Would anyone like to defend the republican part?

[BrightNShiny]

@Mosier

I can defend the Republican part by pointing out that lefties have their crazy, violent fringe too. Der Trihs himself has gleefully discussed the hypothetical murder of every American soldier, if only he had the power. Animal rights activists have destroyed property and committed violence over their beliefs, communists in history have murdered a bunch of people who resisted the theft of their property, and anarchists are responsible for all sorts of strange, isolated crimes.

The communists? How about joining us in the 21st century. The communists haven’t been a political force in this country (if they ever were) since the 30s, and what communists there were were drummed out and marginalized during the fifties.

And what exactly makes anarchists leftists?

But aside from this, the OP seems to be asking about the Republican Party as it is construed today. If you want to make comparisons, you should be making them to the Democratic Party as it is construed today. Please tell me which Democratic party official or politician supports animal rights activists’ destruction of property.

[Starving_Artist]

@BrightNShiny

The communists? How about joining us in the 21st century. The communists haven’t been a political force in this country (if they ever were) since the 30s, and what communists there were were drummed out and marginalized during the fifties…

He did say ‘historically’, you know.

And communists are leftists.

And the murders committed by communist regimes in the twentieth century absolutely dwarf the Jewish holocaust.

[Sam_Stone]

Well, it might be that Nancy Pelosi has been helping FARC, the terrorist group in Columbia that was holding those hostages:

Mr. Chavez had other cards up his sleeve. One involved Ms. Cordoba, who is currently under investigation by the Colombian attorney general for ties to the FARC. She figures prominently in the captured rebel documents, and is notoriously close to Mr. Chávez.

She met at the Venezuelan presidential palace with FARC leaders last fall. From that meeting the rebels reported that “Piedad says that Chávez has Uribe going crazy. He doesn’t know what to do. That Nancy Pelosi helps and is ready to help in the swap [hostages in exchange for captured guerrillas]. That she has designated [U.S. Congressman Jim] McGovern for this.”

If the speaker of the House was working with Ms. Cordoba in this scheme, her judgment was more than a little misguided. The rebels write that on a trip to Argentina Ms. Cordoba told them, “It doesn’t matter to me the proposal that Sarkozy has made to free Ingrid. Above all, do not liberate Ingrid.” In short, why give up such a useful pawn?

[BrightNShiny]

@Sam Stone

In the 1960’s, almost all the street violence that was taking place was instigated by the left. From the Weathermen to the Black Panthers to street riots and violent protests.

I really hope the Republicans keep using the Weathermen and the Black Panthers to argue against the Democratic Party. It has such relevance to today’s Democratic Party, that I’m sure large numbers of kids who were planning on voting Democratic will switch any day now.

[BrightNShiny]

@Starving Artist

He did say ‘historically’, you know.

Again, the OP seems to be asking about the Republican Party as its constituted today. But keep brining up the 1930s. I’m sure you’ll convince him.

And communists are leftists.

This is meaningless. The communists have never had any serious relevance to the Democratic Party, and certainly not since the end of the 50s, if they ever did. Perhaps you can convince the OP not to vote for the Communist Party? I’d agree with that.

And the murders committed by communist regimes in the twentieth century absolutely dwarf the Jewish holocaust.

Really? Really? Thanks for the history lesson. You can keep brining up communists if you like, but the OP is going to look at the Democratic Party and not see anyone advocating collectivization of property, mass deportations of civillians, genocide, nationalization of the entire economy, or banning religion. I doubt you’ll convince him of anything.

[Starving_Artist]

@BrightNShiny

I really hope the Republicans keep using the Weathermen and the Black Panthers to argue against the Democratic Party. It has such relevance to today’s Democratic Party, that I’m sure large numbers of kids who were planning on voting Democratic will switch any day now.

In other words, you got nothin’.

[BrightNShiny]

@Starving Artist

In other words, you got nothin’.

Uh, yeah. The OP has asked you to convince him to vote Republican, and all you’ve got are things that (1) happened outside the US or (2) happened more than 30 years ago which were of dubious relevance to the Democratic Party back then. I think you’re the one who has nothing.

