Demographics don't look good for the Republicans in 2020

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

http://news.yahoo.com/predict-presidential-elections-by-demographic-interactive-widget-225441066.html

So, I like to consider yahoo to be a pretty "cheap" news source... By that I mean that they usually provide a few articles that are good ways to start a debate, but they don't have that much depth to them.

I saw this on my home page, and decided I'd share it with you guys. Essentially, the gist of the article is that as "minorities" keep growing, and as the Republican party essentially earns the ire of each group, they'll quickly end up pigeonholed by 2020; especially if things continue the way they are.

Honestly, this doesn't come as that much of a surprise to me. No offense to any Republicans on the forums, but it seems like the party has found a way to alienate each and every group, and perhaps the biggest issue is their definition of "helping" underprivileged or poverty stricken groups.

You see, I've noticed a bit of a trend with Republicans when it comes to why a few of them think they can't attract minority voters... It all boils down to them saying "they hate us because we Republicans want to help them off their feet and into prosperity, rather then living off welfare like the democrats!" The problem with that, other then assuming the "poor minorities need guidance from the self-sufficient white man", is that cutting welfare to underprivileged groups doesn't magically make them "successful"... If anything, it's like telling the guy who starts at the end of the race to step a few more feet back and saying "you should be grateful that I'm motivating you to exercise more".

Here's the thing though, it's not like "minority" instantly means "liberal democrat". In fact, I have no doubt that republicans would be incredibly attractive to hispanics and asian voters if they treated them better. Thanks to a predominantly Roman Catholic culture, Hispanics generally are socially conservative (valuing tradition is pretty common in Catholicism), and Asia as a whole is very based in tradition and conservative ideals. Hell, if you take out the whole "anti-foreigner" stance, then Asians would probably love the Republican stances of tradition, discipline, and conservatism (granted countries like Japan are fine with telling foreigners to, essentially, "get out", but they like it less when you're saying it to them).

The biggest problem with the Republican party attracting these minority voters is the fact that they seem to be big on "cultural assimilation" rather then some "melting pot" of cultures. It's this stance of "America for Americans" and that "American = White Protestant Anglo Saxon" that's causing them all this trouble. This harmed the Republicans before, when they stood against European "papist" immigration from places like Ireland or Poland (there's a reason many Catholics, even today, are Democrats), and now that the demographics have changed even more, the Republican party may be in for a wound they just can't recover from.

So, what do you guys think? Are the republicans going to go the route of the Whigs? Or can they recover and "rebrand" themselves in the eyes of minority voters?

The GOP in its current form is a dying animal. What we are seeing is its death throes. It is entirely possible that we get a schism next presidential race, and something new is formed from it.

I think they'll rebrand themselves before they "die." With the US only having two parties, whenever there has been a major disagreement within the parties, historically the most they've ever done is split. The two warring factions split, realize that as a split party they have no chance to beat the numbers of the party that's still together, and then eventually regroup. Whichever half of the split is comprised of the most constituents will "win out" and gain control of the party's platform.

So I think if anything is going to happen between now and 2020 with the GOP, it will be a split between the extremely conservative tea party, and the moderates. And I think (or at least I hope) the moderates will win. The tea party proved to be a fantastic failure in this last Presidential election, and disgusting people like Todd Akin and Joe Arpaio are making their ilk seem less and less savory by the moment. When DOMA goes up against the Supreme Court in March it will most certainly lose, so that's one future loss we can chalk up against conservatives.

And with that issue settled long before the next election, their choice is either to continue to cling to the extreme social conservatism that made them so unpopular with so many people (specifically minorities and women), or calm the fuck down on abortions, admit you can't just find and deport 11 million people with any reasonable degree of success, and take a more moderate and fiscally conservative approach. And I say moderate and fiscally conservative together, because while Paul Ryan was certainly fiscally conservative, he was certainly not moderate and frankly scared the shit out of everyone in his party. I mean really, when you've got someone in the conservative party who manages to scare off old people, that is a misfire of unfathomable proportions.

To put it simply, they have to decide who they want to appeal to on a national level. Of course the deep south will continue to be the deep south, but the national GOP needs to decide if they want to appeal to them or the moderates. Since the "southern strategy" managed to let them down this time, I imagine they will begrudgingly settle on moderates.

Of course there is the slim possibility that the Independents might take this opportunity to make themselves legitimate contenders against the Dems and Reps, but I don't feel like that's very likely. While they are steadily growing in numbers, they just don't have the kinds of numbers or amount of public support to get enough of a foothold to be a threat to the other two. Unless the Republicans screw this split up as well and refuse to appeal to moderates, I don't see the Independence becoming a fully-fledged third party just yet.

