Why the republican party doesnt appeal to people...

[malakos]

Even a royal blue state like California has its share of crazies!

State Rep Suggests Abortion Is To Blame For California Drought
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/california-drought-abortion_n_7571584.html

.

I would say that although the blue majority in CA is quite strong, it is a more polarized state than other blue states. The right-wingers seem more extreme than those in, say, New England. The rural areas in the east and north (as in north of the Bay Area) resemble the South and/or Appalachians a bit.

 

[slurper_la]

I would say that although the blue majority in CA is quite strong, it is a more polarized state than other blue states. The right-wingers seem more extreme than those in, say, New England. The rural areas in the east and north (as in north of the Bay Area) resemble the South and/or Appalachians a bit.

Completely true but who cares, they don't carry the day! :smile:

When anyone speaks of fences to "keep them out" I always agree it should run the western border of Riverside County

 

[malakos]

I saw a big Confederate flag on display on a parked truck 3 hours north of the Bay (just off of I-5) once. I was a bit surprised.

 

[Bardox]

I don't think the republican party itself is the problem. It's the people in it that repulse others from the party. If the louder more ignorant members would shut their hole and just go along with the party platform then the party would be a lot bigger. The official platform is poll tested and, while you may disagree with a few things, it doesn't repulse people. The thing that drives people away is what happens when the candidate take whats on the platform, warp it, then try to pretend it's something they came up with all on their own. And of course you have people like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Sarah Palin. What comes out when they open their mouth is a flood of toxic sludge that we are meant to pretend is a form of coherent thought.

In short, it's not technically the party that's unappealing. It's the people in it that makes people go "...eeeeeewwwww..."

 

[temptotalk]

I don't think the republican party itself is the problem. It's the people in it that repulse others from the party. If the louder more ignorant members would shut their hole and just go along with the party platform then the party would be a lot bigger. The official platform is poll tested and, while you may disagree with a few things, it doesn't repulse people. The thing that drives people away is what happens when the candidate take whats on the platform, warp it, then try to pretend it's something they came up with all on their own. And of course you have people like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Sarah Palin. What comes out when they open their mouth is a flood of toxic sludge that we are meant to pretend is a form of coherent thought.

In short, it's not technically the party that's unappealing. It's the people in it that makes people go "...eeeeeewwwww..."

What exactly is the party platform? Cause i don't actually see one except for get rich (and stay rich) or die trying. I'm not even saying it works. Most times republicans are shooting their own in the foot with damn near every move they make.

 

[Bardox]

What exactly is the party platform? Cause i don't actually see one except for get rich (and stay rich) or die trying. I'm not even saying it works. Most times republicans are shooting their own in the foot with damn near every move they make.

The platform changes from cycle to cycle. You can find it on the RNC website or your states website. They poll their registered members and alter accordingly. It never varies much though.

The problem being that during the primaries, the candidates appeal to the lowest forms of their party and drive away people that would otherwise vote for/with them.

Latinos are far more aligned with republicans than democrats, but because you have knuckle draggers in the party screaming "GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!" The candidates break with the official platform and spin till they lock in that loud(and often times stupid) segment of the party. Thinking to themselves "we can get the immigrants back with my stance on religion and family issues." And they don't. Same goes for homosexual, independent women, etc.

They go off script trying to get that asshole with the neck beard and the bandana on his head and end up going to far causing most others to pull away in disgust. Problem is that Mr. Neck beard votes while the young conservative that doesn't hate immigrants or gays or a 2 cent tax hike to pay for fixing a bridge just walks away out shame for the party that claims to represent him/her.

If they just stuck to the platform they might actually win a national election or at least not have to contend with the ravings of The Donald.

 

[temptotalk]

The platform changes from cycle to cycle. You can find it on the RNC website or your states website. They poll their registered members and alter accordingly. It never varies much though.

The problem being that during the primaries, the candidates appeal to the lowest forms of their party and drive away people that would otherwise vote for/with them.

Latinos are far more aligned with republicans than democrats, but because you have knuckle draggers in the party screaming "GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!" The candidates break with the official platform and spin till they lock in that loud(and often times stupid) segment of the party. Thinking to themselves "we can get the immigrants back with my stance on religion and family issues." And they don't. Same goes for homosexual, independent women, etc.

They go off script trying to get that asshole with the neck beard and the bandana on his head and end up going to far causing most others to pull away in disgust. Problem is that Mr. Neck beard votes while the young conservative that doesn't hate immigrants or gays or a 2 cent tax hike to pay for fixing a bridge just walks away out shame for the party that claims to represent him/her.

If they just stuck to the platform they might actually win a national election or at least not have to contend with the ravings of The Donald.

I agree but i'm not all too sure it's completely out of shame that they walk away. And i'm not too sure they completely walk away either. I'm guessing here but i think some just go on auto-pilot. Favoring republicans with no real idea on how it will effect them down the line. Either way though the loud knuckle draggers are running things. And until a certain number of republicans stand up and distance themselves then it will always be that way.

 

[Klingsor]

Latinos are far more aligned with republicans than democrats, but because you have knuckle draggers in the party screaming "GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!" The candidates break with the official platform and spin till they lock in that loud(and often times stupid) segment of the party. Thinking to themselves "we can get the immigrants back with my stance on religion and family issues." And they don't. Same goes for homosexual, independent women, etc.

What's the official, non-knuckle-dragging part of the Republican platform that appeals to homosexuals?

