A Republican intellectual explains why the Republican Party is going to die

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

    Jul 26, 2016 4:12 PM GMT
    This deserved its own thread




    A Republican intellectual explains why the Republican Party is going to die
    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy


    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican. A health care wonk and editor at Forbes, he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. Much of his adult life has been dedicated to advancing the Republican Party and conservative ideals.

    But when I caught up with Roy at a bar just outside the Republican convention, he said something I’ve never heard from an establishment conservative before: The Grand Old Party is going to die.

    “I don’t think the Republican Party and the conservative movement are capable of reforming themselves in an incremental and gradual way,” he said. “There’s going to be a disruption.”

    Roy isn’t happy about this: He believes it means the Democrats will dominate national American politics for some time. But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.

    “Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country,” he told me.

    This is a standard assessment among liberals, but it is frankly shocking to hear from a prominent conservative thinker. Our conversation had the air of a confessional: of Roy admitting that he and his intellectual comrades had gone wrong, had failed, had sinned.

    In 1955, William F. Buckley created the intellectual architecture of modern conservatism by founding National Review, focusing on a free market, social conservatism, and a muscular foreign policy. Buckley’s ideals found purchase in the Republican Party in 1964, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater. While Goldwater lost the 1964 general election, his ideas eventually won out in the GOP, culminating in the Reagan Revolution of 1980.

    Normally, Goldwater’s defeat is spun as a story of triumph: how the conservative movement eventually righted the ship of an unprincipled GOP. But according to Roy, it’s the first act of a tragedy.

    “Goldwater’s nomination in 1964 was a historical disaster for the conservative movement,” Roy tells me, “because for the ensuing decades, it identified Democrats as the party of civil rights and Republicans as the party opposed to civil rights.”

    Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He himself was not especially racist — he believed it was wrong, on free market grounds, for the federal government to force private businesses to desegregate. But this “principled” stance identified the GOP with the pro-segregation camp in everyone’s eyes, while the Democrats under Lyndon Johnson became the champions of anti-racism.

    This had a double effect, Roy says. First, it forced black voters out of the GOP. Second, it invited in white racists who had previously been Democrats. Even though many Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in Congress, the post-Goldwater party became the party of aggrieved whites.

    “The fact is, today, the Republican coalition has inherited the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the Southern Democrats who are now Republicans,” Roy says. “Conservatives and Republicans have not come to terms with that problem.”

    The available evidence compiled by historians and political scientists suggests that 1964 really was a pivotal political moment, in exactly the way Roy describes.

    Yet Republican intellectuals have long denied this, fabricating a revisionist history in which Republicans were and always have been the party of civil rights. In 2012, National Review ran a lengthy cover story arguing that the standard history recounted by Roy was “popular but indefensible.”

    This revisionism, according to Roy, points to a much bigger conservative delusion: They cannot admit that their party’s voters are motivated far more by white identity politics than by conservative ideals.

    So they deny the party’s racist history, that its post-1964 success was a direct result of attracting whites disillusioned by the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights. And they deny that to this day, Republican voters are driven more by white resentment than by a principled commitment to the free market and individual liberty.

    “It’s the power of wishful thinking. None of us want to accept that opposition to civil rights is the legacy that we’ve inherited,” Roy says.

    He expands on this idea: “It’s a common observation on the left, but it’s an observation that a lot of us on the right genuinely believed wasn’t true — which is that conservatism has become, and has been for some time, much more about white identity politics than it has been about conservative political philosophy. I think today, even now, a lot of conservatives have not come to terms with that problem.”

    This, Roy believes, is where the conservative intellectual class went astray. By refusing to admit the truth about their own party, they were powerless to stop the forces that led to Donald Trump’s rise. They told themselves, over and over again, that Goldwater’s victory was a triumph.

    But in reality, it created the conditions under which Trump could thrive. Trump’s politics of aggrieved white nationalism — labeling black people criminals, Latinos rapists, and Muslims terrorists — succeeded because the party’s voting base was made up of the people who once opposed civil rights.

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

    Jul 26, 2016 4:27 PM GMT

    "white nationalism"?