But by all means go ahead. If this is the best argument that Republicans can make to vote for them, you’ll be doomed to the political wilderness for years to come.

Also, you’ll notice that I haven’t bashed the Republicans in this thread. All I’ve done is pointed out that these arguments aren’t going to convince anyone.

[Starving_Artist]

@BrightNShiny

Again, the OP seems to be asking about the Republican Party as its constituted today.

Your comments regarding Mosier’s post didn’t pertain to the OP but to his defense of Republicans by pointing out acts of violence carried out by leftists.

@BrightNShiny

But keep brining up the 1930s.

Actually, you’re the one who keeps bring up the '30s. Communist regimes have been quite happily killing their citizens right up to the present time, though granted the most horrific killing occurred during the twentieth century.

@BrightNShiny

This is meaningless. The communists have never had any serious relevance to the Democratic Party, and certainly not since the end of the 50s, if they ever did.

It’s not meaningless in the sense that it illustrates that the left is every bit as prone to violence as the right.

And frankly, most of the hatred and intolerance I see these days comes from the left. Given that these can be precursors to violence, I’d say the greater threat of violence these days actually comes from the left.

[Renee]

@Starving Artist

In other words, you got nothin’.

Actually, he does have something. The OP referred to modern day politics–politics of the last 10 years or so and the current ideals of those running for office today. I realize the parties have morphed over the last few hundred years, but I’m interested in why those who are voting Republican today still support *today’s * Republican party, despite what many see as some pretty backwards human rights positions and policies that don’t seem to have anything to do with what many conservatives say they stand for (fiscal conservatism, personal freedom, etc). I’m not saying that there aren’t good reasons to be a Republican, I’d just like to hear them.

Also, sorry about the typos. Could a mod fix the thread title, please? Thanks.

[Renee]

@Starving Artist

And frankly, most of the hatred and intolerance I see these days comes from the left.

Such as?

[Starving_Artist]

@BrightNShiny

Uh, yeah. The OP has asked you to convince him to vote Republican, and all you’ve got are things that (1) happened outside the US or (2) happened more than 30 years ago which were of dubious relevance to the Democratic Party back then. I think you’re the one who has nothing.

Again, you’re moving the goalposts. You challenged Sam’s excellent post with what amounted to virtually nothing. Then, when that’s pointed out, you fall back on “30 years ago” and what the OP wants.

If you want only to talk about what the OP wants, you shouldn’t challenge other posters’ comments. If you challenge other posters’ comments, you should then be expect expected to bring more to the table when you own comments are challenged than ‘That’s not what the OP is looking for’.

[BrightNShiny]

@Starving Artist

Your comments regarding Mosier’s post didn’t pertain to the OP but to his defense of Republicans by pointing out acts of violence carried out by leftists.

I explicitly referred to the OP’s point of view in my original response.

Actually, you’re the one who keeps bring up the '30s. Communist regimes have been quite happily killing their citizens right up to the present time, though granted the most horrific killing occurred during the twentieth century.

Yes, communist regimes are bad. I think you’ve seen me in threads posting that I think they are bad and unsustainable, but maybe you weren’t in those threads. And the relevance to the Republican or Democratic Parties is?

It’s not meaningless in the sense that it illustrates that the left is every bit as prone to violence as the right.

Ok. You’ve convinced the OP not to vote for the Weathermen, the Black Panthers and the Communist Party. Great work.

And frankly, most of the hatred and intolerance I see these days comes from the left. Given that these can be precursors to violence, I’d say the greater threat of violence these days actually comes from the left.

You can keep trying to merge some umbrella conception you have of the “left” into the Democratic Party, but this type of rhetoric is not going to work on anyone who is in tune with politics, is looking at the platforms and the behavior of each parties’ politicians and is trying to determine how to vote.

Personally, I’ve never advocated violence, nor do I condone it in most circumstances. And yet, here I am voting for the Democratic Party. I think the Democratic Party has serious structural problems that need fixing, but if I thought for a moment that the Democratic Party was advocating routine political violence, there’s no way I’d vote for them. Why don’t you show me how the Democratic Party is advocating routine poltical violence and the Republicans are denouncing it, and maybe I’ll switch too.

