Registered Republicans
- Thread starter toastedbread
- Start date
That’s a good point. That might be a bad idea even though I’d support the outcome. I’ll have to think about that.
The party seems to have now reversed course and are back to supporting Moore.
What a disgrace. Likely be a very long time before I could ever stomach voting for a (R) again.....unless they are 100% outspoken against the current Trumpian direction (pigs flying more likely).
What a disgrace. Likely be a very long time before I could ever stomach voting for a (R) again.....unless they are 100% outspoken against the current Trumpian direction (pigs flying more likely).
I previously voted for some (R)s on occasion. I will now be voting a blind straight (D) ticket. That's the only thing we can do until times change.
edit: They need to be more than outspoken, twenty... they need to be actively voting against and opposing him.
I’ve got local republicans I vote for. By local I mean just in my county. That’s it. I only specify county because some people consider their whole state local. Last time I voted for a republican outside my county was 2000. Otherwise it’s independents and democrats.
What is the 81% you are talking about and where does that come from?
Your high horsed righteous preening about Moore is silly. The country has a pretty clear history of both parties rallying around scum bags in order to maintain political power. As I said elsewhere, the political death matches we see every day in congress is the problem. No longer is it possible for a Democrat to agree with a Republican, or vice a versa, on any policy issue, let alone negotiate a reasonable compromise on any issue.
Last edited:
It makes perfect sense right now, while Trump is in office.
What the last several decades has shown is that single party control of the Federal govt leads to awful policy. This is only exacerbated under Trump.
Bad facts don't change the law. I have no problem with the senate expelling Moore. It has the authority to do so. The people having elected the expelled member, knowing the reasons for expulsion, should not be taken lightly. That said, standards above and beyond raw political power must be maintained. I think the 2/3 requirement is a sufficient safety valve.
My own speculation is that the Democrats wouldn't vote to expel, notwithstanding their huffing and puffing about Moore's sexual issues. They would need him as yet another weapon with which to bash all of the GOP.
What is awful about Trump's policies? I understand the disagreement, but there is a difference between disagreement and a policy being awful.
I think it is more telling that so many people think that the Democrats are so far out of touch with their lives that Moore would get traction knowing what we now know.
A tax bill that adds $1.5T to the deficit is bad policy (when the longstanding GOP policy had been deficit neutral tax reform).
Pulling the individual mandate on a whim to grab $300b for tax cuts is bad policy. Particularly when not combined with any other ACA reforms or funding for reinsurance or CSRs.
Cabinet (and lower level) Senate confirmed appointees are increasingly based upon rigid ideology, rather than pragmatic competence.
Big, serious items like entitlement reform will NEVER occur under 1 party rule.
I could go on....but you get the point. We get worse govt with one party control, IMO. Divided govt is no guarantee of success, but at least there is a chance.
No...it just shows partisanship trumps all else.
Would be no different in a deep blue state, if everything was flipped.
For those who believe or think that, I’d be curious to hear what Dems represent and how exactly they are out of touch and also what Republicans represent and how they are more in touch.
One very small example and semi-related question. It seems like the estate tax is one of many motivating factors, yet it's not clear if that motivation gets articulated well. At least, it seems like those opposed to the estate tax either caricature those in favor or simply don't grapple at all with the underlying rationale for it. On top of that, it seems like many of those who are motivated aren't and won't ever be directly and immediately impacted.
He uses naive, populist language on trade that Democrats used to regularly use in prior generations.
But you could also argue that Clinton flipped as many other segments of the population (college educated).
CO and VA are two most obvious examples of states that continue to move further and further away from the GOP.
Thyrsis, look at this board for starters. Your brother with his Republican Jesus shtick. Half of the Democrats on this board are very vocal on not only not believing in a God but mocking those that do. The party flipping booed the mention of God as part of the platform. The current head of the DNC wants a litmus test on abortion. If you agree with the Democrats' economic policies but are not a supporter of abortion rights, you are not wanted. So the party has basically written off all social conservatives. I know you guys do not lime the SJW thing being thrown around as an epithet, but you do have a SJW problem. They turn off a large swath of the country. And no, not because of racism and whatnot, it is because the progressive left is made up of a bunch of Looney people with a bunch of Looney ideas.
On economics I sometimes agree with the Democrats. As things stand now I will not vote for them because I get the impression from the party and those I come across who support it that they do not like people of my color and gender nor do they respect my religious beliefs. So screw em.
