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.
They didn't exactly run champions of social conservatism in 2008, 2012 I mean seriously Mitt Romney, because nothing says social conservative like Massachusetts politician especially one who goes on the record as strongly pro-choice. On the other hand when they ran Bush Jr. they electrified the Christian right and won their only 2 victories since 1988.
The fact is that the GOP needs social conservatives a whole lot more then they need libertarians and big business. You know from my posting history that I am pretty liberal, but I do think that a socially conservative, economically populist message would give the Republicans their best shot. Compassionate conservatism does better then objectivism at the voting booth.
Hogwash. GOP is the smallest voting block. Want POTUS-simple, win 3 of the 19 states blue since 1988, states like Ct and NJ. That will not happen by running a pitchfork social conservative. If they ran one, they would likely lose the House, lose 60 plus Senate seats, and lose 400 electoral votes.
The GOP conveniently overlooks that as the TINY group, with Independents first, Dems 2nd, they must outperform the Dems at crossover votes from each of those 2..vastly outperform.
What should scare the daylights out of winning with Bush is Va was not solid blue yet, as it is now, and still, against 2 cadavers they got just 286 and 271. The Dems worst during their 4 wins was over 50 electoral votes higher.
Also, People with your thought process were the same people that tried to fight the civil rights movement.
It was Democrats that fought the civil rights movement. I think you're confused. You don't know your history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky4life
We all know how that ended. I hate a lot of he changes that have taken place in my lifetime, but allowing everyone to sit at the table is not one of them. What I find absolutely hilarious is that someone like yourself would even have the marbles to bring up words like "freedom" or "liberty." Your views fall more in line with "dictating" and "oppressing." You people are so hypocritical that it's mind numbing. It's as if you never once in your entire life sat down and really thought about any of this stuff. You simply were put on a path that you failed to ever question.
You are mixed up. "Dictating and oppressing" is what the Democrats under Barack Obama are doing.
I know a lot of fiscally conservative/socially liberal people who wold be republican if they would stay out of people's bedrooms. Instead they are libertarian.
how come in the white Yuppie/Gentrified parts of NYC democrats always win elections big even though the Republicans are extreme social liberals?
It was Democrats that fought the civil rights movement. I think you're confused. You don't know your history.
It was SOUTHERN Jim Crow loving Democrats that fought the civil rights movement.
Much more accurate. Party had squat to do with it, this same lowlife demographic happily left the Democrats after the Voting Rights Act passed. They are the core of the poverty stricken rural Southeastern GOP base. In 50 years, their grandkids, raised to hate ed-u-ma-ca-tion as much as granny did, will be even more poverty stricken.
It was SOUTHERN Jim Crow loving Democrats that fought the civil rights movement.
Much more accurate. Party had squat to do with it, this same lowlife demographic happily left the Democrats after the Voting Rights Act passed. They are the core of the poverty stricken rural Southeastern GOP base. In 50 years, their grandkids, raised to hate ed-u-ma-ca-tion as much as granny did, will be even more poverty stricken.
And even more accurately, almost every one of the southern democrats that voted against the civil rights act remained democrats and never did join the gop
And even more accurately, almost every one of the southern democrats that voted against the civil rights act remained democrats and never did join the gop
True of the pols, but the people living in rural portions of the South did shift to the party more supportive of Jim Crow, and today those regions are farther behind their more progressive urban regions economically than ever before.
Their true enemy was never what they thought. It was, and is, an inability to adapt to the century they live in.
It was SOUTHERN Jim Crow loving Democrats that fought the civil rights movement.
Much more accurate. Party had squat to do with it, this same lowlife demographic happily left the Democrats after the Voting Rights Act passed. They are the core of the poverty stricken rural Southeastern GOP base. In 50 years, their grandkids, raised to hate ed-u-ma-ca-tion as much as granny did, will be even more poverty stricken.
only 1 democrat who voted against the civil rights act of 1964 switched parties.
Robert Byrd was there to vote for Obamacare, Al Gore SR. was another one of those who voted against it.
I think people are (becoming) fine with homosexuality. I'll even buy the argument that it is normal and not a choice. What is not normal and is a choice is the over the top effeminate behavior displayed by many homosexual men.
That will hold back the mainstream acceptance - though there will always be those trumping the religious card. Well, I really don't give a sht what people's religions tell them bc last I checked, we had a separation of church and state. Would we want Muslims telling all females they need to cover their faces? No. So get off the religious angle.
I don't care what or who someone wants to do in their bedroom. Not my business and I don't care. But if you want to act like some sort of over the top freak (think jack from will & grace) then don't be surprised when you are treated as such. Most groups have a negative stereotype associated with them that holds some truth. In today's world, discrimination isn't as prevalent toward the broader group, but rather the sub segment that chooses to reinforce those stereotypes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs
Homosexuality is not an "idea" or "ideology" to be promoted. It is natural. Deal with it.
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.
