GOP leadership. Now after you make light of them I as an minority am none to happy that you did. Along comes a Democrat like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who then says something like this "these comments are deeply offensive and racist". "There is no place for that mindset in my party".
A strong forceful rejection of such thinking is what we get from a White Democrat. A lukewarm at best half defense of the comments is what Republicans offer us,and then you say why oh why.
You are right. Thank you for your post.
Supporters or politicians who make racist comments need to be rebuked by the party leadership firmly and swiftly.
As a registered Democrat and a member of a 'minority' - an American Buddhist of Eurasian descent and a gay man - there is a Republican I would have voted for: Huntsman.
I am not against the GOP sticking true to it's core ideology of fiscal conservatism, I am after all a businessman, property owner, and landlord. I have reservations about Obama's Affordable Care Act, but in general I do support the idea of healthcare availability for all Americans as I have friends and relatives who are amongst the nearly 50,000,000 uninsured. The anti-gay rhetoric of most of the Republican Party disgusts me though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those too young to remember, the Federal response to Little Rock school crisis occured under Ike, and Nixon tried to work with Congress on a NHC plan. Bush I brought in ADA, Bush II NCLB. RR had struck a deal with PATCO offering raises, and they betrayed his trust via their strike. "Shining City on the Hill" was hardly in sync with the angry, insurgent TP.
