Open Call – It is Time to Fix or Replace the Republican Party

[Jhhnn]

Yep, just as bad.




Again, equal apparently.



Yep, equal.



HRC just as bad again apparently.



How could I have missed it?

How you can say that I am trying to say both are equal is both amazing and shows how wrapped up you are in political bull shit. If you honestly believe the only fault Obama and dems have during the gay rights issue during his term, you are blindly following your party. The best argument you can make is that Obama and the dems were just bluffing on gay marriage, that they really supported it, but had to hid it to build support.

Obama is a Christian and he would never have the guts to take a stand if asked the question if he thought the bible was wrong about homosexuality. Its very likely that he did not support gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. You add that with the statements where he clearly said that he thought marriage was between a man and a woman is was not for gay marriage and his religious views and its easy to believe he was telling the truth.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/

Again, I will say this one more time but you still may not get it. Republicans have stayed consistent in their bigotry so when you compare it to the dems change of heart on theirs, the dems win in terms of morality. When it comes to civil rights, the dems win flat out, no question, full stop. Just because the dems are better, does not make them good by any means though, it just means they are better than republicans. I could take a shit and put a flower on top and it would still be better than most republicans. I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Walking it back rather nicely, I see, yet still unwilling to assign positive attributes to positive actions.

I'd appreciate it if you'd fix the quotes, above. You inadvertently attributed one of your own to me. Thanks.

 

[realibrad]

Walking it back rather nicely, I see, yet still unwilling to assign positive attributes to positive actions.

I'd appreciate it if you'd fix the quotes, above. You inadvertently attributed one of your own to me. Thanks.

How is it me walking things back? I showed a clear link of consistency where I said republicans were worse than democrats on civil rights. I clearly have said that democrats have done things right by changing their minds and pushing for gay rights.

I should point out that the democrats were not actually the ones to solve the marriage equality issue. The supreme court ended up doing what democrats were either unwilling or unable to do.

But please, answer the following 2 questions.

How can you say I have been unwilling to assign positive attributes?
What is it that you think I am walking back?

 

[Moonbeam]

Agreed.

The way many Republican politicians today are treating gay marriage even after SCOTUS spoke, one can't help but suspect they may actually be truthful in opposing it. That might be worse than opposing it for political expediency. (I vacillate on which is worse.)

I don't. I would blame hypocrites more than true believers. The former sins consciously for the sake of personal ambition, is using cunning, while the latter is a bigot due to childhood experiences beyond his or her control. One chooses to lie, the bigot only chose to succumb to the pressures of a concentration camp in order to survive. The former is evil, the second a victim in my opinion.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Fix the Republican Party?

Pin the Tale on the Donkey: The Democrats' Horrible Racist Past

 

[BUnit1701]

I disagree. If either one were given absolute power, they'd very quickly discover that three quarters of their policy is complete shit when it comes to governance, and they'd point the finger at us.

HAHAHAHAHAH the truest thing ever spoken in P&N, major kudos.

 

[Indus]

And? That got fixed when Repubs embraced Strom's Southern Strategy back in the 60's & ever since. Dems denounced their own racists who then migrated into the loving arms of the Repub party.

The allegiance of black voters changed as well. They're now overwhelmingly Democrat for good reason, obviously.

Thanks.. was about to say the same thing.. parties change stances. It's always the issues that make sense, not parties.

 

[realibrad]

Thanks.. was about to say the same thing.. parties change stances. It's always the issues that make sense, not parties.

Parties change, but those changes tend to take a while because people are slow to change their views. It does not help when people give their parties free passes either.

Well, democrats give their party free passes. Republicans have been pretty united in bigotry as of late. Democrats flip flop on issues, but that is far better than standing firm in bigotry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Parties change, but those changes tend to take a while because people are slow to change their views. It does not help when people give their parties free passes either.

Well, democrats give their party free passes. Republicans have been pretty united in bigotry as of late. Democrats flip flop on issues, but that is far better than standing firm in bigotry.