[BrightNShiny]

@Starving Artist

Again, you’re moving the goalposts. You challenged Sam’s excellent post with what amounted to virtually nothing. Then, when that’s pointed out, you fall back on “30 years ago” and what the OP wants.

Oh, please. I didn’t change any goal posts. My statement was a snarky way of pointing out that 30 year old issues don’t have relevance to the OP. If you can’t understand that, then there’s really nothing I can do.

If you want only to talk about what the OP wants, you shouldn’t challenge other posters’ comments. If you challenge other posters’ comments, you should then be expect expected to bring more to the table when you own comments are challenged than ‘That’s not what the OP is looking for’.

I never stated that the Weatherman and the Black Panthers didn’t exist, so no I didn’t challenge Sam on a factual basis. I am pointing out that they are old issues that have no relevance to today’s Democratic Party, if they ever did.

[Starving_Artist]

@Renee

Actually, he does have something.

Not in regard to Sam Stone’s post, which was my point.

@Renee

The OP referred to modern day politics–politics of the last 10 years or so and the current ideals of those running for office today. I realize the parties have morphed over the last few hundred years, but I’m interested in why those who are voting Republican today still support *today’s * Republican party, despite what many see as some pretty backwards human rights positions and policies that don’t seem to have anything to do with what many conservatives say they stand for (fiscal conservatism, personal freedom, etc). I’m not saying that there aren’t good reasons to be a Republican, I’d just like to hear them.

I’m sorry, but I can’t get into that right now; I have an early morning coming up. I came into this thread to dispute the notion that it is Republicans who are the most prone to violence, and now that I’ve done that I must get to bed.

@Renee

Such as?

Not to give you short shrift (honestly), but leftie hatred and intolerance pervades this very board, at least in GD and the Pit. It’s easy to find if you really want to see it.

[Jiminator]

Well, if you already think Republicans are crazy bygots it is not going to be easy to persuade you otherwise. That’s a pretty hefty label, and quite unfair, but perhaps I can answer your question without falling into the silly arguing that has gone on so far.

The Republican Party is, by and large, out of balance with the ideals that got me interested back when I first became old enough to vote. (12 years ago, in the interest of full disclosure.) I have never agreed with the war in Iraq, although I would not vote for a candidate who promised pulling out. I don’t like the war, but if we left it would create far more problems then if we stay. Right now we are basically holding back two sides of an insurgency, which in a sense is intended to create a bubble in which a political system can be manifested in order to build up it’s own national security. The biggest problem, in my opinion, with our presence in Iraq is that we don’t have our goals in the right place. I read an article about a year ago, and I apologize for no citations on it but I couldn’t remember who wrote it just that it was in a book called “The Best American Political Writing”, that gave the numbers on Iraq’s military building since the US presence. The problem, as it stated, was that there were no incentives for top level military personnel who trained Iraqis or helped build military infrastructures in Iraq. What that means is that no one wanted to do it, it was a crappy job that didn’t further your career much in the military. Furthermore, of 100 or so odd regiments of the Iraqi military, only 4 existed on a level that could operate and function on their own i.e. without US backup, be it with logistics, personnel, communications, what have you. My belief is that if a Democrat got into office who planned to pull out of Iraq without finishing that particular job, working to build the Iraq military so it could largely stand alone, we would be doing a great disservice to the Iraqi people. I don’t think that means I advocate violence or promote warmongering or a culture of fear. Furthermore, I don’t believe that can even be construed to mean that I believe in those things. And again, I am a Republican.

On gay marriage, I think it is a relative non-issue. It is simply a talking point that rallies the Religious Right. I don’t believe that these religious people, by and large, believe they are being bygots. They simply don’t realize, for the most part, that homosexuals didn’t “choose” to be homosexuals. They see homosexual acts as sinful acts and think it was a conscience choice. This problem will not be fixed in the political system, but while always being stigmatized by some, will some day wither and die with the people who grew up with it.