Blacks are staying the same, and latinos are growing, but the likely hood of the Republicans dying are fucking slim, what's going to happen is that the Democrats are going to do something fucking stupid, and overreach, causing a backlash. You already seeing the case Washington state being a prime example. 3 Seatlle dems, open up a bill to allow those that have "assault weapons" be visited by the police everyyear to check on them. The backlash was fierce, as congress literally told them they won't see the bill at all till they remove the provision, similar shit is happening all around the country, Democrats going for confiscation, registry, a million dollar insurance policy, the gun control debate will more than likely torpedo the Dems and give the Republicans a resurgence than their death. Besides the same fact that something similar was said about the dems last time. Earlier 2000's being the case.

Magenera:
Blacks are staying the same, and latinos are growing, but the likely hood of the Republicans dying are fucking slim, what's going to happen is that the Democrats are going to do something fucking stupid, and overreach, causing a backlash. You already seeing the case Washington state being a prime example. 3 Seatlle dems, open up a bill to allow those that have "assault weapons" be visited by the police everyyear to check on them. The backlash was fierce, as congress literally told them they won't see the bill at all till they remove the provision

Really, the backlash was "fierce"? I actually live in Washington state and listen to the local NPR station quite often (over an hour a day, 4 days a week, often more) and I have heard nothing about that, at all. :\

OT: Yeah... Republicans have a big problem. They have been focusing a lot on appealing to a rapidly shrinking minority, and I don't think it will work out for them. They need to rethink a lot of stuff and change their direciont soon, or risk becoming irrelevant.

Witty Name Here:
Honestly, this doesn't come as that much of a surprise to me. No offense to any Republicans on the forums, but it seems like the party has found a way to alienate each and every group, and perhaps the biggest issue is their definition of "helping" underprivileged or poverty stricken groups.

There's a boon to the republicans though: Many people vote republican against their own interests. They're not rich, but value stuff like imposing Christianity on others, being able to kill other people with guns, or believe in the dogmatic conservative economic thinking. So they vote republican, while really all that republican policies will do is hurt them.

Like some random guy that appeared on television a bit back, a program about police in Alaska, it really struck me for how illogical it was. He was hardly looking rich, he was drunk and was asked who the president of the US was as a way of seeing how far gone he was, and he was sad that it was Obama. While his geographic location means that Romney's plans for extensive cuts on healthcare, would've pretty much disabled that man's acces to healthcare completely. Heck, the paramedics who asked him that question would've been out of a job and the police would've had no option but to leave him to die in the snow. Already Alaska won't be the best place on earth to fall ill, but if the republicans had their way, you'd be lucky to find more than a single hospital in that state, assuming you can pay a few tons to gain acces. Why on earth would someone show such republican sympathies if them getting into office would mean he's got a huge problem if he ever fall ill? It's illogical, but it happens.

Witty Name Here:

as "minorities" keep growing, and as the Republican party essentially earns the ire of each group, they'll quickly end up pigeonholed by 2020; especially if things continue the way they are.

This is largely correct. Right now, Republicans are the fake home of small government. I write fake as, when in power, they've failed to shrink the size and scope and power of centralized government. But a fake home has been better than no home for many. At least until now.

I think the minorities you write ofwill always disproportionately want hand outs. The Democratic party is the party of hand outs. As long as Republicans pay lip service to small government, those wanting a hand out will reject them.

I don't think I raise their ire by pointing out that I think them disproportionately likely to want to handouts. I raise their ire by saying they may not have these handouts.

That is why amnesty is not going to work for Republicans. I don't think they would benefit by saying, "See? We really like you guys! You just can't have handouts! Will you social conservatives now vote for us so we can outlaw abortion?"

That's just not going to work. And I don't know a solution to the issue. I just think us small government types are screwed.

Well let's see why. One party promises to give you everything and the other promises you opportunities. Who do you think will get the votes? It will be this way until the govt. collapses in on itself similar to Greece and other countries. It's really only a matter of time now.

BlackConservative:
Well let's see why. One party promises to give you everything and the other promises you opportunities. Who do you think will get the votes? It will be this way until the govt. collapses in on itself similar to Greece and other countries. It's really only a matter of time now.

Arguments against this I've read include:

Illegal Immigrants, granted amnesty, will go on to become wealthy and not want handouts.
Many illegal immigrants, granted immunity are actually social conservatives that can be wooed by Republicans.

I think this fails. The one thing we know about illegal immigrants (and the growing minority issue is directly related to them) is that they are in this country illegally. Not a good start.

Their 2nd generation is disproportionately crime prone. Many of those here taking low wage under the table jobs really are here to work hard. Their kids learn a bad lesson: hard work doesn't pay much.

While they may be Catholic or belong to other socially conservative groups, they live their lives with what I've read is the biggest predictor of social disfunction: lack of traditional family. Men marrying the mothers of their kids. Such people are always going to be more likely to need handouts.

