The Republican Party - ???

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Okay so anyone that reads the news from time to time can't help but notice some of the intransigent nonsense that US Politicians spew with regards to religion... Here's two gleaming examples of what I'm talking about.

The chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology said today that the committee would hold hearings next week "to settle the question, once and for all, of whether meteors exist."

"The media has been in something of a frenzy recently on this whole topic of meteors," said chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). "I think it's irresponsible of them to frighten the public about something that, at the end of the day, may be about as real as unicorns."

Rep. Smith said that he had seen recent reports of the "so-called Russian meteor" of last week, but added, "Maybe it's the scientific skeptic in me, but this 'meteor' may just have been a bunch of fireworks that some Siberian fellow set off after drinking a little too much Stoli. It is winter, after all, and that's how those folks keep warm."

The Texas congressman said that he and other meteor doubters are worried that scientists had "a vested interest" in convincing people that meteors are real: "They want the government to spend more money on science, and, let me tell you, that is the last thing the Science Committee is going to do."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/02/house-science-committee-questions-existence-of-meteors.html#ixzz2LILwQ4NY

Another esteemed member of the Science Committee...

Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

He continued:

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

As for the scientific theory that meteors may have killed the dinosaurs, Rep. Smith chuckled, "That theory would also have us believe that there were dinosaurs."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

So the main issues I have is that a) They're allowed/attain/elected into positions of power. b) They are, somewhat ironically, placed in positions of power that are NOT to the benefit of the people they are elected to serve. c) Having adults allegedly capable of critical and logical thinking spewing this garbage, it further compounds the issue of religion being a 'thing' and a problem that still plays a part in the US and other countries today.

What's the deal? Am I missing something? I understand that they are obviously voted for because their electorate is equally misguided and mentally incapable of thinking for themselves, but should they be allowed into positions of power?

I'd already heard the 'evolution is from the pit of hell' quote, but the thing about whether meteors being real or not was new to me. Gave me a good laugh. After reading the first part of the quote, before I scrolled down to the link, I was really expecting the link to be from the onion. Comparing meteors to unicorns, really? I really want to be outraged over this, but it's just too early in the morning for me to get worked up.

I'm sorry, but why are you talking about morons, and name your topic 'The Republican Party'? Their stance on science has nothing to do with the Republican Party. Republican =/= Moron who can't do science, math or distrusts anything the 'liberal media' says.

Edit: I also find it hilarious that one man equates meteors with unicorns, but without doubt believes in God.

Why are they always against dinosaurs? Surely stating that your god created dinosaurs in its creative youthful days would be a boon to the religion? "Hey, look at these awesome things our lord created!". I loved dinosaurs as a kid, might've been somewhat kind of interested in relgion growing up if the bible had dinosaurs in it.

Realitycrash:
I'm sorry, but why are you talking about morons, and name your topic 'The Republican Party'? Their stance on science has nothing to do with the Republican Party. Republican =/= Moron who can't do science, math or distrusts anything the 'liberal media' says.

Edit: I also find it hilarious that one man equates meteors with unicorns, but without doubt believes in God.

It's just that these people are almost exclusively in the Republican Party. I'm confused as to what exactly attracts the loons, or if it's as simple religion.

Are they on that committee just be in the way?
Really they should have people in the government who are experts a field representing a field.
By this I mean electing people who don't have law degrees.
e.g. have doctors on a board for medicine and scientists on a board for science and u know teachers for education?
Also really disbelieving in meteors
HOW HOW.
its like not believing in Mars or other planners
WE CAN F*****G SEE THEM QUITE OFTEN
WITH EYES!
though some fancy glass but still.
EYES LOOK HERE SEE GOOD THANK YOU
NOW BE QUITE!
That's all it would take to break that lack of education.
sry for rant.

Denholm Reynholm:

Realitycrash:
I'm sorry, but why are you talking about morons, and name your topic 'The Republican Party'? Their stance on science has nothing to do with the Republican Party. Republican =/= Moron who can't do science, math or distrusts anything the 'liberal media' says.

Edit: I also find it hilarious that one man equates meteors with unicorns, but without doubt believes in God.

It's just that these people are almost exclusively in the Republican Party. I'm confused as to what exactly attracts the loons, or if it's as simple religion.

No, these people are almost exclusively fundamental Christians of some sort, and said Christians tend to vote Republican.
There, you are enlightened.