 

[Bardox]

What's the official, non-knuckle-dragging part of the Republican platform that appeals to homosexuals?

https://www.gop.com/platform/

That's last cycle's platform.for the RNC. They haven't put out the new one yet. I haven't read the whole thing, but I haven't seen anything that directly against LGBT's. It's when you ask a politician what all the double speak means that the bible comes out and damnation starts getting thrown around.

Now, I'm not a republican. I will not attempt to explain their platform nor justify the words and actions of the more bigoted members of their flock. I'm just addressing where the repulsion comes from, IMO. It's when the republican politicians open their mouths that you inevitably get that cringe worthy sound bite.

 

[Klingsor]

https://www.gop.com/platform/

That's last cycle's platform.for the RNC. They haven't put out the new one yet. I haven't read the whole thing, but I haven't seen anything that directly against LGBT's. It's when you ask a politician what all the double speak means that the bible comes out and damnation starts getting thrown around.

Thanks for the link. Here are a few excerpts:

"A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values."

"We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples."

"We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights."

"The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath."

"The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda."

I would submit that this official Republican Party platform is pretty well calculated to alienate a large portion of the LGBT population.

 

[Bardox]

Thanks for the link. Here are a few excerpts:

"A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values."

"We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples."

"We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights."

"The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath."

"The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda."

I would submit that this official Republican Party platform is pretty well calculated to alienate a large portion of the LGBT population.

As I said, I'm not going to explain nor justify, I could, but I won't. It's a kin to when previous popes would give speeches about not engaging in pre-marital sex. Christians, in western culture at least, looked at him like "oh look it's the pope. Isn't it cute. Give him a round of applause, He's still breathing and I can even understand some of the words he's trying to say. It's the pope." I'll concede to an extent though. it's certainly not a 'friendly" message to LGBT's, but it's not as vicious as the campaign rhetoric that always emerges. That's just plain mean. The exerts you make pale in comparison to what was said about the gay soldier (I forget his name)that "came out" in his question to the 2012 candidates on the stage. Your exerts are at least points you can argue. Not particularly good arguments, but an argument for them can be made. I... won't be... doing that...ever... You can try Travis or Clint or whoever if you want to debate those things.

The conservative brain is still a mystery to me. I think it results due to a lack of blood flow... thought G.I.JOE was a really thing?... denied Twinkies as a kid?... not sure... weirdness....

 

[Klingsor]

As I said, I'm not going to explain nor justify, I could, but I won't. It's a kin to when previous popes would give speeches about not engaging in pre-marital sex. Christians, in western culture at least, looked at him like "oh look it's the pope. Isn't it cute. Give him a round of applause, He's still breathing and I can even understand some of the words he's trying to say. It's the pope." I'll concede to an extent though. it's certainly not a 'friendly" message to LGBT's, but it's not as vicious as the campaign rhetoric that always emerges. That's just plain mean. The exerts you make pale in comparison to what was said about the gay soldier (I forget his name)that "came out" in his question to the 2012 candidates on the stage. Your exerts are at least points you can argue. Not particularly good arguments, but an argument for them can be made. I... won't be... doing that...ever... You can try Travis or Clint or whoever if you want to debate those things.

The conservative brain is still a mystery to me. I think it results due to a lack of blood flow... thought G.I.JOE was a really thing?... denied Twinkies as a kid?... not sure... weirdness....

No doubt worse can, and has, been said. Still, when even the official, supposedly measured pronouncements of the party read like this, they shouldn't be surprised if LGBTs aren't flocking to them in droves.

 

[933295]

No doubt worse can, and has, been said. Still, when even the official, supposedly measured pronouncements of the party read like this, they shouldn't be surprised if LGBTs aren't flocking to them in droves.

I think there are many small government Repubs who support a lot of the GOP financial agenda. You know the litany: minimal support for health care, forced back-to-work laws, cuting back on entitlements(except that the majority of these people will be the baby boomers; yeh, mom and dad), all the states' rights issues from supressing voting in black neighborhoods to lessening the power of public labor unions. Then there's also the so-called moral agenda of the envangelicals whis is having less sway today because they're considered a little crazy by younger generations. I aso think it's about education. Many of the anti-labor people are also anti-education, and many are working class people.

 

[deleted15807]

 

[deleted15807]

Note the silence from Republican leaders on Donald Trump's tirade on Mexicans.

Trump is not soaring in the Republican polls because he is an exception who spews hate speech. He is soaring in those polls because he is preaching to the Republican choir who agree with what he is saying, just like they did not object to his racist birther campaign.​

 

[AlwaysSunnyinDFW]

honestly, once we root out the religious zealots, it'll be competitive again. perhaps if we progress a bit, pull the income inequality rug from underneath the liberal's feet and propose innovative upwards mobility policies for the impoverished and those stuck in inner cities, and do more data-driven cost-benefit policies rather than Jesus-told-me theatrics, we can prevail.

one can only dream

 

[Klingsor]

"Dream" being the operative word?

 

[Fuzzy_]

That awkward moment when "The Dukes of Hazard" being cancelled after 30 years is more upsetting than a church full of people being murdered.

 

[ActionBuddy]

Welcome to Americka.

I always get "The Dukes of Hazard" mixed up with "Starsky and Hutch"... Or, was that vice-versa?... I go all "bimbo" when they are wearing short-shorts in their fast cars...

I *heart* re-runs!

A/B

 

[Klingsor]

I always get "The Dukes of Hazard" mixed up with "Starsky and Hutch"... Or, was that vice-versa?...

I'm only saying this once. Dukes of Hazzard is when the car jumps. Starsky and Hutch is when they jump on the car.