But this is where we are heading. We will get Amnesty and 11 million mostly minority scofflaws will be on a path to vote for more handouts.

And our future is worse than Greece's. Greece is tiny and can be bailed out. The USA is the biggest there is. We cannot be bailed out, at least not in the same manner. My prediction: Our children will dig through the trash of the elite looking for a morsel of food in a destroyed economy where a frighteningly large amount of what any normal worker could earn goes to pay for interest on our debt that the current left is building to have their handouts today.

Gorfias:
-snip-

You told me yourself not long ago that you agreed the Republicans brought their loss onto themselves. I pointed out how the far right reared its ugly head with "legitimate rape," "rape babies are a gift from God," and other such far right theocratic nonsense, and how Romney changed his image so much from the "Moderate from Massachusetts" to virtually indistinguishable from any other member of the far right made people unsure if they were voting for the moderate they wanted or someone who would flip-flop and later agree with Todd Akin.

Also, once again, you are letting your concerns about illegal immigration get in the way of actually solving the problem, which frankly to me is disgusting. Conservatives get onto Democrats for not doing enough budget cutting to deal with the deficit for their own political gains, but here you are refusing to address another issue for the exact same reason. If you're going to behave just like them, then stop pretending you're any better or care about America more than politics any more than they do.

Lilani:

You told me yourself not long ago that you agreed the Republicans brought their loss onto themselves. I pointed out how the far right reared its ugly head with "legitimate rape," "rape babies are a gift from God," and other such far right theocratic nonsense,

I agree, that is nonsense. Frighteningly, I have sources like TIME telling me not to worry. Eventually, amnesty will bring people in our society that are "social conservatives". To me, that is like telling me that Amnesty may bring in fiscal recklessness, but hey, maybe Republicans can woo them with the nonsense you describe above! This is lose lose for me.

Also, once again, you are letting your concerns about illegal immigration get in the way of actually solving the problem,

Some prime solutions I would have is better border enforcement, active deportations, heavy and damaging sanctions to anyone hiring an illegal alien and an active and functioning death penalty for use where appropriate. Instead, we have John McCain telling us upholding civilization is just too hard. Better to reward criminality.

I find that disgusting.

And sadly, I think McCain is going to get his way. Liberty was fun while it lasted.

Gorfias:

Some prime solutions I would have is better border enforcement, active deportations, heavy and damaging sanctions to anyone hiring an illegal alien and an active and functioning death penalty for use where appropriate. Instead, we have John McCain telling us upholding civilization is just too hard. Better to reward criminality.

I find that disgusting.

And sadly, I think McCain is going to get his way. Liberty was fun while it lasted.

I was under the impression that knowingly hiring an illegal alien was actually, you know, illegal? So I don't see the problem.

Better border enforcement..Say, how? And how will you fund it? More taxes?

BlackConservative:
One party promises to give you everything and the other promises you opportunities.

Hyperbolic baloney. If the GOP is the party of opportunities, I'm the Queen of England. Jindal has been dismantling the education and health care systems in Louisiana for years, all in the name of 'reform'. And he's supposed to be one of the 'smart' Republicans? Tell me, where does this opportunity come from when we're all dumb as bricks due to lack of education? If anything, the Democrats promise a safety net for when you fail.

edit: Trickle down policies don't work. You want a strong foundation, you need to build from the ground up.

BlackConservative:
and the other promises you opportunities.

Assuming of course you're straight, a woman who abides by traditional gender roles, judeo-christian, or otherwise not part of any other demographic that contributes to America's "moral decline" or is not out to destroy The Traditional Family (tm).

It's really only a matter of time now.

Don't sweat it. I'll likely be here for you and the other televangelists to blame.

Realitycrash:

Gorfias:

Some prime solutions I would have is better border enforcement, active deportations, heavy and damaging sanctions to anyone hiring an illegal alien and an active and functioning death penalty for use where appropriate. Instead, we have John McCain telling us upholding civilization is just too hard. Better to reward criminality.

I find that disgusting.

And sadly, I think McCain is going to get his way. Liberty was fun while it lasted.

I was under the impression that knowingly hiring an illegal alien was actually, you know, illegal? So I don't see the problem.

Better border enforcement..Say, how? And how will you fund it? More taxes?

I think it is illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien. It may still be profitable to do so. Let's make it less so. And ensure there are and better enforced laws to check the legal status of those applying. (I personally have always had to check a box on applications about my legal status. There needs to be follow up. A birth certificate maybe?) There are some millions of people making a living in this nation illegally. We must not be doing what we should to decrease this radically. We have to do more. But we won't.

How to fund border enforcement? Maybe as a partial sanction to illegals and those that hire them, have them help build the fences. But we won't.

My prediction again: we will reward criminality and social destruction, again. The result will be far more criminality and social destruction.