Both Realitycrash and Denholm Reynholm have a point here. It's not that Republican party = scientifically illiterate theocrats, but at the same time they certainly tend to congregate there. I daresay it's probably based in the whole Southern Strategy thing where they try to appeal to such folks (among other even less savory ones). If you do that long enough (and it has been successful for them for many years), that would reshape the party. Not only do such people support them, they join them as new politicians. It's definitely a major problem of the Republican party (and primarily of them specifically), but at the same time the two are not identical. I'd definitely change the title or rephrase the OP to reflect that.

EDIT:

Realitycrash:
No, these people are almost exclusively fundamental Christians of some sort, and said Christians tend to vote Republican.
There, you are enlightened.

Not quite yet. You also need to ask the next logical question: Why do said Christians tend to vote Republican (and fill some of their ranks)? That has to do with whom the parties try to appeal to. It's a bit of a hen-and-egg situation, you can't just ignore the hen and say "the egg came first". These feed into one another.

Denholm Reynholm:
said Broun, who is an MD...

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist..."

Whenever a physician feels the need to claim he's a scientist or man of science, suspect he's then about to spout a load of crap. It's somewhat akin to a person starting off a sentence "I'm not a racist, but..." which is usually a sign that you're about to be subjected to a tirade of racist filth.

Medicine is at least a scientifically-derived discipline. Many MDs are also scientists, and a few end up entirely scientists rather than physicians. However, my experience is a lot of research inactive medical doctors don't really know much of the ins and outs of how biological science is done, never mind knowing much about physics, chemistry etc.

Agema:

Denholm Reynholm:
said Broun, who is an MD...

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist..."

Whenever a physician feels the need to claim he's a scientist or man of science, suspect he's then about to spout a load of crap. It's somewhat akin to a person starting off a sentence "I'm not a racist, but..." which is usually a sign that you're about to be subjected to a tirade of racist filth.

Considering we're on the internet, where people tend to claim that they have a PHD in one thread and that they're a lawyer in the next, you'd think that this would be common sense here.

Republican leadership changed color to suit its backers. Now that the backlash is immense, I can foresee an internal revolt. The trouble of the matter is finding good leadership to represent the party. When the fascist Republicans (What's sad is that these guys were supposed to be from the 'tea party' but at the end were just figureheads, mere cronies) get booted out of office because they overstepped their bounds, you will see a change in a different direction.

Skeleon:
Both Realitycrash and Denholm Reynholm have a point here. It's not that Republican party = scientifically illiterate theocrats, but at the same time they certainly tend to congregate there. I daresay it's probably based in the whole Southern Strategy thing where they try to appeal to such folks (among other even less savory ones). If you do that long enough (and it has been successful for them for many years), that would reshape the party. Not only do such people support them, they join them as new politicians. It's definitely a major problem of the Republican party (and primarily of them specifically), but at the same time the two are not identical. I'd definitely change the title or rephrase the OP to reflect that.

EDIT:

Realitycrash:
No, these people are almost exclusively fundamental Christians of some sort, and said Christians tend to vote Republican.
There, you are enlightened.

Not quite yet. You also need to ask the next logical question: Why do said Christians tend to vote Republican (and fill some of their ranks)? That has to do with whom the parties try to appeal to. It's a bit of a hen-and-egg situation, you can't just ignore the hen and say "the egg came first". These feed into one another.

I found the answer to that question to be loosely self-evident, so I skipped it. Why do Y vote for X? Because X try hard to appeal to Y. Why do X try to appeal to Y? Because it has become their niche. Why has it become their niche? Because traditionally, economical and political conservatism (X) has gone hand in hand with social conservatism, and Y expresses (or like to think they do) social conservatism.
Sufficient enough answer?

Realitycrash:
I'm sorry, but why are you talking about morons, and name your topic 'The Republican Party'?

Because with each of these obscurantists who takes to the media, it gets more and more impossible to defend the republican party as containing mostly sensible people; then why are there so many crazies, why aren't they ever asked to leave and how come the other end of the political spectrum doesn't produce people that stunningly dumb?

For one thing, have you ever come across a news article that went 'republican representative asked to resign membership on grounds of terminal stupidity'? No, me neither. The republicans seem quite content to have these guys who mentally still live somewhere in the dark ages on board.

Who are we to ignore their actions and not take this as a sign of acceptance of such thinking? For one thing it's also politics. Vote republican and you endorse guys like this, whether or not you agree with them. And that should be a powerfull argument which justifies a lot of 'no room for middle ground'.

