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 Republican party should be listed as a hate group. The hate gays, and transgendered, women, mexicans, blacks, abortions, welfare and anyone who isn't an ignorant christian. In that order.
The Demonrats hate guns, republicans, police, truth, anyone with money except themself, and are godless commie socialists who will be easily slaughtered by the tyrants they elect to power.
There, I think that covers it.
You are totally wrong about the Republican party. Not to desire a "traditional" marriage for gays is not akin to hating them. To be pro-life is not akin to hating women. To be anti-illegal immigration is not akin to hating Mexicans. To oppose anyone receiving welfare no matter what their skin color is that can work is not akin to hate either. Ignorant Chrisitian? Now just who's the hater here? Look in the mirror.
The GOP has become the party that TR worried about in 1905. It is one that is driven by Cons, and large corporations controlled by wealthy 1%.
Demoncrats are in the same boat. Hillary makes 500k per speech and took millions from terrorist countries and corporate America. Both parties are bought and paid for. The difference is liberals refuse to acknowledge it.
In order for the Republican Party, which was formed in 1854 to shoot down slavery, to 100 years later become the new party of the Southerners who had always been Democrats and fought to keep slavery, then fought to keep segregation? And in order for the Democratic Party, which once was the party of Southerners and the racist party, to be the party all minorities (and clearly the most liberal whites) were represented by?
Also, are white Democrats from the South today (such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Mitch Landrieu, etc) the children of the original Southern (white) Republicans (who at one time were lynched, as were African Americans), OR are they sons of racists who instead of changing parties to continue on the racist path, came to their senses and made peace with African Americans as did northern Democrats (and most other Americans from the 1920s through 1950s, Southerners included, but the process of racial reconciliation in the South was long and painful)?
As for Mitch Landrieu, is he a Democrat not from personal principles but as an opportunist, because his city (New Orleans) is overwhelmingly African American and in today's world, Democratic? Is it possible Landrieu's father was a Democrat to fit in with other white Southerners, but stayed a Democrat (and raised two offspring to be Democratic politicians) past the Civil Rights era only because white flight happened from New Orleans, thus the city rapidly went from being dominated by conservative Democrats to being dominated by liberal Democrats, thus he could stay in power? (as long as he won the Democratic primaries)
Your problem is assuming that there's nothing to life but race. Contrary to your assumption, there are more issues in play than racism.
The South is the most religious section of the nation. Democrats oppose religious freedom. The South is right-to-work. Democrats support labor unions. The South is full of hunters and other gun enthusiasts. Democrats support gun control. The South has a long tradition of highly valuing military service. Democrats oppose military spending. The South is the most anti-illegal immigration region of the country. Democrats oppose securing the border.
The South has never been liberal as liberalism is understood in modern society. The South was Democrat back when both the Republicans and the Democrats were right wing by modern standards. The Republican/Democrat split up until the 1960s was more along the lines of the internal Republican division between establishment Republicans and limited government Republicans today, such as the difference between Rand Paul and John Boehner.
The GOP has changed markedly over the past 25 years or so. It's been largely taken over by the low-info religious right. They darn well should have listened to Barry goldwater, who warned them of exactly what would happen.
It's why I now oppose the GOP after voting Republican for decades.
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.â€
I agree, to a point, that Goldwater was right. I've never liked the increasing emphasis on social issues at the expense of fiscal sanity, limited government, and respect for the Constitution.
Unfortunately, I have yet to be convinced that despite my distaste for the fundamentalist wing of the party the Democrats are better for the country on the whole.
I was hopeful that the Tea Party wouldn't be overrun with the social conservatives distorting its initial message. Looks like that was misplaced.
So I remain a registered Republican to keep on voting in primaries for the occasional candidate who is more focused on fiscal issues and less on social ones.
Perhaps Roe V. Wade was a tipping point in this process as the Supreme Court noticed a previously undiscovered implied individual right to in privacy to go along with the Court`s unwritten implied power to rewrite laws.
I don't know if the Roe v Wade decision itself had anything to do with it, but it very much disturbs me (someone neutral on abortion) that Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinic operators in many states are now allowed to ban protesters from marching within a certain distance of the premises (a distance that extends beyond the property itself). It's ironic that abortion providers and their powerful lobbyists preach "reproductive freedom" and "reproductive rights" but oppose free speech.
And I am very disturbed that the gay rights movement has usurped every sphere of American life (cities have officially-designated "gayborhoods", public schools have a "day of silence", the Democratic Party has sworn to protect homosexuality, etc). As a person with libertarian beliefs, I'm not anti-gay, I couldn't care less what people do in their bedrooms, but it's disturbing that government institutions are trying to force everyone into adopting the beliefs of the Sexual Revolution.
Other than these two feelings, I am quite liberal.
I agree, to a point, that Goldwater was right. I've never liked the increasing emphasis on social issues at the expense of fiscal sanity, limited government, and respect for the Constitution.
Unfortunately, I have yet to be convinced that despite my distaste for the fundamentalist wing of the party the Democrats are better for the country on the whole.
I was hopeful that the Tea Party wouldn't be overrun with the social conservatives distorting its initial message. Looks like that was misplaced.
So I remain a registered Republican to keep on voting in primaries for the occasional candidate who is more focused on fiscal issues and less on social ones.
My thoughts exactly, except I choose to register as a Democrat for reasons of political expediency....I reside in a deep blue state where Dems outnumber Republicans 2 to 1, in effect making the winner of Dem primary the effective winner of the general election. So if I want any kind of voice, it makes sense to hold my nose and vote for either the weakest Dem candidate or the one who will do the least amount of damage depending on the electability of the Republican opponent.
As for Mitch Landrieu, is he a Democrat not from personal principles but as an opportunist, because his city (New Orleans) is overwhelmingly African American and in today's world, Democratic? Is it possible Landrieu's father was a Democrat to fit in with other white Southerners, but stayed a Democrat (and raised two offspring to be Democratic politicians) past the Civil Rights era only because white flight happened from New Orleans, thus the city rapidly went from being dominated by conservative Democrats to being dominated by liberal Democrats, thus he could stay in power? (as long as he won the Democratic primaries)
Lot of assumptions, supposition and not a lot of fact. Mitch, and Mary Landrieu are Democrats because they were raised in the progressive home of Verna and Moon Landrieu a Jesuit educated white attorney and politician who was in the for front of Civil Rights in Louisiana long before it was fashionable or a guarantee of political success. That tradition has been carried on by his two most prominent children. It isn't expediency it is the family's legacy.
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.