Gorfias:

Realitycrash:

Gorfias:

Some prime solutions I would have is better border enforcement, active deportations, heavy and damaging sanctions to anyone hiring an illegal alien and an active and functioning death penalty for use where appropriate. Instead, we have John McCain telling us upholding civilization is just too hard. Better to reward criminality.

I find that disgusting.

And sadly, I think McCain is going to get his way. Liberty was fun while it lasted.

I was under the impression that knowingly hiring an illegal alien was actually, you know, illegal? So I don't see the problem.

Better border enforcement..Say, how? And how will you fund it? More taxes?

I think it is illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien. It may still be profitable to do so. Let's make it less so. And ensure there are and better enforced laws to check the legal status of those applying. (I personally have always had to check a box on applications about my legal status. There needs to be follow up. A birth certificate maybe?) There are some millions of people making a living in this nation illegally. We must not be doing what we should to decrease this radically. We have to do more. But we won't.

How to fund border enforcement? Maybe as a partial sanction to illegals and those that hire them, have them help build the fences. But we won't.

My prediction again: we will reward criminality and social destruction, again. The result will be far more criminality and social destruction.

So, better enforced laws. How are we going to pay for this new law-enforcement? These new hours and hours needed to do all this paperwork and checking-up?
How are we going to pay for the manpower needed to man the fence?

GunsmithKitten:

BlackConservative:
and the other promises you opportunities.

Assuming of course you're straight, a woman who abides by traditional gender roles, judeo-christian, or otherwise not part of any other demographic that contributes to America's "moral decline" or is not out to destroy The Traditional Family (tm).

It's really only a matter of time now.

Don't sweat it. I'll likely be here for you and the other televangelists to blame.

Since you are most likely to be banned within the year (not something I hope for, it just seems to be the unavoidable conclusion if we compare warnings with posts made within the last year, and how you only have one left), I have something I've been wanting to ask you before you go: If Republicans weren't so hard on traditional gender roles, religion, homosexuality, etc. Would you vote for them?

Realitycrash:

So, better enforced laws. How are we going to pay for this new law-enforcement? These new hours and hours needed to do all this paperwork and checking-up?
How are we going to pay for the manpower needed to man the fence?

At least in part, with the money gained through sanctions against illegal aliens and those that knowingly hire them. We can also divert cash handouts that will be in less need as there will be fewer takers and native low skilled workers earning more and paying more in taxes and also help pay for this. Sound good?

As always there are a few options: party split, re-brand, disband, or change the system.

Though I am curious what affect the minority upsurge will cause. Having just watched American history x again a couple days ago this could end up setting things up for an upswing in racially discriminatory groups that have been told they will be the new minority. That could actually polarize a decent group in the white demographic possibly in a violent or maybe just increasing turnout. I mean if there was near universal turnout for whites and turnout remained the same for minorities despite their increased numbers it's possible that Republicans could win just a couple more elections.

Also with keeping voter turnout in mind the republicans may lose the Presidential election every year but the way we're set up as a country they could dominate Congress. That's where changing the system comes in, they strengthen the Filibuster or change the rules of the senate and they could realistically hold Congress for a numbers of years completely destroying any benefit the democrats have for getting the presidency.

BreakfastMan:

Magenera:
Blacks are staying the same, and latinos are growing, but the likely hood of the Republicans dying are fucking slim, what's going to happen is that the Democrats are going to do something fucking stupid, and overreach, causing a backlash. You already seeing the case Washington state being a prime example. 3 Seatlle dems, open up a bill to allow those that have "assault weapons" be visited by the police everyyear to check on them. The backlash was fierce, as congress literally told them they won't see the bill at all till they remove the provision

Really, the backlash was "fierce"? I actually live in Washington state and listen to the local NPR station quite often (over an hour a day, 4 days a week, often more) and I have heard nothing about that, at all. :\

OT: Yeah... Republicans have a big problem. They have been focusing a lot on appealing to a rapidly shrinking minority, and I don't think it will work out for them. They need to rethink a lot of stuff and change their direciont soon, or risk becoming irrelevant.

I'm curious about this story as well I can't find a source online and usually the conservative sites are number one on a google search when guns and cop over reach is involved.

dmase:
As always there are a few options: party split, re-brand, disband, or change the system.

Though I am curious what affect the minority upsurge will cause. Having just watched American history x again a couple days ago this could end up setting things up for an upswing in racially discriminatory groups that have been told they will be the new minority. That could actually polarize a decent group in the white demographic possibly in a violent or maybe just increasing turnout. I mean if there was near universal turnout for whites and turnout remained the same for minorities despite their increased numbers it's possible that Republicans could win just a couple more elections.

Also with keeping voter turnout in mind the republicans may lose the Presidential election every year but the way we're set up as a country they could dominate Congress. That's where changing the system comes in, they strengthen the Filibuster or change the rules of the senate and they could realistically hold Congress for a numbers of years completely destroying any benefit the democrats have for getting the presidency.