Agema:
Medicine is at least a scientifically-derived discipline. Many MDs are also scientists, and a few end up entirely scientists rather than physicians. However, my experience is a lot of research inactive medical doctors don't really know much of the ins and outs of how biological science is done, never mind knowing much about physics, chemistry etc.

Not just that, but many radical Christian conservatives who are brandishing titles actually have fraudulent paperwork, ussually from degree mills.

I believe it last was some site where a 'psychologist' and supported conservative dogma with 'science'. Brandishing a title on her website of course. Not sure what the point was anymore, probably homophobia. Google her 'university' where she mentions the degree is from and you come across warnings that it's a fake, a degree mill, so she wasn't a psychologist at all.

It seems to be an exclusively American problem for as far as I've seen though. Isn't pretending to hold academic or other protected titles a crime in the US? It sure is in most other countries.

Realitycrash:
I found the answer to that question to be loosely self-evident, so I skipped it.

I mostly responded to you because of this bit you posted earlier:

"Their stance on science has nothing to do with the Republican Party."

Basically, I'm saying: No, it does have to do with the Republican party and its approach towards voters and recruitment of new politicians and candidates. It's no coincidence that the majority of these folks turn out being Republicans and the odd scientifically illiterate theocratic Democrat is a rarity - by comparison at least. These are not just a few fundamentalist outliers, it's a systemic problem with the party.

Just to be sure, let me stress again that I'm decidedly not saying "Republican party = scientifically illiterate theocrats"; but the opposite claim that these folks' stance has nothing to do with the party is wrong.

That first article seems to be satire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Borowitz

He is known for creating the satirical column "The Borowitz Report", which has an audience in the millions and was acquired by The New Yorker. In a profile on CBS News Sunday Morning he was called "one of the funniest people in America."

Uh, OP, you do realise that The Borowitz Report is satire, right? You may as well be giving Republican "quotes" from The Onion.

Blablahb:

Realitycrash:
I'm sorry, but why are you talking about morons, and name your topic 'The Republican Party'?

Because with each of these obscurantists who takes to the media, it gets more and more impossible to defend the republican party as containing mostly sensible people; then why are there so many crazies, why aren't they ever asked to leave and how come the other end of the political spectrum doesn't produce people that stunningly dumb?

For one thing, have you ever come across a news article that went 'republican representative asked to resign membership on grounds of terminal stupidity'? No, me neither. The republicans seem quite content to have these guys who mentally still live somewhere in the dark ages on board.

Who are we to ignore their actions and not take this as a sign of acceptance of such thinking? For one thing it's also politics. Vote republican and you endorse guys like this, whether or not you agree with them. And that should be a powerfull argument which justifies a lot of 'no room for middle ground'.

Sorry, I just refuse to accept the 'Vote for X and you also endorse Y'. I vote for X because I believe what X stands for, not necessarily because I support the retards the inner cabinet of X has put in charge, and keep making stupid public stances. They do not represent my views, and they do not represent the view of X. X is a number of principles set forth in whatever public declaration that sums up what exactly X is (over here, we call them Party Programs). So you can't equate X with Y (where Y is a moron that is put in a position of power by a selected few).
Now, what we CAN do is complain over why Y is in this position at all, and try to change it, but saying that Y represent X simply isn't true.
Granted, it might not be possible to remove Y from power, but that leaves me with either voting for Z, which I disapprove ideologically of, or voting for X and suffering with said moronic Y, or not voting at all.

boots:
Uh, OP, you do realise that The Borowitz Report is satire, right? You may as well be giving Republican "quotes" from The Onion.

I dunno about the Borowitz Report thing so I can't say anything regarding the first example in the OP, but the bit about Broun is actually verified. I've seen the video, that guy is serious. Hell, it's not the most outlandish thing actual Republicans have said in the past 6 months alone in the lead-up to the election.

All that being said, it is still kind of pointless to re-hash all this.

Skeleon:

Realitycrash:
I found the answer to that question to be loosely self-evident, so I skipped it.

I mostly responded to you because of this bit you posted earlier:

"Their stance on science has nothing to do with the Republican Party."

Basically, I'm saying: No, it does have to do with the Republican party and its approach towards voters and recruitment of new politicians and candidates. It's no coincidence that the majority of these folks turn out being Republicans and the odd scientifically illiterate theocratic Democrat is a rarity - by comparison at least. These are not just a few fundamentalist outliers, it's a systemic problem with the party.