None of that matters. What matters is that to the CBDive, no matter how bad or bigoted the status quo may be, any change to it will be a change for the worse. Conservative brain-dead intransigence is the dam that hold Chaos and Armageddon at bay.

 

[MatSm]

Huckabee and the republican party think that if you got shot in a Church it is your fault because you should have guns in your Church. I don’t think republicans were ever pragmatic or sane.

 

[werepossum]

I'd argue that while pandering is pretty awful since you're in essence waving away integrity for a least-common-denominator appeal for votes, belief in something immoral is more noxious than trying to appeal to two diametrically opposed groups.

One set of beliefs is noxious and can divide people for profit/election, whereas the mealy-mouthed views of say HRC regarding gay marriage (assuming she didn't really change her mind "honestly", like, thousands/millions of Americans supposedly did) are, by their "understood" notion of pandering, rightly seen as pandering. For instance, as soon as Obama said that he believed that marriage should remain between a man and woman, many people with soapboxes said "bullshit". And hey, maybe Obama really did want gay marriage to be legal and was pandering. But that just makes it even more obvious that he was just trying to retain as many single-issue voters as possible; a trait of successful politicians since day 1.

Sure, people who want to divide us could quote Obama, but there would be people saying, "yeah right, he's just saying that". Whereas when Ted Cruz says that the decision to allow gay marriage is the "darkest 24 hours in our nation's history", he probably believes it, and is trying to divide people on the matter.

I'd argue that Ted Cruz's sincere belief is more harmful to the country than Obama or HRC lying about their true belief regarding gay marriage, while still arguing that the rights inherent in marriage should flow to gay people, just using a different term. (And that of course assumes they were lying, or only changed their minds because of polls. As much as I dislike politicians in general, they're people too. Often terrible people, but still people).

Anything that doesn't inherently affect anyone else negatively should not only be legal, it should be considered a right. In any political test that has 4 quadrants rather than the misleading 2 the media harps on about, I'm about as libertarian as you can get, though I'm clearly on the left side of that diamond.

More rights for individuals = more freedom. Especially when it's something like gay marriage, which is simply a secular contract between two people. Equal protection is the clear legal reasoning, but shit, how about simple contract rights? Lochner would be my go-to holding, and that is a fairly libertarian/conservative holding. How this issue defaulted to Democrats, to me, shows how out-of-touch many Republicans are with their historical roots.

Well said, and I tend to agree.

I don't. I would blame hypocrites more than true believers. The former sins consciously for the sake of personal ambition, is using cunning, while the latter is a bigot due to childhood experiences beyond his or her control. One chooses to lie, the bigot only chose to succumb to the pressures of a concentration camp in order to survive. The former is evil, the second a victim in my opinion.

I dunno, I tend to lean more toward Nick's point of view. If one is an adult, and especially if one wishes to lead, then one has a moral requirement to not necessarily advance the evils of the past. I don't see giving anyone a pass because of the environment in which they were raised.

Also, the hypocrite can at least mend his ways once they are no longer to his advantage. Granted, inflicting evil from an honest belief might be morally better - MIGHT BE - but with the hypocrite, the damage can at least end more quickly, especially given that the hypocrite has no vested interest in fighting to prolong it.

HAHAHAHAHAH the truest thing ever spoken in P&N, major kudos.

lol Glad you liked it.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's remarkable how this gets painted as some sort of black & white morality play rather than in the honest shades of grey it deserves, as if total commitment all along is necessary to end up on the right side of it.

The truth is that most people now in favor are converts, not from the extreme positions of the Antis but from open minded intermediate headsets. They were persuadable, able to open their hearts to see gays as people like themselves, worthy of the same respect & freedom as everybody else.

Some of what's being painted as hypocrisy wasn't necessarily that at all, certainly not at the time, but rather pragmatism in the face of evolving public opinion. Fifteen years ago, coming out in favor of civil unions was a controversial position. It's not like those who favored it put it down like a line in the sand that could never be crossed, either. Far from it.