Change won't come to the USA. Both parties are supported by mainly the same large doners that make sure their candidates if elected will care for their interests. Those with money and influence don't want to give it up, and a change in the system won't come. The two party system gives you the illusion of choice. The foreign policies and internal policies of the two candidates are almost always the same. Democrats don't mind bombing people, and Republicans don't mind it either. Neither side doesn't mind cutting spending. There is no choice.

A man chooses, a slave obeys. I can't believe I feel sorry for many Americans who live in security and safety, but are also living in a lie.

Gorfias:

Their 2nd generation is disproportionately crime prone. Many of those here taking low wage under the table jobs really are here to work hard. Their kids learn a bad lesson: hard work doesn't pay much.

You ever think that the reason this is because there parents are considered criminals and the areas where they live they are considered to be a boon on the system? And of course their parents are illegal so they can go to the cops or live in neighborhoods where they might be outed as being illegals? So whenever their family gets robbed or murdered what do they do? When they know there is a drug dealer living down the street do they move? How could they if they moved somewhere else there is always the chance of being caught.

So one of the best indicators for poverty and crime is whether you dropped out of high school. Hispanic drop out rates peaked right after 1985 after being relatively constant for a decade. But it's funny after that sharp increase in drop out rates around 1988 they where was a serious drop in drop out rates. From 35% in 1988 to 17% in 2009 almost a 20% difference. During that same time period black drop out rates dropped by about 5% and white drop out rates dropped by about 2.5%. Think about that does that really fit with your picture that all the children of illegal immigrants are just criminals waiting for the opportunity to do wrong? Remember this is after the 1985 Reagan amnesty program. If your theory is right the drop out rate of Hispanics would probably have been maintained around 30% up to now.

Glasgow:

dmase:
As always there are a few options: party split, re-brand, disband, or change the system.

Though I am curious what affect the minority upsurge will cause. Having just watched American history x again a couple days ago this could end up setting things up for an upswing in racially discriminatory groups that have been told they will be the new minority. That could actually polarize a decent group in the white demographic possibly in a violent or maybe just increasing turnout. I mean if there was near universal turnout for whites and turnout remained the same for minorities despite their increased numbers it's possible that Republicans could win just a couple more elections.

Also with keeping voter turnout in mind the republicans may lose the Presidential election every year but the way we're set up as a country they could dominate Congress. That's where changing the system comes in, they strengthen the Filibuster or change the rules of the senate and they could realistically hold Congress for a numbers of years completely destroying any benefit the democrats have for getting the presidency.

Change won't come to the USA. Both parties are supported by mainly the same large doners that make sure their candidates if elected will care for their interests. Those with money and influence don't want to give it up, and a change in the system won't come. The two party system gives you the illusion of choice. The foreign policies and internal policies of the two candidates are almost always the same. Democrats don't mind bombing people, and Republicans don't mind it either. Neither side doesn't mind cutting spending. There is no choice.

A man chooses, a slave obeys. I can't believe I feel sorry for many Americans who live in security and safety, but are also living in a lie.

When I say change the way government operates I mean gerrymandering and changes in rules allowing congress to block anything the president does or for a minority in congress to completely block all legislation if they desired it.

We're talking about one party that is losing "profitability" will they change to regain that "profitability"? More than likely and business will support changes that assist in winning.

Besides all that, the US will see a campaign reform bill within the next decade if not the next 4 years. It probably won't be the perfect campaign reform bill but it will at least partially take down corporations from controlling elections.

Also as of right now the GOP's downfall isn't big business it's the people. A couple big business leaders thought they would win big by putting money behind the extreme conservatives and guess what the detainees are now running Guantanamo. The GOP has congressman that won't listen to the establishment and is willing to play chicken with the US economy, business don't want that, they stopped wanting that when Romney lost because obviously it doesn't work, but it's to late to stop. Things will work out for the best, we skirt disaster regularly and things always trend to stability in the long run.

And yeah that was a bit rambling.

Contrary to many surface observations, neither Latinos nor Asians are more conservative than the average politically, and it would be a mistake to confuse "personal conservatism" with "political conservatism." Latino's, for example, are only more conservative on one particular issue, abortion, and, even then, there's a serious split between new immigrants and their children.

Asians, on the other hand, should be a demographic stronghold for the GOP, with above average incomes. But they're not. That can be explained by a different statistic: just shy of half the US Asian population has an undergraduate degree at the age of 25. Whatever attraction there is to Republican economic policies is destroyed by positions on social policies and attitudes that are dismissive of science and education.

