Thoughts and discussion on the future of the parties...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 2:37 PM GMT
    I like to think that most people in this country, regardless of party, think that we should try to be fiscally responsible with money, pay bills and believe that the government shouldn't be meddling further and further into our personal lives.

    When I look at the two parties, Democrats and Republicans, I try to figure out which one aligns more with those basic tendencies I admire. After this election I'm even more firmly an independent. I was before, but this time I'm at a complete standstill, wondering where the parties are headed.

    The Republican party has included so many extremists over the years and alienated so many moderates that it finally got what was coming on election day -- and I wasn't really upset, I was almost apathetic. Romney is at heart a moderate, but ultimately unable to shake off the extremist image of the party and even caused many extremist Christians not to vote for him (prejudice against Mormons, etc).

    Simultaneously, I worry that the Democratic party has figured out that as long as they can cement their party as the party of "I want something" (while still winning over the majority of the rich and a good portion of the middle classes), that they can always win.

    And then I look to the future...young people really helped in deciding this election. The Romney campaign counted on only 15% turnout and it was 19% because of the constant reminders from friends and family on social networks. Most young people get their news from Jon Stewart and Colbert, who are liberal elitest machines. Both parties have to secure the young vote going forward. The Republican party is poised to alienate the young vote forever if they don't change their views on social issues.

    Republicans, for a while now, are no longer the party of elite rich white people -- and despite the successfully perpetuated ideas that Republicans are for rich white people, Democrats are -- all you have to do is look at all the richest states and counties. If you question this, just go to www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com and you'll understand. If you don't "get it", that's okay, not everyone will. Basically, it involves the trendy gospel of aligning yourself by mouth with what you obviously aren't in reality.

    Let's face it, Republicans are the party of poor angry white people in fear and denial of their social status (they want a gov. handout but are deluded into the opposite ideas), religious zealots of all races and some southern "new money" white people in denial and gun fanatics.

    Democrats are the party of white women, blacks and latinos that they can keep subordinate through subsidization (many of whom want a gov. handout and believe Democrats are for them in all regards) and affluent/elitist whites who are controlling everthing.

    Republicans have now lost on the wedge issues AMONG WHITES, abortion and gay marriage. What will they turn to? It seems that they need to turn to inclusiveness -- but what kind of inclusiveness -- anti-gay inclusiveness? I fear so.

    Just as democrats and republicans swapped platforms during the "southern strategy" days, I have to wonder if the same thing won't happen in the near future again. I almost see Democrats becoming the more "fiscally responsible" (increasingly pro-business democrats) and socially liberal party, while republicans, having used up all the other wedge issues, turn to big government conservatism in order to win over the masses of "pro-family values" (code word for anti-gay) Latinos and blacks who are also religious along with the religious whites in order to secure elections. Right now Republicans lose among even religious anti-gay latinos and blacks because those constituents don't feel appreciated for some reason. Either way, Republicans have to "reach out", somehow, and I don't see them reaching out to anything other than more anti-gay people.

    I used to think Republicans would drop the social issues and turn into a libertarian party, now I'm wondering if they will do just the opposite -- turn into fiscal liberals and social conservatives for the masses, the worst possible combo ever.

    While firmly remaining an independent libertarian, I may end up progressively voting Democrat as I observe which way things are shifting...

    Some food for thought.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 2:55 PM GMT

    Mock, they were too heavy handed. They were worse than any supposed Nanny-State; they were Big Brother, snooping into peoples' private lives, their bedrooms, meddling in freedom, and curtailing equality under the banner of Jaysus.
    As for Nanny State, the GOP's answer was to punish all people on assistance of one type or another for the actions of some abusers of the system.

    Like this:

    You have six kids just entering college etc. They can't find good jobs so you're helping them out.

    THEN you find out two of them have been playing you. Do you punish all the kids by cutting their support?

    PS as I mentioned in another topic, you had two main choices in the election; Republican, or Republican Lite (Democrat). Your country doesn't know what Lefty is. Look up Canada's NDP for an example of a mainstream Left Party.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 09, 2012 2:55 PM GMT
    I think you're right about a huge chunk of the white population being afraid of losing their majority status. It's called white supremacy. They are afraid that Obama's half black, half white, so much so that they won't accept his citizenship.

    Thankfully, they are outnumbered by the new silent majority, which is a coalition of ALL races. People who believe in unity among everyone regardless of color are finally on the right side of history. We're at a point in U.S. history where being united in celebration of diversity is a strength. To think, 100 years ago, women weren't allowed to vote?!?! We've come a long way, and the democratic party does a better job of representing true American demographics and values.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:00 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidI think you're right about a huge chunk of the white population being afraid of losing their majority status. It's called white supremacy. They are afraid that Obama's half black, half white, so much so that they won't accept his citizenship.