A point I want to make about a hypocrisy that I notice rather often with Democrats or those on the left, is that this type of bygotry exists prominently on both sides. I live in West Virginia, and just recently when the Democratic race was all but over, my state had a landslide victory for Hillary, as did Kentucky just after that. I know that by and large the people in this state are good, hardworking, caring folks; but you would be crazy if you didn’t believe that it wasn’t based on race that this state’s election was so lopsided. And in West Virginia, you have to be registered a Democrat to vote for a Democrat in the primary, so these were Democrats who did this. Furthermore, if Tim Russert were still with us he would already have WV and KY colored red on his election night map.

I’d like to see the Republican Party shift back towards the ideals of smaller government and less spending. Had John McCain beat GWB initially 8 years ago, we might have… or had GWB stuck to his initial promises of doing just those things, we might have. Obviously, things happened, both domestic and abroad, where priorities have shifted (something I think most Democrats have decided to forget or just wish to deny), but I do believe that only a Republican set of ideals can get things back on the right track. I wouldn’t necessarily hate seeing Obama as President, at least the State of the Union Address would be watchable, but I don’t think he’s ready to lead this country right now. He might be just vanilla enough not to cause any more problems, but I don’t think he’s capable of fixing the ones we have. McCain, in my eyes, at least has some potential.

[BrightNShiny]

@Renee

Such as?

Renee, don’t fall into this trap. You’ll notice that people in this thread keep referring to “leftists.” Come fall, you’re not voting for a “leftist.” Your choices are the Democrats, the Republicans, the Greens, GP/USA, Socialist Party, Libertarian Party, Reform Party, Peace and Freedom Party, and the Communist Party (did I leave anyone out?).

By using the generic term “leftist,” they are trying to avoid answering your basic question. It allows them to put together groups which have divergent ideologies under one umbrella. I assume you are vacillating between voting for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Make them tell you why the Republican Party is the better of the two. These calls to “leftisms” are nothing more than an evasion of the question.

And I say this as someone who used to routinely vote Republican twenty years ago.

[MrDibble]

@BrightNShiny

And what exactly makes anarchists leftists?

To be fair, the historically (and, IMO, numerically) dominant strands of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-socialism, are by definition very left. More left than any American political party, that’s for sure. The Trojan Horse Libertarianism that likes to call itself “anarcho-capitalism” is a dark horse, but support for unfetered capitalism is generally more a right-wing tenet than a left-wing one.

Some strands of anarchism like anarcha-feminism and eco-anarchism are also usually associated with left wing ideology but not necessarily so.

Individual anarchism can be all over the place, depending on the person. “Anarchism without adjectives” (yes, it’s really called that) is a syncreticist movement that includes anarcho-capitalism and so doesn’t really fall into left/right classifications.

[Renob]

@Renee

Actually, he does have something. The OP referred to modern day politics–politics of the last 10 years or so and the current ideals of those running for office today. I realize the parties have morphed over the last few hundred years, but I’m interested in why those who are voting Republican today still support *today’s * Republican party, despite what many see as some pretty backwards human rights positions and policies that don’t seem to have anything to do with what many conservatives say they stand for (fiscal conservatism, personal freedom, etc). I’m not saying that there aren’t good reasons to be a Republican, I’d just like to hear them.

I disagree with the GOP on many issues, such as gay marriage and the war in Iraq. However, it’s not like the Democratic Party is much better on these things. I don’t think that the Democrats have endorsed either gay marriage or a withdrawal from Iraq. They are certainly marginally better than the GOP, but there’s really not too much of a difference. And when you look at how the Democrats folded on FISA (another area of disagreement with the GOP) I don’t have much hope that they will be any better on privacy issues.

Really, though, the main reason I’m a Republican is because of state and local issues. Democrats run Maryland and have made it a high-tax, anti-business nanny state. Locally Democrats want to increase taxes and limit growth. At the state and local level (in Maryland, at least) those like me who favor liberty have a better fit with the GOP (although not on social issues). I’m pretty heavily involved in the local GOP. National issues play a very, very limited role in our work. It’s all about the state and local issues.

[foolsguinea]

@Sam Stone

In fact, the Democrats put identity politics in play in a big way. It was the woman against the black. Would the black vote trump the woman’s vote? Would the white men break for the white woman or the black man? Such a conundrum.

Identity politics != violent bigotry.