The current demographic crisis for the GOP has, in my opinion, three root causes:

1) Policy: Setting aside an economic policy that didn't work over a 30 year period and simply does not hold up against reasonable scrutiny, other policies that fly under the GOP banner simply do not attract members of these demographic groups. Education, particularly access to post-secondary education, is a major concern for all of these demographic groups, and the GOP policies of cutting education funding and not investing in K-12 nor higher education and research will continue to hurt them among groups that value education (almost universal among non-white immigrant groups and their descendants). Social support policies (healthcare, social security, and other forms of government assistance) are acknowledged as a necessity by many of these groups as a matter of social insurance and are generally supported by these groups. Their reflexive opposition to the DREAM Act, once considered a bipartisan policy that greatly expedited citizenship for college graduates and immigrant members of the US military, is also not helping.

2) Image: Take a good look at the Republican National Convention in 2012 and you can see a big problem. While many of their speakers were non-white, the audience was almost universally whiter and older. The assignment of the House Chairs, with a token woman, is all white men. The few minority politicians they do have feel token and, in some cases, ridiculing of minority groups (see: former House-Representative Allen West and Presidential Candidate Herman Cain). When you look out of place at a party, why are you going to stay?

3) Tone: The reflexively anti-immigrant tone of the GOP, quite frankly, drives away many minority groups, particularly those of Hispanic and Asian descent who are more likely to have family members who are immigrants. Scenes like the recent McCain town hall tell immigrant groups that the GOP's current acceptance of them is mostly cosmetic, and while McCain can stand up to them now, he caved to that mentality in 2010 when he was up for reelection. Ads like this don't help either. Hostility towards urban demographics, particularly African Americans and accusations that their votes were fraudulent, sound reminiscent of a pre-civil rights US, and minority groups are far less inclined to support candidates who express hostility to them. Finally, the severe anti-intellectual and anti-science tone of the party (represented most acutely by Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum), makes the party look irrational and overtly ideological.

Realitycrash:

GunsmithKitten:

BlackConservative:
and the other promises you opportunities.

Assuming of course you're straight, a woman who abides by traditional gender roles, judeo-christian, or otherwise not part of any other demographic that contributes to America's "moral decline" or is not out to destroy The Traditional Family (tm).

It's really only a matter of time now.

Don't sweat it. I'll likely be here for you and the other televangelists to blame.

Since you are most likely to be banned within the year (not something I hope for, it just seems to be the unavoidable conclusion if we compare warnings with posts made within the last year, and how you only have one left), I have something I've been wanting to ask you before you go: If Republicans weren't so hard on traditional gender roles, religion, homosexuality, etc. Would you vote for them?

If they also threw out the communitarianism, you bet I would. I actually share a good chunk of their economic perspective and their stance on firearm ownership I not only support, but it's vital to my livelihood.

But I don't see it happening. The soul of the GOP was fought for quite some time ago, and the libertarians lost.

Just to throw my particular hat into this ring (or, more specifically, into the much smaller ring within a ring that is the immigration topic), there is actually quite the easy and cost-effective method of getting a lot more manpower on the border. Namely, through the use of that oversized military budget we love so much; with our men and women coming home from Afghanistan soon, why not place them along the border as the ultimate deterrent? I doubt anybody is going to look at a line of armed soldiers and tanks and say 'yep, seems like a place I want to try breaking the law to get in to'.

As an immigrant myself, who did it the legal way, it makes me sick to see border-hoppers being treated as 'victims'. My family and myself had to sink nearly ten grand into going through the entire process, with multiple vaccinations, doctor's tests, et cetera, et cetera. And to see people that didn't being treated as some helpless victims, when they're little more than criminals? Pah.

Regarding the Republican party, I believe that if they eased up on the social issues, they would experience quite the revitalization. From my experience, people actually tend to agree with limited government intervention in the markets, as well as a government founded upon balanced economic principles. It's when they start going on about 'legitimate rape' or getting rid of the gays that your average center/center-right person goes 'uh, what the hell, man?'. So, in my opinion, back off from the social issues, and re-brand the anti-immigration stance in terms of it rewarding lawbreakers, criminals, and the kind of people we do not want in the country, but hold up legal immigration as something to be lauded and approved of. Reward those that did it correctly, punish those that didn't. I don't think anyone can really argue that one should reward criminality, no matter the dire circumstances that lead people to it, nor how rewarding the opportunities just across the border.

BlackConservative:
Well let's see why. One party promises to give you everything and the other promises you opportunities. Who do you think will get the votes? It will be this way until the govt. collapses in on itself similar to Greece and other countries. It's really only a matter of time now.

Opportunity? What opportunity have the Republicans offered my American partner when they support (almost certainly unconstitutional) legislation that refuses to recognise his relationship with me even when it's legal and valid in a state, and have ruled out the ability for gay Americans to sponsor their domestic partners to live with them from even being discussed as part of comprehensive immigration reform?