    Thankfully, they are outnumbered by the new silent majority, which is a coalition of ALL races. People who believe in unity among everyone regardless of color are finally on the right side of history. We're at a point in U.S. history where being united in celebration of diversity is a strength. To think, 100 years ago, women weren't allowed to vote?!?! We've come a long way, and the democratic party does a better job of representing true American demographics and values.


    Republicans may RELY on angry poor paranoid white people but for the most part it has nothing to do with race. I think they actually WANT to appeal to the "pro-family" (anti-gay) minds among Latinos and Blacks but they don't know how to do it. Some of the craziest anti-gay religious zealots I've been acquainted with were white men married to black or latino women. While perhaps applicable for a very few, it has nothing to do with race for the vast majority of white males-- that's a myth invented by liberal elitist whites themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:03 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    HottJoe saidI think you're right about a huge chunk of the white population being afraid of losing their majority status. It's called white supremacy. They are afraid that Obama's half black, half white, so much so that they won't accept his citizenship.

    Thankfully, they are outnumbered by the new silent majority, which is a coalition of ALL races. People who believe in unity among everyone regardless of color are finally on the right side of history. We're at a point in U.S. history where being united in celebration of diversity is a strength. To think, 100 years ago, women weren't allowed to vote?!?! We've come a long way, and the democratic party does a better job of representing true American demographics and values.


    Republicans may RELY on angry poor paranoid white people but for the most part it has nothing to do with race.

    546958_4488442223455_1110324499_n.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:05 PM GMT
    The Republicans and Republican-leaning independents cannot possibly win a presidential election if they continue to subscribe to the "Santa Claus" concept that Limbaugh appears to have latched onto in recent days. That's not the way Democrat and Democrat-leaning independent voters think. It's a supremely pessimistic view of the electorate, and one that immensely underestimates the intelligence and motivation of the very people they seek to persuade.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:06 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles said
    HottJoe saidI think you're right about a huge chunk of the white population being afraid of losing their majority status. It's called white supremacy. They are afraid that Obama's half black, half white, so much so that they won't accept his citizenship.

    Thankfully, they are outnumbered by the new silent majority, which is a coalition of ALL races. People who believe in unity among everyone regardless of color are finally on the right side of history. We're at a point in U.S. history where being united in celebration of diversity is a strength. To think, 100 years ago, women weren't allowed to vote?!?! We've come a long way, and the democratic party does a better job of representing true American demographics and values.


    Republicans may RELY on angry poor paranoid white people but for the most part it has nothing to do with race.

    546958_4488442223455_1110324499_n.jpg

    ZING!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:07 PM GMT
    12 twitter abusers out of 500,000,000 users.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:09 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said12 twitter abusers out of 500,000,000 users.
    You just mad brah..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:10 PM GMT
    meninlove, that's the fraction I was referring to who are racist. Many of those people are clearly young. Racism will never completely go away no matter which generation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidmeninlove, that's the fraction I was referring to who are racist. Many of those people are clearly young. Racism will never completely go away no matter which generation.


    A fraction is a polite way of putting it, Mock. That fraction is a huge faction. icon_wink.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:24 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles saidmeninlove, that's the fraction I was referring to who are racist. Many of those people are clearly young. Racism will never completely go away no matter which generation.


    A fraction is a polite way of putting it, Mock. That fraction is a huge faction. icon_wink.gif



    So tell me, just how huge is it? How do we measure the extent of the racism, perhaps the extremity manifests itself by how fair the individual is? 98% of blacks voted for Obama and by contrast 58% of whites voted for Romney. Hmm...that's a pretty big racial gap in terms of looking beyond race!

    And yet Romney is the party of "racist whites". Hmmm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:26 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles saidmeninlove, that's the fraction I was referring to who are racist. Many of those people are clearly young. Racism will never completely go away no matter which generation.


    A fraction is a polite way of putting it, Mock. That fraction is a huge faction. icon_wink.gif



    So tell me, just how huge is it? How do we measure racism? 98% of blacks voted for Obama and by contrast 58% of whites voted for Romney. Hmm...that's a pretty big racial gap in terms of looking beyond race!

    And yet Romney is the party of "racist whites". Hmmm


    Was it really 98%?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    mocktwinkles said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles saidmeninlove, that's the fraction I was referring to who are racist. Many of those people are clearly young. Racism will never completely go away no matter which generation.


    A fraction is a polite way of putting it, Mock. That fraction is a huge faction. icon_wink.gif



    So tell me, just how huge is it? How do we measure racism? 98% of blacks voted for Obama and by contrast 58% of whites voted for Romney. Hmm...that's a pretty big racial gap in terms of looking beyond race!

    And yet Romney is the party of "racist whites". Hmmm


    Was it really 98%?


    In 2008 it was 95%. I believe this time 98, yes. Whatever the actual figure, the vast disparity in voting based on race is there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:29 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said12 twitter abusers out of 500,000,000 users.


    Educate yourself a little:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230222/Presidential-Election-2012-Map-charts-racist-tweets-nation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:31 PM GMT

    The problem with your reasoning Mock, is that if Obama had been white, the Dems would still have won.

    It gets suspiciously racist when opining that people of colour only vote for people of colour because of colour.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:33 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    freedomisntfree said12 twitter abusers out of 500,000,000 users.


    Educate yourself a little:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230222/Presidential-Election-2012-Map-charts-racist-tweets-nation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


    Doesn't change the voting facts. You only focus on one demographic in terms of racism, and it's not only myopic, but grossly disproportionate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:35 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    The problem with your reasoning Mock, is that if Obama had been white, the Dems would still have won.

    It gets suspiciously racist when opining that people of colour only vote for people of colour because of colour.


    It only gets suspiciously racist for you when whites are seemingly doing something along racial lines. Everything else is completely reasonable. But that's okay, it's not like we're going over something new. I'll let other people argue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:37 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    freedomisntfree said12 twitter abusers out of 500,000,000 users.


    Educate yourself a little:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230222/Presidential-Election-2012-Map-charts-racist-tweets-nation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


    it wasn't my post. You posted 12.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:37 PM GMT
    Stop talking about race everyone please. Discuss the possible future that I postulated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    freedomisntfree said
    mocktwinkles said
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles saidmeninlove, that's the fraction I was referring to who are racist. Many of those people are clearly young. Racism will never completely go away no matter which generation.


    A fraction is a polite way of putting it, Mock. That fraction is a huge faction. icon_wink.gif



    So tell me, just how huge is it? How do we measure racism? 98% of blacks voted for Obama and by contrast 58% of whites voted for Romney. Hmm...that's a pretty big racial gap in terms of looking beyond race!

    And yet Romney is the party of "racist whites". Hmmm


    Was it really 98%?


    In 2008 it was 95%. I believe this time 98, yes. Whatever the actual figure, the vast disparity in voting based on race is there.


    Talking a quick look, I can't find any accurate numbers yet, but I wouldn't be all that surprised that it's 95% plus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:40 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    meninlove said
    The problem with your reasoning Mock, is that if Obama had been white, the Dems would still have won.

    It gets suspiciously racist when opining that people of colour only vote for people of colour because of colour.


    It only gets suspiciously racist for you when whites are seemingly doing something along racial lines. Everything else is completely reasonable. But that's okay, it's not like we're going over something new. I'll let other people argue.


    *sighs* Mock, some people of colour will vote because of colour, just as some (as evidenced by tweets) whites will vote on colour. However, you'll find the first group is not voting colour because they hate whites, but because they are still fighting an invisible fight for equality.

    On the other hand the whites in the second group voting for white because of white are doing so out of hatred of colour.

    I'm really hoping you can understand this difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:49 PM GMT


    Here, Mock, as per your request let's leave racism behind, so I'll repeat what I said earlier




    meninlove said
    Mock, they were too heavy handed. They were worse than any supposed Nanny-State; they were Big Brother, snooping into peoples' private lives, their bedrooms, meddling in freedom, and curtailing equality under the banner of Jaysus.
    As for Nanny State, the GOP's answer was to punish all people on assistance of one type or another for the actions of some abusers of the system.

    Like this:

    You have six kids just entering college etc. They can't find good jobs so you're helping them out.

    THEN you find out two of them have been playing you. Do you punish all the kids by cutting their support?

    PS as I mentioned in another topic, you had two main choices in the election; Republican, or Republican Lite (Democrat). Your country doesn't know what Lefty is. Look up Canada's NDP for an example of a mainstream Left Party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:54 PM GMT
    ^ naughty

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2012 3:55 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    mocktwinkles said
    meninlove said
    The problem with your reasoning Mock, is that if Obama had been white, the Dems would still have won.

    It gets suspiciously racist when opining that people of colour only vote for people of colour because of colour.


    It only gets suspiciously racist for you when whites are seemingly doing something along racial lines. Everything else is completely reasonable. But that's okay, it's not like we're going over something new. I'll let other people argue.


    *sighs* Mock, some people of colour will vote because of colour, just as some (as evidenced by tweets) whites will vote on colour. However, you'll find the first group is not voting colour because they hate whites, but because they are still fighting an invisible fight for equality.

    On the other hand the whites in the second group voting for white because of white are doing so out of hatred of colour.

    I'm really hoping you can understand this difference.


    The minority that is fighting for equal rights right now is the gay community -- stop trying to lump everyone else in. There is no non-white person in this country that is denied something under the law because of their skin color, however, gays are denied equality because of our orientation.

    Getting equality for our community will not make everyone love us, it only makes us equal. People can tweet nasty bigoted things all they like and it doesn't affect my life -- nor does it add to some "invisible struggle".