Wclurker actually had a point that was dismissed and ridiculed but it is a point that matters. The Democrats have been as dismissive of that message as Rockfish was, and that is how you get Trump, Moore, etc. They run a super progressive liberal in freaking Alabama. That reeks of, "F you hillbillies, your opinions do not matter."
Colorado is a victim of success and it's scenery.
Virginia has moved left because of the massive expansion of government that has continued unabated across every administration and the government workers and hangers on that comes with it.
And frankly, I do not care about the GOP. If the party goes, so be it. They are ineffectual anyway.
That's the natural result of a country that much less white, and much less religious.
The American religious landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation. White Christians, once the dominant religious group in the U.S., now account for fewer than half of all adults living in the country. Today, fewer than half of all states are majority white Christian. As recently as 2007, 39 states had majority white Christian populations. These are two of the major findings from this report, which is based on findings from PRRI’s 2016 American Values Atlas, the single largest survey of American religious and denominational identity ever conducted
https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/
https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/
Some are non-believers (NTTAWWT), but that's not the end of it. Lots of things Republicans do and say are counter to the teachings many of us learned growing up in the church. On top of that, while doing things that run counter to what lots of us learned, they cloak themselves in the mantle of "the faithful". That's both non-Christian to me and offensive. On top of that, they stake false and ridiculous claims like "the war on Christmas". On top of that, many Republican Christians have clearly never grappled with the history of the Bible or of theology and instead just spout out Bibly quotes without much, if any, insight or true humility. When Republicans get called out for this stuff, lots of that calling out isn't scoffing at religion. It's scoffing at Republicans who make it a mockery. So, I don't think your summary of what's going on is a fair or accurate one.
So? You do understand there are different viewpoints on what should be allowed, the meaning of abortion, the rights of women, and limitations on others imposing their individual beliefs on others, and the recent historical push by Republicans to set policy (including a litmus test)?
I certainly don't agree with lots of what any party does with their respective platforms, but even if I disagree with any such political approach, I at least understand the context and know that it's not an assault on "all social conservatives".
I think it's fair to say lots of folks would find what you said there offensive. You describe people who are fighting for civil rights as "Loonies". These groups tend to be the most marginalized, discriminated against, victimized, and disenfranchised. They are angry about generations of mistreatment. They stand up for what they believe in, exercising their First Amendment rights, and are shouted down by, mostly, people who are situated in positions that have not faced any of those challenges and who have historically been part of the group that endorsed the system and its harmful consequences. Even if there are excesses, the refusal to cede any ground whatsoever to these groups is flawed, egregious, blinkered and offensive.
That's surely your perspective, but I'm genuinely shocked that people would engage in mischaracterization described above and place those concerns above economic issues. Maybe I don't know what those economic issues are that you agree with.
What makes the guy in Alabama a "super progressive liberal"? How would you describe Moore? That you think the problem in Alabama is with "Democrats" speaks volumes.
And?
Again, this country is a lot more white than black and a lot more Christian than Muslim, are you saying it is smart or right to be anti black and anti Muslim?
There is a difference between being open to other people's differences and being openly hostile to them. The Democrats come across as openly hostile quite often.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Victim of its success? Not sure what that is supposed to mean.
I gave those two states as examples....because they are obvious from an electoral college map.
But the broader point is there is a seismic shift going on....where certain groups of voters are shifting between the two parties.
And, as we've discussed before, education level is the most succinct predictor of recent voting trends. We can see that across the country...including right here in Indiana (Hamilton Cty, most educated county in the state shifted +14 D between 2012 and 2016). Now I'm sure much of this is just Trump disgust. But many are trying hard to make this realignment permanent.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
Interesting, I'll try to take a deeper look here. My experience in Indianapolis is that there isn't a big swing to the Democratic Party under way, but that's surely anecdotal.
And that is our disconnect. What you think you are saying and the way it comes across are two different things.
Let me put it to you this way. The argument was pit forth on this very forum not long ago that certain terms that really do not seem offensive on their face are taken as offensive by some people. So the idea was put forth that to continue to use them is just being a dick for the sake of being a dick. That becomes the problem of the communicator using those terms. It is not the problem of those who the communication is being directed towards.