Just to be sure, let me stress again that I'm decidedly not saying "Republican party = scientifically illiterate theocrats"; but the opposite claim that these folks' stance has nothing to do with the party is wrong.

Are we equating political ideology with whom a party is courting for power, though? Should we?
Yes, the Republicans court these kind of people. But it isn't part of the official Republican summation of beliefs (and once again, I assume they have such, the parties over here have anyway) where this holds true.

Realitycrash:
Are we equating political ideology with whom a party is courting for power, though? Should we?

Well, yeah. Unless you find it more appropriate to consider them unprincipled, lying opportunists, I guess. I figured I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they actually believe these things when they say them. Not to mention I keep talking about actual politicians' views as well, it's not just courting voters when you recruit your people from that same pool.

---

Anyway, I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

It seems like you're trying to remain neutral or something while still acknowledging the Republican party's particular issues.
All you need to do to be fair, though, is not overgeneralize the Republican party and act as if everybody there is one particular way; but at the same time it's really not like you have to act as if the Republican party doesn't have particular leanings, priorities and issues.
The denial of even very basic science is very much a party-problem, a problem primarily affecting the Republicans; but that doesn't mean the entirety of the party is this, one, exact, solid way, if you get my drift.

Skeleon:

Realitycrash:
Are we equating political ideology with whom a party is courting for power, though? Should we?

Well, yeah. Unless you find it more appropriate to consider them unprincipled, lying opportunists, I guess. I figured I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they actually believe these things when they say them.

---

Anyway, I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

It seems like you're trying to remain neutral or something while still acknowledging the Republican party's particular issues. All you need to do to be fair, is not overgeneralize the Republican party and act as if everybody there is one particular way; but at the same time it's really not like you have to act as if the Republican party doesn't have particular leanings, priorities and issues. The denial of even very basic science is very much a party-problem, that just doesn't mean the entirety of the party is this, one, exact, solid way, if you get my drift.

What I am trying to say is that in what makes the Republican Party the Republican Party there is nothing which claims that they disbelieve meteors or science in general. I just don't think claiming such a thing is true. Now, is it true that they do fish for votes in muddy water, where people DO believe such things? Yes. But I'd say all political parties are willing to go vote-fishing for their view of the 'greater good', don't you?
I wouldn't call them 'unprincipled, lying opportunists', at least not in any greater fashion than I call any major political party.

Realitycrash:
What I am trying to say is that in what makes the Republican Party the Republican Party there is nothing which claims that they disbelieve meteors or science in general. I just don't think claiming such a thing is true. Now, is it true that they do fish for votes in muddy water, where people DO believe such things? Yes. But I'd say all political parties are willing to go vote-fishing for their view of the 'greater good', don't you?

Of course they go vote-fishing. But my point is that they've done this so long that it's affecting them themselves (and this could be said for any party trying to appeal to particular demographics, mind, it's just particularly visible with this issue I feel).
You attract particular folks to join up and be the new politicians, you have people in important leadership positions and even run quite successfully in primaries for the presidency who hold outlandish view, you have people get nominated to crush more sensible people because of "purity of ideology"-concerns and the like. You can't go out fishing in that "muddy water" as you called it and think it won't change the party. That has effects. While maybe merely garnering extra votes was the intention at some point, I don't for a second believe that these statements today are just fishing for votes. Especially considering the common backlash.
You've been here during the election 2012: Do you honestly think the idiotic comments made by Republican after Republican (and costing Romney much needed points) were them trying to garner votes? That they don't actually believe in these things?
Don't you remember how flabbergasted some people were when the polling results for groups like women came in?
I'm telling you, I think they believe this stuff with all their heart. Because the party has unwittingly selected for people like that. And they're weirded out and confused when they get pointed at and criticzed by the media or when they lose voters.
Courting the anti-science crowd for so long has side-effects besides winning some votes and losing others. If you tow a party line for long enough, the party will actually adapt to be like that. Does that make sense?

Meteors, a space rock, proven to exist, and easily visible from the ground when they pass by the Earth. Obviously they're lies to get more money and control people. Invisible man in the sky who created everything in seven days, who then impregnated a virgin with himself? Well that's obviously true, this really old book says so.

Meteors? About as likely as unicorns.

Deity from an extremely old book that encourages reprehensible behavior on the basis it'll get me rewards and that he's perfect and every one of the others ofthousands of gods that also say that other gods are fake actually are the fake ones? Totally legit.