Segregation in the south existed when it voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Segregation ended while the South was voting Republican. Not that this means anything, other than to point out that Democrats have historically been every bit as racist as Republicans.

As Tom pointed out, describing the current Democratic Party by reference to the party before the exodus of “neoconservatives” & “boll weevils” is inaccurate, & dirty pool.

I’ll leave aside the “soft on crime” business for now.

As for modern foreign policy, the Democrats were just as aggressive under Clinton as the Republicans are now. Clinton intervened militarily numerous times during his presidency. Clinton bombed the Sudan and authorized major military actions against Iraq. John Kerry and Joe Biden were calling for regime change in Iraq.

Eeehh, not entirely. The 1960’s Democratic Party of JFK & LBJ was belligerent. It was the liberal establishment that was overturned in the reform of the 1970’s (which is why the neocons are GOP now). Bush pushed strikingly hard against Mr Hussein, & “pre-emptive war” was looked askance at by a *lot *of people, both on the right & on the left. I’m not sure that you can equate Clinton’s mini-strikes (or even Reagan’s) to W Bush’s invasion of Iraq. (OTOH, Reagan funded “our” terrorists in Central America, which is different from both Clinton & W Bush.)

As for support for crappy dictators, I seem to recall a lot of Democrats and liberals supporting the Sandinistas, and one or two prominent liberals on this board supporting Hugo Chavez. In my country, our Liberal party is great friends with Fidel Castro, and our most famous liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, was such good friends with Castro that when Castro fell ill recently Trudeau’s son flew in to wish him well.

If by support, you mean, not funding revolutionaries to overthrow them, sure.

In the 1960’s, almost all the street violence that was taking place was instigated by the left. From the Weathermen to the Black Panthers to street riots and violent protests.

:dubious:

No, strike that. :rolleyes:

Or even :eek:

Of course there was right-wing street violence. It just didn’t form itself into “revolutionary” forms. Or do you claim that the church burners, the assassins, the Kent State shooters, & the police who harassed civil rights marchers were somehow not right-wing or somehow their violence was meaningfully different from “street violence”?

Generally, when the right is in power, it doesn’t have to form revolutionary groups to channel violence, for those of such temperament who believe in conservatism will find a uniformed service to join. Further, those who oppose order can be labeled “left-wing” to tar everyone in the diverse mess of groups we call “left” with a wide brush. OTOH, compare “right-wing” violence rates when “leftists” are in power.

Speaking of Union thugs, union violence is rather common, and almost all of them are heavy supporters of Democrats. The AFL-CIO appears to have coordinated multiple attacks on Republican offices in the last election according to the last cite.

Yes, however socially conservative & non-revolutionary, unions are one established group with a place for violent members that the left can typically claim as its own. The right get the military, police forces, & mercenaries.

There’s a common attack lefties use - the pie in the face. A lot of right-wing politicians and public figures have been hit with pies.

Compared to shooting abortion providers or blowing up federal buildings…that’s apples & kalashnikovs.

If you want to see left-wing violence, all you have to do is try to organize Republicans on a campus. One Republican club constantly had its newsletters stolen. Members of Republican organizations are yelled at, spit at, and threatened.

Depends on the campus, but true many places. Of course, it’s motivated by (relative) conservatism–of the leftist group that fears the “enemy”–& fear of a group that’s seen as dangerous. Which has been justified at various points in the past if not now. Unfair? Probably, but much like your dredging up of past versions of the Democratic Party.

This is not to say that the right doesn’t engage in such things as well. The point is that the right does not have a monopoly on violence and the desire to do violence. From what i can tell, extremists come from both sides, and the non-extremists on both sides are equally likely to eschew violence.

This assumes a constant definition of “both sides” that’s problematic.

If you want to support the right or left, do it because you agree with their philosophy, not because some extremist tells you the other side eats babies.

Agreed.

[Magiver]

@Der Trihs

It’s not my fault you’re so sheltered you think I’m what qualifies as far left. Or that you think that wanting to treat American soldiers the same way I’d treat other soldiers that invaded a country that wasn’t a threat “extreme and violent” leftism.

Thank God we were able to stop Serbia from invading.