    In the 50's, along with Buckley, I am sure this douche bag had much to do with the creation of the GOP we know today



    McCarthyism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism


    McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.[1] It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[2] The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

    During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[3] laws that were later declared unconstitutional,[4] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[5] or actionable,[6] or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

    The most notable examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2016 4:53 PM GMT
    just to mention 1955, 1980 and even 2001 were a long time ago

    any conservative doctrine must fail by its own definition. The real world will rub up against it till it falls apart.

    day before the common residential incandescent light bulbs became illegal in the US there were old people at homeDepot loading up on the old E26 base light bulb. The E stands for Edison, the inventor of the screw base light bulb.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 26, 2016 5:29 PM GMT
    pellaz saidjust to mention 1955, 1980 and even 2001 were a long time ago

    any conservative doctrine must fail by its own definition. The real world will rub up against it till it falls apart.

    day before the common residential incandescent light bulbs became illegal in the US there were old people at homeDepot loading up on the old E26 base light bulb. The E stands for Edison, the inventor of the screw base light bulb.




    In the broader sense, 60+ years of severe political pendulum activity is really not that much time lapse, America is only 240 years old. We still mourn and are obsessed with the Titanic story and disaster 100+ years after the tragedy. The "roaring 20's" seem to be a time of political freedom in the US until the bottom dropped out with the '29 stock market crash. Then it got very political when 3/4 of the nation was on welfare. The last 7+ years though, something has fundamentally changed, more than any other time since the great depression. With the internet age, there has been an awakening of the peoples or the individual. Since many huge changes, laws, rules, regulations came about in government and for individuals after the great depression finally ended, (unfortunately, two world wars helped America out of this), The industrial revolution started 160 years ago, America was only 80 years old then, the age of grandparents

    I see more huge shifts and changes from the recent great recession that started with the banks (again for the second time). I think there are lessons to be learned here, its repetition that needs to be recognized if we, as a nation, didn't learn from our past lies, corruption, mistakes the first time in order to make corrections the second, third, fourth, fifth...etc . It all appears to be different this time around, the 'collective' is ready to finally get out of this repetitive pattern, known as the pendulum. I think the pendulum swinging this many years has been 'written in the stars' and the time has come, to make "the final decision"

    As I already said, the American pendulum will cease to exist after this election. The final decision will be permanent. What the individual does after this final decision is of course up to the individual, using free will and knowledge of their particular situation icon_idea.gif
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Jul 27, 2016 12:28 AM GMT
    Interesting read. As I read it I kept wondering, "What would Lincoln think?" The video at the end was pretty good too.

    One very important point was left out of the article. Conservatism, by its very nature, opposes change. Even when some progress (which is of course, the root of progressive) would benefit their party and platform, conservatives can't do it. They obstinately, irrationally, refuse to modify their positions -- even in the face of irrefutable, repeatable, verifiable, physical evidence. This is the essence, and Achilles' Heal, of conservatism. The world will change, progress will occur, it is inevitable. Conservatives may be successful in slowing progress, and maybe even temporarily reversing it, but ultimately progress will happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2016 1:40 AM GMT
    jeepguySD saidInteresting read. As I read it I kept wondering, "What would Lincoln think?" The video at the end was pretty good too.

    One very important point was left out of the article. Conservatism, by its very nature, opposes change. Even when some progress (which is of course, the root of progressive) would benefit their party and platform, conservatives can't do it. They obstinately, irrationally, refuse to modify their positions -- even in the face of irrefutable, repeatable, verifiable, physical evidence. This is the essence, and Achilles' Heal, of conservatism. The world will change, progress will occur, it is inevitable. Conservatives may be successful in slowing progress, and maybe even temporarily reversing it, but ultimately progress will happen.


    That's because conservatism by its nature is stupid. Pew Research does have a report that indicates conservatives are not very smart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2016 3:32 AM GMT
    NEDC12 said
    jeepguySD saidInteresting read. As I read it I kept wondering, "What would Lincoln think?" The video at the end was pretty good too.

    One very important point was left out of the article. Conservatism, by its very nature, opposes change. Even when some progress (which is of course, the root of progressive) would benefit their party and platform, conservatives can't do it. They obstinately, irrationally, refuse to modify their positions -- even in the face of irrefutable, repeatable, verifiable, physical evidence. This is the essence, and Achilles' Heal, of conservatism. The world will change, progress will occur, it is inevitable. Conservatives may be successful in slowing progress, and maybe even temporarily reversing it, but ultimately progress will happen.


    That's because conservatism by its nature is stupid. Pew Research does have a report that indicates conservatives are not very smart.


    The jury may be out on whether conservatives are less intelligent than liberals, but there's evidence that they may be physically stronger. ... which means that if you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. You might not like them when they're angry. ....

    http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html#ixzz0gw6qkclr

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

    Jul 27, 2016 4:05 AM GMT
    jeepguySD saidInteresting read. As I read it I kept wondering, "What would Lincoln think?" The video at the end was pretty good too.

    One very important point was left out of the article. Conservatism, by its very nature, opposes change. Even when some progress (which is of course, the root of progressive) would benefit their party and platform, conservatives can't do it. They obstinately, irrationally, refuse to modify their positions -- even in the face of irrefutable, repeatable, verifiable, physical evidence. This is the essence, and Achilles' Heal, of conservatism. The world will change, progress will occur, it is inevitable. Conservatives may be successful in slowing progress, and maybe even temporarily reversing it, but ultimately progress will happen.





    I personally feel what you have explained, is given to us in the final, duality battle between Nico (the machines-reality) and Smith (the program-fantasy). Ultimately, the machine reality defeated its program fantasy by inevitably "joining with it" in order to defeat it, this was the Matrix program Achilles' Heal the programmer did not anticipate. I believe the conservatism ideology which includes religion has been the Smith fantasy program and the awakening of the individuals represent the reality, machines that must over power the program by uncovering more reality in order to destroy it. The more individuals awaken and escape the Matrix, the weaker the program gets. The entire Matrix series builds up and then destroys conservatism, this election is the final battle icon_idea.gif

    Hope that makes sense, Hollywood likes to 'give away' certain things in movies before anyone realizes what they are watching


  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14389

    Jul 27, 2016 12:10 PM GMT
    NEDC12 said
    jeepguySD saidInteresting read. As I read it I kept wondering, "What would Lincoln think?" The video at the end was pretty good too.

    One very important point was left out of the article. Conservatism, by its very nature, opposes change. Even when some progress (which is of course, the root of progressive) would benefit their party and platform, conservatives can't do it. They obstinately, irrationally, refuse to modify their positions -- even in the face of irrefutable, repeatable, verifiable, physical evidence. This is the essence, and Achilles' Heal, of conservatism. The world will change, progress will occur, it is inevitable. Conservatives may be successful in slowing progress, and maybe even temporarily reversing it, but ultimately progress will happen.


    That's because conservatism by its nature is stupid. Pew Research does have a report that indicates conservatives are not very smart.
    Pew Research is a leftist oriented polling group with very little credibility. If anyone is stupid it is all you brain dead Hillary supporters who think that she is your friend, your hero. However what she says she stands for in reality she stands for the complete opposite. Wall Street will continue to pillage the American people and the hapless Hillary ho will grow even wealthier than she is now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2016 2:04 PM GMT
    is conservationism already dead today with or with out a Trump win.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 27, 2016 2:09 PM GMT
    ELNathB saidTrump’s politics of aggrieved white nationalism — labeling black people criminals, Latinos rapists, and Muslims terrorists — succeeded because the party’s voting base was made up of the people who once opposed civil rights.



    You lost me here. This is just blatantly false on it's face. A gross generalization that simply isn't true at all.

    As for the Republican party dying? Not gonna happen. What IS happening is that it's going to change -- hopefully drastically -- to broaden the tent and weed out the far-right radical loons who have been responsible for the lack of enthusiasm for the GOP the last several elections. Trump is the beginning of that change. Trump isn't nearly as conservative as he has had to campaign as, but he's had no choice -- he needed to get the nomination first --- you saw how the hardcore conservative establishment elites fought him toot-and-nail. This is because they know THEY are the dying breed, NOT the Party.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 27, 2016 2:27 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican. A health care wonk and editor at Forbes, he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. Much of his adult life has been dedicated to advancing the Republican Party and conservative ideals.



    Long story short, this so called "Republican Intellectual" worked for 3 candidates who lost -- 2 of which had campaigns that went down in flames. So take his intellectualism for all it's worth -- Not a damn thing. What he is it appears is, like so many of these so-called "principled conservatives" is BITTER because they've all come face-to-face with the cold hard reality that they are a dying breed and that mainstream America is moving on without them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2016 3:00 PM GMT
    Real interesting OP. In fact, the desert poster had said something odd in another thread that I either did or meant to comment upon, not sure now if I did--I might have gotten distracted at that moment by offline life--that Democrats should be embarrassed that the likes of the KKK was once a part of the party of Blue though now ingrained in the Red.

    Because no, we're not at all embarrassed of having thrown off the nasty bits which switched sides and were embraced by the GOP. Were they still to make up a significant part (as everyone has their fringe) of the Democratic Party, I'd not so register, obviously.

    So I found this part of the OP extremely to the point and good to remember:

    “The fact is, today, the Republican coalition has inherited the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the Southern Democrats who are now Republicans,” Roy says. “Conservatives and Republicans have not come to terms with that problem.” ... By refusing to admit the truth about their own party, they were powerless to stop the forces that led to Donald Trump’s rise.

    In my eyes, that's not just a loss for the GOP, because before they could function as a braking mechanism to progressive change which might come too abruptly to well incorporate into society. Picture even a great ship quickly shifting direction to avoid a reef. You don't want everyone being thrown off the decks and into the cold and unforgiving sea. But if you can slow the ship down, you can avoid the reef by steering a safer course without losing your passengers.

    So instead of having a GOP which has served as a sometimes well-founded criticism of otherwise good liberal ideas, what we might be left with is a ship of extremism, steaming fast through quick turns in rough water. Anyone not thrown off but left onboard could wind up swimming in seasick vomit.

    My very odd hope is that Trump loses and yes, you've heard it here, that the GOP regroup as its conservative self. I still won't like them. But at least I'd be able to again somewhat respect they who are currently beneath contempt, beneath the barnacles, in cahoots with Soviet submarines seeking to sink this ship.

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

    Jul 27, 2016 8:23 PM GMT
    The Repub Party needs to burnt to the ground and rebuilt.
    Or better yet - destroyed and replaced with another political party that actually stands for something other than tax cuts for the rich and for the big corporations.

    It would be nice if Trump's loss this November could spark change - but the Repubs will more likely just burrow deeper into delusion and fantasy.
    And try yet again to elect yet another tax-cuts-for-the-rich pro-corporations Repub candidate in 2020.

    Meanwhile, the fact that the Repubs failed to vet Trump and nominated a Russian sympathizer to be their presidential candidate just demonstrates how far they've veered from the party of Reagan - and how hopelessly incompetent they are.

  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    Jul 27, 2016 8:49 PM GMT
    Your friend, Roy, is stuck in last year. I am a Conservative Gay small government guy. I know Barry Goldwater, not personally, but everything he ever said. He was the first to come out for Gays in the military, saying I don't care if he is straight as long as he can shoot straight.
    Your whole thesis is based on 1990's . Old school college poly sci . The world changed in this last year. PACS and all that, yesterday. Donald gets his word across the world without a PAC. Jesus. Hillary does too. I am listening to people on Fox, MSNBC, whatever They are so yesterday. No body cares anymore about Party Unity.. He has to get the party together really? Am I only going to vote for Trump if he has the party behind him? Crap. And my friend is on Fox everyday. I played poker with him everyday when he was the mayoral spokesman Went on to be State Department spokesperson. Crap? yep
  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    Jul 27, 2016 8:56 PM GMT
    Impressed. Not with you but Roy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2016 9:10 PM GMT
    The_Polaris saidThe Repub Party needs to burnt to the ground and rebuilt.
    Or better yet - destroyed and replaced with another political party that actually stands for something other than tax cuts for the rich and for the big corporations.

    It would be nice if Trump's loss this November could spark change - but the Repubs will more likely just burrow deeper into delusion and fantasy.
    And try yet again to elect yet another tax-cuts-for-the-rich pro-corporations Repub candidate in 2020.

    Meanwhile, the fact that the Repubs failed to vet Trump and nominated a Russian sympathizer to be their presidential candidate just demonstrates how far they've veered from the party of Reagan - and how hopelessly incompetent they are.



    I probably hate paying taxes as much as any Republican.
    My problem with the Republican Party is that has gotten purely emotional and irrational.
    TRUMP IS PROOF THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS LOST ITS MIND.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14389

    Jul 27, 2016 10:10 PM GMT
    The_Polaris saidThe Repub Party needs to burnt to the ground and rebuilt.
    Or better yet - destroyed and replaced with another political party that actually stands for something other than tax cuts for the rich and for the big corporations.

    It would be nice if Trump's loss this November could spark change - but the Repubs will more likely just burrow deeper into delusion and fantasy.
    And try yet again to elect yet another tax-cuts-for-the-rich pro-corporations Repub candidate in 2020.

    Meanwhile, the fact that the Repubs failed to vet Trump and nominated a Russian sympathizer to be their presidential candidate just demonstrates how far they've veered from the party of Reagan - and how hopelessly incompetent they are.

    No dude it is the Democratic Party that needs to be burned to the ground as justified punishment for nominating that crooked, incompetent, power hungry whore as the democratic candidate. The Wicked Witch of Wall Street is unfit and unqualified for the White House. The last thing we need is to have slick Willie back in Washington chasing and harassing women on Capitol Hill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 28, 2016 11:16 PM GMT
    The_Polaris saidThe Repub Party needs to burnt to the ground and rebuilt.
    Or better yet - destroyed and replaced with another political party that actually stands for something other than tax cuts for the rich and for the big corporations.

    It would be nice if Trump's loss this November could spark change - but the Repubs will more likely just burrow deeper into delusion and fantasy.
    And try yet again to elect yet another tax-cuts-for-the-rich pro-corporations Repub candidate in 2020.

    Meanwhile, the fact that the Repubs failed to vet Trump and nominated a Russian sympathizer to be their presidential candidate just demonstrates how far they've veered from the party of Reagan - and how hopelessly incompetent they are.



    A party is made up of individuals. I am flabbergasted how we Americans and gay men especially can support a party and people who would rejoice in seeing us dead. This cognitive dissonance exhibited by some rabid conservative supporters here is absolutely mind boggling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2016 6:16 AM GMT
    theantijock saidReal interesting OP. In fact, the desert poster had said something odd in another thread that I either did or meant to comment upon, not sure now if I did--I might have gotten distracted at that moment by offline life--that Democrats should be embarrassed that the likes of the KKK was once a part of the party of Blue though now ingrained in the Red.

    Because no, we're not at all embarrassed of having thrown off the nasty bits which switched sides and were embraced by the GOP. Were they still to make up a significant part (as everyone has their fringe) of the Democratic Party, I'd not so register, obviously.

    So I found this part of the OP extremely to the point and good to remember:

    “The fact is, today, the Republican coalition has inherited the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the Southern Democrats who are now Republicans,” Roy says. “Conservatives and Republicans have not come to terms with that problem.” ... By refusing to admit the truth about their own party, they were powerless to stop the forces that led to Donald Trump’s rise.

    In my eyes, that's not just a loss for the GOP, because before they could function as a braking mechanism to progressive change which might come too abruptly to well incorporate into society. Picture even a great ship quickly shifting direction to avoid a reef. You don't want everyone being thrown off the decks and into the cold and unforgiving sea. But if you can slow the ship down, you can avoid the reef by steering a safer course without losing your passengers.

    So instead of having a GOP which has served as a sometimes well-founded criticism of otherwise good liberal ideas, what we might be left with is a ship of extremism, steaming fast through quick turns in rough water. Anyone not thrown off but left onboard could wind up swimming in seasick vomit.

    My very odd hope is that Trump loses and yes, you've heard it here, that the GOP regroup as its conservative self. I still won't like them. But at least I'd be able to again somewhat respect they who are currently beneath contempt, beneath the barnacles, in cahoots with Soviet submarines seeking to sink this ship.

    Fuck Trump.





    According to this fine informative article, those against the Civil Rights Act of 64 had to do with the region within the united states rather than party affiliation. It sounds like neither the Democrats or Republicans in the south were happy with equality or civil rights and opposed this legislation while the rest of the country was for it. I don't understand the south myself, but belonging to "union" or "confederate" mattered as to whether or not you were a "dixiecrat"?. But ultimately, Civil Right Act was passed by the democrats and signed into law by a democrat president. I suppose the "confederate" was the ultra right wing (KKK) OF THE SOUTH at the time, which included both democrats and republicans. I don't know south history but it would appear because the democrats signed the Civil Rights Act into law, 1964 became a pivotal point in American history, marking the official "end" between the "union" and "confederate", "because" civil rights meant equality for everyone, there was no need for "confederate", everyone, including the south, just became "a more perfect union" icon_idea.gif

    If we as modern Americans want to "blame" for our civil rights issues in this country, we can "blame" the southern states, not either party icon_idea.gif
    The entire US south region will ultimately kill the GOP over the same issues, its ironic, fate, karma?

    Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights


    bothcivilrights.jpeg?w=620&q=20&auto=for
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 29, 2016 2:55 PM GMT
    NEDC12 saidI am flabbergasted how we Americans and gay men especially can support a party and people who would rejoice in seeing us dead. This cognitive dissonance exhibited by some rabid conservative supporters here is absolutely mind boggling.


    This is eye-roll inducing hysteria on your part. The idea that the Republican party would "rejoice in seeing us dead" is utterly false. If you believe it, someone must have hit you over the head with "The Stupid Stick"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2016 3:17 PM GMT
    ELNathB saidAccording to this fine informative article, those against the Civil Rights Act of 64 had to do with the region within the united states rather than party affiliation. It sounds like neither the Democrats or Republicans in the south were happy with equality or civil rights and opposed this legislation while the rest of the country was for it. I don't understand the south myself, but belonging to "union" or "confederate" mattered as to whether or not you were a "dixiecrat"?. But ultimately, Civil Right Act was passed by the democrats and signed into law by a democrat president. I suppose the "confederate" was the ultra right wing (KKK) OF THE SOUTH at the time, which included both democrats and republicans. I don't know south history but it would appear because the democrats signed the Civil Rights Act into law, 1964 became a pivotal point in American history, marking the official "end" between the "union" and "confederate", "because" civil rights meant equality for everyone, there was no need for "confederate", everyone, including the south, just became "a more perfect union" icon_idea.gif

    If we as modern Americans want to "blame" for our civil rights issues in this country, we can "blame" the southern states, not either party icon_idea.gif
    The entire US south region will ultimately kill the GOP over the same issues, its ironic, fate, karma?

    Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

    bothcivilrights.jpeg?w=620&q=20&auto=for


    I haven't looked at it from those numbers so I find that interesting. My understanding was that this doesn't relate to just the one issue but rather that much of the platform shifted so when I get a chance I'll look more into that. But even to just look at those numbers seems telling even though the majority Dems voted for civil rights to pass it.

    Because by those numbers if I read it right: Out of 243 house members of the Democratic Party, 91 were from the confederate states (whether or not they were all "southern democrats") so they made up 37% of the party. How would that not influence the rest of the platform?

    With the Republicans, at that pre civil rights time, the confederate reps made up 11 of 172 of their side of the aisle, or only 6%. So when the confederate group known as the then Southern Democrats switched sides to become Republicans, that's a seismic shift in politics.

    So this Roy guy reads very well into it, that this is what allowed for a smarmy fuck like Trump to take over the GOP. Because as the Democrats long ago shed their own shit, that being then till now absorbed into & even flaunted by the GOP, a Trump would never have arisen since in the party of Blue. Rosemary's baby is their legitimate child.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2016 5:31 PM GMT
    NEDC12 said
    I am flabbergasted how we Americans and gay men especially can support a party and people who would rejoice in seeing us dead. This cognitive dissonance exhibited by some rabid conservative supporters here is absolutely mind boggling.


    OMG, I am shocked you would say that. Oh Wait, you seem to be right:

    Republican Candidates Attend Rally Where Pastor Advocates "Death Penalty" for Gay People

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-candidates-attend-rally-where-014821801.html?ref=gs

    I have plenty of Republican friends who don't want to see me or any gay dead. But the party has been silent against the homophobes who were spewing hatred during the 2016 primary.

    Losing this election cycle won't kill the Republican Party. It has the potential to wake them up and make them stronger and better if they can learn the lessons needed.