Realitycrash:
Sorry, I just refuse to accept the 'Vote for X and you also endorse Y'. I vote for X because I believe what X stands for, not necessarily because I support the retards the inner cabinet of X has put in charge, and keep making stupid public stances. They do not represent my views, and they do not represent the view of X. X is a number of principles set forth in whatever public declaration that sums up what exactly X is (over here, we call them Party Programs). So you can't equate X with Y (where Y is a moron that is put in a position of power by a selected few).
Now, what we CAN do is complain over why Y is in this position at all, and try to change it, but saying that Y represent X simply isn't true.
Granted, it might not be possible to remove Y from power, but that leaves me with either voting for Z, which I disapprove ideologically of, or voting for X and suffering with said moronic Y, or not voting at all.

You might not support or endorse Y, in the sense you agree with them, but if you vote for someone who does, you are contributing to the spread of Y, and supporting it in that sense.

It might be the lesser evil, but it's still a serious concern.

Skeleon:

Realitycrash:
What I am trying to say is that in what makes the Republican Party the Republican Party there is nothing which claims that they disbelieve meteors or science in general. I just don't think claiming such a thing is true. Now, is it true that they do fish for votes in muddy water, where people DO believe such things? Yes. But I'd say all political parties are willing to go vote-fishing for their view of the 'greater good', don't you?

Of course they go vote-fishing. But my point is that they've done this so long that it's affecting them themselves (and this could be said for any party trying to appeal to particular demographics, mind, it's just particularly visible with this issue I feel).
You attract particular folks to join up and be the new politicians, you have people in important leadership positions and even run quite successfully in primaries for the presidency who hold outlandish view, you have people get nominated to crush more sensible people because of "purity of ideology"-concerns and the like. You can't go out fishing in that "muddy water" as you called it and think it won't change the party. That has effects. While maybe merely garnering extra votes was the intention at some point, I don't for a second believe that these statements today are just fishing for votes. Especially considering the common backlash.
You've been here during the election 2012: Do you honestly think the idiotic comments made by Republican after Republican (and costing Romney much needed points) were them trying to garner votes? That they don't actually believe in these things?
Don't you remember how flabbergasted some people were when the polling results for groups like women came in?
I'm telling you, I think they believe this stuff with all their heart. Because the party has unwittingly selected for people like that. And they're weirded out and confused when they get pointed at and criticzed by the media or when they lose voters.
Courting the anti-science crowd for so long has side-effects besides winning some votes and losing others. If you tow a party line for long enough, the party will actually adapt to be like that. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes a fair amount of sense, but I don't really think this attitude is wide-spread enough in the party to be considered 'Republican' yet. Conservative values, both social and economical? Sure. But 'disbelief in meteors'? Come on, it can't have spread that far so that the average Republican voter actually endorses this.

thaluikhain:

Realitycrash:
Sorry, I just refuse to accept the 'Vote for X and you also endorse Y'. I vote for X because I believe what X stands for, not necessarily because I support the retards the inner cabinet of X has put in charge, and keep making stupid public stances. They do not represent my views, and they do not represent the view of X. X is a number of principles set forth in whatever public declaration that sums up what exactly X is (over here, we call them Party Programs). So you can't equate X with Y (where Y is a moron that is put in a position of power by a selected few).
Now, what we CAN do is complain over why Y is in this position at all, and try to change it, but saying that Y represent X simply isn't true.
Granted, it might not be possible to remove Y from power, but that leaves me with either voting for Z, which I disapprove ideologically of, or voting for X and suffering with said moronic Y, or not voting at all.

You might not support or endorse Y, in the sense you agree with them, but if you vote for someone who does, you are contributing to the spread of Y, and supporting it in that sense.

It might be the lesser evil, but it's still a serious concern.

Quite, but what other options are there?
Slightly off-topic; I remember our last election, when I wanted to vote blank because I couldn't in good conscience support any current party, and my sister wanted me to vote for party Y because they were better than party X. When I tried to explain to her that party Y did not represent my views, she told me that if I did not vote for party Y, I was in fact endorsing party X. I told her to shove it.
I am so tired of the black and white, with-us-or-against-us mentality within politics.

Alright so knowing now that it's satire I can see why he made the article.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343763

Of course this is just as much a conspiracy theory as the meteor thing, but it's not so... retarded.

To give you the gist Chuck Hagel is now being accused by the fringe GOP that he takes campaign contributions from a group called friends of Hamas. Yes you heard that right, not only did they not come up with a more reasonable name but they are using this tactic against a former GOP congressman. Does the conservative crowd hate Obama that much? yes, yes they do.

Denholm Reynholm:
What's the deal? Am I missing something? I understand that they are obviously voted for because their electorate is equally misguided and mentally incapable of thinking for themselves, but should they be allowed into positions of power?

The meteor article is satire, but the big bang one is real (and is the reason the meteor one was made).

So really the only discussion value here is the big bang one, but honestly we've had all this out before on these boards, so many times. It all pretty much boils down to these major points:

- People like this are not representative of the Republican party as a whole, nor all people who consider themselves to be supporters of the Republican party.

- On its own, there is nothing wrong with holding such beliefs.

- When a person with authority tries to pose such non-secular beliefs on others through political power, that is when you're going into the realm of theocracy.

- Generalizing isn't cool when the Republicans do it, and nor is it cool when we do it to the Republicans. All it does is continue to reinforce this deadly spiral of "Us VS Them" politics that is tearing our system apart.

This is why I hate the two party system and the way that every political idea must belong to one party or the other. I see many fiscally conservative ideas as majorly beneficial to our country, but nobody will accept these ideas because they are associated with a party that says crap like this. Nobody supports cutting spending because that ideology is associated with a party that doesn't believe in meteors of evolution.

cthulhuspawn82:
This is why I hate the two party system and the way that every political idea must belong to one party or the other. I see many fiscally conservative ideas as majorly beneficial to our country, but nobody will accept these ideas because they are associated with a party that says crap like this. Nobody supports cutting spending because that ideology is associated with a party that doesn't believe in meteors of evolution.

I know how it is man :( Fiscal conservatism is considered to be automatically linked to social conservatism; I've been told by other people that I cannot possibly be a social liberal but a fiscal conservative.

cthulhuspawn82:
This is why I hate the two party system and the way that every political idea must belong to one party or the other. I see many fiscally conservative ideas as majorly beneficial to our country, but nobody will accept these ideas because they are associated with a party that says crap like this. Nobody supports cutting spending because that ideology is associated with a party that doesn't believe in meteors of evolution.

Agreed, this is why I left the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is pretty much the smart version of the Republican Party.

It's only a matter of time though; either the Republican Party is going to die or their going to open up a book and start learning things.

Mr.Mattress:

cthulhuspawn82:
This is why I hate the two party system and the way that every political idea must belong to one party or the other. I see many fiscally conservative ideas as majorly beneficial to our country, but nobody will accept these ideas because they are associated with a party that says crap like this. Nobody supports cutting spending because that ideology is associated with a party that doesn't believe in meteors of evolution.

Agreed, this is why I left the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is pretty much the smart version of the Republican Party.

It's only a matter of time though; either the Republican Party is going to die or their going to open up a book and start learning things.

Just a pre-warning, be prepared for cries that you're a racist homophobe because you identify as libertarian. I'm in the same party and I get told about my beliefs all the time, even if they have nothing to do with what I actually believe.

But yes, the Republican party is withdrawing into its shell and will eventually die out, from which another party or several will emerge. Alternatively it may stay alive but become a third party.

Bentusi16:

Mr.Mattress:

cthulhuspawn82:
SNIP

SNIP

Just a pre-warning, be prepared for cries that you're a racist homophobe because you identify as libertarian. I'm in the same party and I get told about my beliefs all the time, even if they have nothing to do with what I actually believe.

I haven't been called Racist at all, and I plan on getting into politics when I can. Maybe it's because I live in Maryland, I dunno.

Mr.Mattress:

Bentusi16:

Mr.Mattress:

SNIP

Just a pre-warning, be prepared for cries that you're a racist homophobe because you identify as libertarian. I'm in the same party and I get told about my beliefs all the time, even if they have nothing to do with what I actually believe.

I haven't been called Racist at all, and I plan on getting into politics when I can. Maybe it's because I live in Maryland, I dunno.

Me too. And I just mean on this forum; there are certain individuals like blah that think a libertarian is a racist homophobe christian because...I don't think he's ever actually adequately explained why he believes it.

We're lucky enough to live in a very diverse state so people tend to be a little more open to exchange of ideas.

On to the republic party: Another thing killing the republican party is that it's just not bringing in young people any more, even young people with conservative fiscal ideas. Because again, it's being run by ancient people with socially conservative ideals.

I think the real reason young people flock towards the democratic party is less because their economically liberal and more because their socially liberal, and when you're young you tend to vote with social ideals less then your economic ones.

And of course, the liberal ideas of today are the conservative ideas of tomorrow.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked