Apparently not.
You use the term “principle” very loosely, don’t you? I wouldn’t say showing contempt for minorities is a principle in any meaningful sense. Dog whistles like “states’ rights” and “voter fraud” and “welfare president” are not-so-subtle ways to let the black people know that the Republicans would really just as soon not have them be here.
And even if that’s true, it’s not why the GOP lost. Losing Hispanic voters and young voters was far more significant than losing 3 more points in the black vote than the GOP got in the Reagan years.
And you don’t see how that’s all connected? Hispanic voters are perfectly capable of understanding what Republicans keep saying about them. Young voters are perfectly capable of understanding what Republicans are saying about blacks, Hispanics, women and LGBT and think it’s pretty nasty.
Your party is losing people because of their platform, because of the loose mouths of their candidates/politicians/party officers, because of the laws that Republican-majority legislators are passing. It’s not about messaging. We COMPLETELY hear your message. It’s just that we think it’s mean, hateful and very, very incompatible with current mores and morals.
You are so totally right! It wasn’t the niggers, it was the wetbacks, bitches, and spoiled brats.
The GOP has become the party of authoritarianism. Most minority groups are going to fight that, as a matter of course. Nobody who is not “The Man”* wants to vote “The Man” back in. Of course, you guys made it really easy by, literally, putting them front and center and giving them a bullhorn.
*Or feels they could be “The Man” since a lot of those white male votes aren’t even close to a position of power - but they blame their current situation on the niggers, bitches, wetbacks, and spoiled brats. "If it weren’t for them, I would totally be “The Man”!
nm
His other post was written the day he joined.
Perhaps the remonstrance to include a link to the column he was commenting on proved so embarrassing that he stayed away, lo these many years.
Ya know, on the previous page you said that what I said was correct, but then you go and say something like this that SHOWS that what I said was correct.
In case ya can’t remember, [here it is again (from post #674):
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16405246&postcount=674)
jayjay understands this but your post up there does not seem to exhibit as complete a grasp of it as should be possible and the political party you adhere to has heard the words but dismissed them as mere lunatic ravings.
Yeah, this whole meritocracy thing isn’t working for me. I want to go back to the system when all it took to be somebody was being born with white skin and a penis. The good old days when we didn’t complain about entitlement because only people like me were given unearned privileges.
I don’t see why all those other people are so greedy to think the system should benefit people like them. When everyone should see the purpose of the system is to benefit people like me.
I agree Republicans should curb the “real Americans” nonsense. But many of you have made a factually wrong argument: that the PLATFORM should change. There is nothing racist or hateful in the GOP platform, and nearly all of it is popular to at least 40% of the population and in about half the cases, a majority.
What many of you seem to be arguing is that the GOP should occupy a space just slightly to the right of the Democratic Party, as it did in the 50s and 60s, even though there are a ton of voters further to the right(40% call themselves conservatives).
So having a platform that, by your own admission, the majority of Americans disagree with at least half of is a winning strategy? Yeah, go with that.
The GOP’s current strategy is not to change a damn thing they’re doing but rather to game the system to prevent Democratic supporters from voting. You okay with that, adaher?
I said some items get 40% or so support, others get 60% and some, like the voter ID you obliquely refer to, is supported by 80%.
Are you saying that neither party should support what 80% of Americans support? That’s an awfully anti-democratic view.
Three problems here.
- The democratic party is not left.
- “Further to the right” is a lunatic fringe, because the current republican party is pretty much completely radical as-is.
- Said lunatic fringe should not get what they want. This is one of the advantage of living in a representative democracy - we elect people who kinda have to know that, say, ending the federal reserve or disposing of the IRS is a terrible idea.
Look, the fact of the matter is that the right wing is just plain wrong on a hell of a lot of issues. It is fundamentally wrong basically every time it even sniffs at science, it is empirically wrong on economic policy, wrong on the effects of welfare, wrong about voter fraud, and god knows how wrong about so many other issues. The idea that the GOP should occupy a space slightly to the right of the Democratic party is not entirely accurate; what is accurate is that it should stop being so fucking stupid. And if that puts it “just barely to the right” of the democratic party… Well, what does that say about it now?
Good news: we’re a republic. The legislature is demonstrably flawed and will have no positive effect. Even if 80% of Americans support it, they do so on false premises and without full information, whereas our representatives should not be expected to act on false premises or without full information (and indeed, should be held accountable when they do so). Yes, I advocate stifling the voices of an uninformed majority when they are demonstrably wrong. And personally, I don’t care if that’s anti-democratic, because it’s the right thing to do.
I agree with your premise, I just don’t think voter ID laws are one of those issues where the majority is wrong. And since the courts have not closed that subject off from reasonable regulation, the public is in a position to get what it wants and has in many states. Democrats can resist it at their peril, and then we can have a “Will the Democrats ever figure out why they lost?” thread.
At that point Democrats will have lost because their base has been significantly disenfranchised. Have you seen what Texas has been doing in the last day or so?
Dude, that platform has a whole section on “American Exceptionalism.” And the section is actually named that. I mean, that’s like a big red banner across the cover-sheet saying “DO NOT TAKE ANY OF THIS PLATFORM SERIOUSLY.”
There has been no significant disenfranchisement from properly written voter ID laws that have been upheld by the courts. As a matter of fact, there is so little disenfranchisement that in Indiana your side lost the case because they couldn’t find anyone who would actually be disenfranchised.
American exceptionalism is uncontroversial except with the crazier fringes of the left. Even our current President feels the need to constantly refer to it out of political necessity.
Again, asking the GOP to change their most popular positions is silly.
It’s nothing more than a fancy phrase for “USA! USA! Sis boom bah!”
True enough, Obama and many other Democrats refer to it out of patriotic correctness. Of all the issues out there, the so-called exceptionalism is way down the list of things I worry about. I think we need to spend more effort making ourselves exceptional and less effort patting ourselves on the back for being exceptional.