It does not matter what message you think the Democrats are sending, what matters is how the message is being received. And the message is not received well by the majority of people who live basically anthere that is not a coastal state or a major metropolitan area. And because of the way our system is set up, that ensures that anything else Democrats would like to get done becomes that much harder.
You generally are not a bad poster. The majority of hard core Democrats that I come across do not act like you. And I do a good job of not wearing my politics or my religion on my sleeve so I am privy to quite a bit of how Democrats talk about the deplorable when they think none are around. I do not want to be on that "team".
As far as economics goes, I agree that wealth is skewed per all the links that Rockfish puts up. I think the GOP looks out to much for corporations and wrongly believes that everything that is good for corporate America is good for America at large. But I would rather take one on the chin on that, because I can still get by just fine, then to ally myself with a bunch of people who do not respect anything else about me. My worldview is completely different and unwelcome. Twenty seems to argue that the change in population not only ensures I will become more unwelcome but that it is acceptable that I should be treated shabbily because of the lessening numbers. I am the father to 4 white males. Why the **** would I vote for a party who seems so openly hostile to their future?
Hmm, so what are people supposed to be hearing when republicans tell us we aren’t patriots, that we hate America, that we hate the military, that we aren’t Christians, and that we’re (non republicans) are just all around terrible people? Am I missing the deeper message? And why in the flying f*** am I supposed to walk on eggshells when talking to those people? Are you f*****g kidding me...
One note about message board posting: I think anonymity is a good thing. It allows people to be more candid, speak their mind in ways they might not otherwise. So long as folks here are decent people, that can be a real positive and help people really get at core differences, learning something, grow, refine thoughts, test theories, etc. I think that's a big deal and a great opportunity and something people wouldn't gain in real convos in the "polite" world. For me personally, I've learned a ton over time from my involvement at Peegs (or whatever it's called now), both about myself and my own arguments, and I've also received tremendous insights into how other people think and approach challenges (and not all of that has been impressive, which has also been a valuable opportunity to witness).
Now, on to the meat of your post: you said what I say and how it comes across are two different things, but then you didn't really share what you meant. I don't know if you meant my post specifically or just as a general matter. If it was my post, I'd be curious to hear what you meant. I'm all ears (genuinely). But I also think it's on you to think through what I said as well because I also basically said that "your" message and what "you" (using quotes intentionally here because I'm thinking more more globally than you) think you're trying to convey might seem wide apart as well.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that the Democratic Party is openly hostile to white males? And not that they’re just trying to level the obviously uneven playing field?
Colorado last elected a GOP Senator who beat the incumbent Dem. 4 of 7 Congressional districts are in GOP hands, and not the result of gerrymandering. While governor Hickenlooper is a Dem. he is decidedly not a dem on many issues about business and economics. I voted for him twice and I would likely vote for him if he ran for POTUS against some of the GOP candidates who ran last time. The Colorado GOP had some awful candidates, some of them won primaries with stealth Democratic money in support.
While Colorado is more Democratic than it was 20 years ago, I don’t think there is a strong Dem trend.
I only said it had been trending that direction, particularly with Presidential elections. (Hasn't gone red since 2004, and haven't been particularly close since....around D+5 each cycle).
And didn't Bennett just win re-election last year?
I believe that. Exhibit A is what speaker Pelosi said and did to the 2009 stimulus package. Exhibit B is how Holder’s justice department destroyed the lives of some white male cops. Exhibit C is the Obama department of education stripping males (usually white) of due process in sex assault disciplinary proceedings at public institutions of higher education. I could go on.
You do realize most of the Dems on this forum are white males?? So we are all voting for a party that is hostile to ourselves?
Which party tries to deny Americans the right to live with their foreign born spouses? How exactly is that protecting my right to live in freedom as a white male? How exactly is that Christian? Jesus would faint in horror.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
If anybody said B or C about a GOP controlled government you’d cry BS as loud as your diaphragm would allow.
Do better.
I’ll go out on a limb and say a majority of people on this site are white males.
Sorry if I find it a bit amusing that white males are feeling oppressed. As for the religion aspect, while there are a few that are openly disdainful of religion, I think the large majority are people that are pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of the evangelical set of the GOP, in electing Trump, supporting Moore, but are adamantly opposed to LGBTQ rights, abortion, etc, due to their religion. There have been polls posted about how conveniently they decided that personal life doesn't really matter when they wanted to vote for Trump.