When my American partner can't even live in his home country if he wants to belong with his family then he has subzero opportunity. One party wants to give him the opportunity to have his relationship recognised by the federal government and to be free to live in America on his own terms, the other wants him to either go away or to break up his family and neuter himself because what he does in his bedroom makes them uncomfortable.

This is why the GOP is in crisis. They could offer all the opportunities in the world to wealthy, straight, protestant, conservative males but they're not just indifferent to everyone else, they see us as an affront to America.

Hukari:
As an immigrant myself, who did it the legal way, it makes me sick to see border-hoppers being treated as 'victims'. My family and myself had to sink nearly ten grand into going through the entire process, with multiple vaccinations, doctor's tests, et cetera, et cetera. And to see people that didn't being treated as some helpless victims, when they're little more than criminals? Pah.

Do you really think that people become illegal immigrants because they don't have $10,000 and don't want to have a couple of medicals and vaccinations? If that was the only thing stopping me I'd be American already.

ten.to.ten:

Hukari:
As an immigrant myself, who did it the legal way, it makes me sick to see border-hoppers being treated as 'victims'. My family and myself had to sink nearly ten grand into going through the entire process, with multiple vaccinations, doctor's tests, et cetera, et cetera. And to see people that didn't being treated as some helpless victims, when they're little more than criminals? Pah.

Do you really think that people become illegal immigrants because they don't have $10,000 and don't want to have a couple of medicals and vaccinations? If that was the only thing stopping me I'd be American already.

Well, consider the majority of the people that become illegal immigrants in this day and age: usually poor, uneducated, unskilled labourers who can't survive in their home-countries, or who see the shiny string of entitlements and opportunities just across the border and want a piece of the action. At the very least, that is my understanding of the situation, based on my experiences and on what information I've been provided.

Now, if you're referring to the problem regarding your situation of gay marriage partners not being eligible for American citizenship, then I do believe that needs to be changed. Whether someone is homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual is entirely irrelevant to whether they should be an American citizen. What matters is if they're a relative of an American citizen, whether they are bringing high-skill or high-education to the country, or are here to function as an investor.

dmase:

BreakfastMan:

Magenera:
Blacks are staying the same, and latinos are growing, but the likely hood of the Republicans dying are fucking slim, what's going to happen is that the Democrats are going to do something fucking stupid, and overreach, causing a backlash. You already seeing the case Washington state being a prime example. 3 Seatlle dems, open up a bill to allow those that have "assault weapons" be visited by the police everyyear to check on them. The backlash was fierce, as congress literally told them they won't see the bill at all till they remove the provision

Really, the backlash was "fierce"? I actually live in Washington state and listen to the local NPR station quite often (over an hour a day, 4 days a week, often more) and I have heard nothing about that, at all. :\

OT: Yeah... Republicans have a big problem. They have been focusing a lot on appealing to a rapidly shrinking minority, and I don't think it will work out for them. They need to rethink a lot of stuff and change their direciont soon, or risk becoming irrelevant.

I'm curious about this story as well I can't find a source online and usually the conservative sites are number one on a google search when guns and cop over reach is involved.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/20/gun-bill-giving-sheriff-right-inspect-homes-pulled/
Provision was pulled and Oregon wanted to join in the fun.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3200.intro.pdf
Always said that the problem with the Republicans that they tried to make the Democrats look like fools and in the end was the ones who were fools, they should have instead left shit alone and have the Democrats torpedo their cause themselves. What's going to save the Republican party is going to be the Democrats.

dmase:

Gorfias:

Their 2nd generation is disproportionately crime prone. Many of those here taking low wage under the table jobs really are here to work hard. Their kids learn a bad lesson: hard work doesn't pay much.

You ever think that the reason this is because there parents are considered criminals and the areas where they live they are considered to be a boon on the system? And of course their parents are illegal so they can go to the cops or live in neighborhoods where they might be outed as being illegals? So whenever their family gets robbed or murdered what do they do? When they know there is a drug dealer living down the street do they move? How could they if they moved somewhere else there is always the chance of being caught.

So one of the best indicators for poverty and crime is whether you dropped out of high school. Hispanic drop out rates peaked right after 1985 after being relatively constant for a decade. But it's funny after that sharp increase in drop out rates around 1988 they where was a serious drop in drop out rates. From 35% in 1988 to 17% in 2009 almost a 20% difference. During that same time period black drop out rates dropped by about 5% and white drop out rates dropped by about 2.5%. Think about that does that really fit with your picture that all the children of illegal immigrants are just criminals waiting for the opportunity to do wrong? Remember this is after the 1985 Reagan amnesty program. If your theory is right the drop out rate of Hispanics would probably have been maintained around 30% up to now.

Interesting stuff about drop out rates. This seems more relevant to the issue:

"Decades of social-science research have confirmed that there is a direct correlation between the incidence of illegitimacy, on the one hand, and the incidence of poverty, educational problems, prison confinement and innumerable other social problems and pathologies, on the other hand. Thus, the exploding illegitimacy rate among Hispanics is especially ominous given that the Hispanic birth rate (23) is now double the rate (11.5) of non-Hispanic whites, whose illegitimacy rate (25.4 percent) was roughly half the Hispanic rate (47.9 percent) in 2005. Moreover, the Hispanic birth rate increased in 2005, while the birth rates for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks declined. Indeed, non-Hispanic white women bore fewer children in 2005 than they had in 2004, while Hispanic births increased by 3.9 percent. The rising Hispanic birth rate is further augmented by the soaring and disproportionate Hispanic immigration rate. Unless the trend in the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is reversed, social problems in the coming decades will certainly explode - not only within the Hispanic community, but throughout the nation as well."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/01/20061201-084845-1917r/#ixzz2LlGlflfZ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

If your theory is right, the Reagan Amnesty program was a huge success. Instead, we have a Democratic President, the "life of julia" social programs and the proportionately largest prison population of low income males in the industrialized world.

For this thread, look for increased racial "minority" government representation, more "redistribution" and ever larger numbers of low income males in prison. I think that is a problem.

We need more mormons.
:D

I don't support the Republicans any more than the Democrats, but any "one party system" like we are headed for (already in?) is scary. When the majority of the people fall into that category of "I will vote for my party's candidate, no matter what he says or does", we might have a problem. I cant say this without sounding racists, but statistics show that most (all?) minority groups follow that behavior.

It doesn't matter what the politics of the two parties may be. When you have a "somewhat" balanced two party system, and over 90% of any demographic votes for one party or the other, its obviously not based off of logic or reason. Rational voting doesn't get you over 90% of a demographic, only serious brainwashing and demagoguery produces numbers that high.

I know there are a few "90%" Republican demographics as well, but any group of people who has a 90% voting rate for one party or the other is probably operating of blind partisanship.

cthulhuspawn82:
I don't support the Republicans any more than the Democrats, but any "one party system" like we are headed for (already in?) is scary. When the majority of the people fall into that category of "I will vote for my party's candidate, no matter what he says or does", we might have a problem. I cant say this without sounding racists, but statistics show that most (all?) minority groups follow that behavior.

It doesn't matter what the politics of the two parties may be. When you have a "somewhat" balanced two party system, and over 90% of any demographic votes for one party or the other, its obviously not based off of logic or reason. Rational voting doesn't get you over 90% of a demographic, only serious brainwashing and demagoguery produces numbers that high.

I know there are a few "90%" Republican demographics as well, but any group of people who has a 90% voting rate for one party or the other is probably operating of blind partisanship.

Gay people don't vote 90% Democratic because the Democratic party is the only party that believes in recognising their relationships in order to give them autonomy over their family unit, financial security and legal protection, gay people vote 90% Democratic because they're brainwashed. Gotcha.

ten.to.ten:

cthulhuspawn82:
I don't support the Republicans any more than the Democrats, but any "one party system" like we are headed for (already in?) is scary. When the majority of the people fall into that category of "I will vote for my party's candidate, no matter what he says or does", we might have a problem. I cant say this without sounding racists, but statistics show that most (all?) minority groups follow that behavior.

It doesn't matter what the politics of the two parties may be. When you have a "somewhat" balanced two party system, and over 90% of any demographic votes for one party or the other, its obviously not based off of logic or reason. Rational voting doesn't get you over 90% of a demographic, only serious brainwashing and demagoguery produces numbers that high.

I know there are a few "90%" Republican demographics as well, but any group of people who has a 90% voting rate for one party or the other is probably operating of blind partisanship.

Gay people don't vote 90% Democratic because the Democratic party is the only party that believes in recognising their relationships in order to give them autonomy over their family unit, financial security and legal protection, gay people vote 90% Democratic because they're brainwashed. Gotcha.

No matter the politics, nobody can get numbers that high through legitimate means. Gay people, being humans, should be affected my more than just one issue. I understand "gay rights" is an important thing, and I support them, but seeing as every other political issue affects them as well, I would expect them to be more split, even if if the distribution was much more weighted towards Democrats than rest of the country.

The reason I said brainwashing is because you only get those 90% numbers by telling people, "If your in this group, you must vote for this party". If your gay, you must vote Democrat. There is no discussion, there is no choice, those are the rules. We have no idea who the candidates are going to be in 2016, but if your black or gay I can tell you right now who you will vote for, and who you will vote for in every election which you take part in for the rest of your life. That seems to deny the possibility of freewill, hence brainwashing.

To sum it up. If politics were a game, with a referee, any player getting 90% of the score in what should be a balanced fight will immediately come under review. Lance Armstrong wasn't as successful at cycling as some parties are with certain demographics.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked