• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

Mycroft said:
Well, the fact is I don't give a whole lot of credence to your "dog-whistle" fantasies even if they are as "well documented" by Mr. Weiler as you say. So, if you don't mind, I'll decline to give your contentions about what those Republican strategists are doing much further thought.
Click to expand...

That's fine. You are free to live in your fantasy land. Have fun!!!
 
Jack Hays said:
It's well documented if you're predisposed to believe it. It's not so persuasive under critical scrutiny. In short, it's handy and comfortable affirmation for long-held views.:peace
Click to expand...

The fact is that it is well documented. And anyone that has taken the time to look in the matter would agree. I have given sources to back this claim up. You don't find it comfortable to believe the truth here. There is an old saying in this regard, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

US Conservative said:
The democrat party is known to engage in wealth redistribution (obamacare, anyone?), and its left wing wants even more of this-so thats not a distortion, its objective fact.
Click to expand...

Democrats are not taking money from white people and giving it to black people. That's the distortion.

US Conservative said:
And yes, you are the arbiter of nothing, or at least not conservationism.
Click to expand...

OK. I have conceded that. Have I made you that angry that you feel the need to repeat it?
 
MildSteel said:
The fact is that it is well documented. And anyone that has taken the time to look in the matter would agree. I have given sources to back this claim up. You don't find it comfortable to believe the truth here. There is an old saying in this regard, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
Click to expand...

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out? I don’t think so. The Republican obituary was written after WWII when the Democrats had won 5 straight presidential elections and obtained such huge advantages in congress as 333-89 in the House and 75-17 in the senate. Yet the Republicans rebounded with Eisenhower’s win in 1952 and actually won both the house and the senate in that election, but they lost them both in the 1954 election.

Then there was Watergate and Nixon’s resignation. Once again the pundits and book writers were spelling the doom of the Republicans. The Democrats won 292 house seats vs. 143 for the GOP, in the senate the Democrats held a 62-38 margin. Carter won the presidency in 1976. But once again the Republicans rebounded with Reagan in 1980 and won back the senate that year.

By 1986 the pundits and political book writers were writing about the Republican electoral lock on the presidency as they couldn’t see how a Democrat could win that national office for the next 20 years. It didn’t take that long, Clinton won in 1992.

So spelling out the demise of one party or the other is nothing new. One also should remember that since the start of the great depression the Democratic Party has always have a lot more people identify with it than the Republicans. At times that advantage was almost 2-1 with the Democrats having 50% or higher of the electorate associating themselves with the Democrats. Yet the Republicans are still with us and they just might be able to win control of the senate this year. It is a little early to be printing their demise or obituary.
 
Perotista said:
Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out? I don’t think so. The Republican obituary was written after WWII when the Democrats had won 5 straight presidential elections and obtained such huge advantages in congress as 333-89 in the House and 75-17 in the senate. Yet the Republicans rebounded with Eisenhower’s win in 1952 and actually won both the house and the senate in that election, but they lost them both in the 1954 election.

Then there was Watergate and Nixon’s resignation. Once again the pundits and book writers were spelling the doom of the Republicans. The Democrats won 292 house seats vs. 143 for the GOP, in the senate the Democrats held a 62-38 margin. Carter won the presidency in 1976. But once again the Republicans rebounded with Reagan in 1980 and won back the senate that year.

By 1986 the pundits and political book writers were writing about the Republican electoral lock on the presidency as they couldn’t see how a Democrat could win that national office for the next 20 years. It didn’t take that long, Clinton won in 1992.

So spelling out the demise of one party or the other is nothing new. One also should remember that since the start of the great depression the Democratic Party has always have a lot more people identify with it than the Republicans. At times that advantage was almost 2-1 with the Democrats having 50% or higher of the electorate associating themselves with the Democrats. Yet the Republicans are still with us and they just might be able to win control of the senate this year. It is a little early to be printing their demise or obituary.
Click to expand...

I agree, they are far from dead. In my opinion, if they did the three things I mentioned, I think their prospects are rather good.
 
MildSteel said:
That's fine. You are free to live in your fantasy land. Have fun!!!
Click to expand...

LOL!! Oh, I do have fun. Especially when I find out there are people out there who hear imaginary dog whistles and who think that old, tired tactic of repeating something till people think it's true still works. (well documented...indeed!)
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!! Oh, I do have fun. Especially when I find out there are people out there who hear imaginary dog whistles and who think that old, tired tactic of repeating something till people think it's true still works. (well documented...indeed!)
Click to expand...

Well fantasies can be fun until the bubble is burst. So knock yourself out!
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Is this stupid topic "Mainstream Media/ Breaking News"??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
MildSteel said:
I agree, they are far from dead. In my opinion, if they did the three things I mentioned, I think their prospects are rather good.
Click to expand...

They in my opinion will either adjust or become basically irrelevant like they were from 1932 to 1952. IKE proved one popular individual can bring any party back from the point of oblivion to being a force worth reckoning. Reagan did the same.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

RiverDad said:
Step back and look at what you're doing here. You're not arguing from a principle towards a conclusion, you're arguing from a desired conclusion and trying to find ways to justify that conclusion.

You're pointing to people making enough to live, but we have a progressive tax system and we have income supports for working people, so a marginal tax increase doesn't affect these people AT ALL. Those who are affected are far higher up the income ladder. You have to look at the margin. Why would taxes NOT affect people on the margin? It doesn't have to be everyone, just like not every smoker quits when the sin taxes are increased.

You trying to devise ad hoc reasoning to support your position of higher tax rates not affecting behavior is going to be a fruitless task. The principle holds true everywhere, just the sensitivity of response changes.
Click to expand...

Wait...are you arguing that taxes influence behavior or are you arguing tax increases equal less revenue and tax decreases equal more revenue.
If it's the former I've already agreed with you. If it's the latter it's just simplified Laffer curve baloney. I responded to a post where you pretty much said that sin taxes purposely set at levels to reduce usage can be used to compare to capital gains taxes.
 
Well, you can ignore changing demographics....but that won't change them.

If you keep making that tent smaller, don't come whining when no one votes for your candidates.
 
beefheart said:
Well, you can ignore changing demographics....but that won't change them.

If you keep making that tent smaller, don't come whining when no one votes for your candidates.
Click to expand...

Demographic change as it affects political parties is not a uni-directional phenomenon.

As the Democrats become a browner party, the Republicans will become a whiter party. We already know that whites, generally, exhibit a higher rate of voting than do minorities, so the battle here is which party can muster a greater amount of voters.

Don't forget that with all of the Democrat's efforts to convince the women of America that the Republicans were engaged in a War on Women, the Republicans won the majority of the white women's vote. Don't forget that despite the effort to convince the young people of America that only fossils vote for Republicans and that cool people, with an eye to the future, vote for Obama, that the Republicans won the majority of the white youth vote.
 
RiverDad said:
Demographic change as it affects political parties is not a uni-directional phenomenon.

As the Democrats become a browner party, the Republicans will become a whiter party. We already know that whites, generally, exhibit a higher rate of voting than do minorities, so the battle here is which party can muster a greater amount of voters.

Don't forget that with all of the Democrat's efforts to convince the women of America that the Republicans were engaged in a War on Women, the Republicans won the majority of the white women's vote. Don't forget that despite the effort to convince the young people of America that only fossils vote for Republicans and that cool people, with an eye to the future, vote for Obama, that the Republicans won the majority of the white youth vote.
Click to expand...
Do you have any data that breaks this down this way?
 
prometeus said:
Do you have any data that breaks this down this way?
Click to expand...

Sure, google-fu the term "Romney won the white vote" and that will start you off. I believe I read somewhere that Romney won a greater share of the white vote than did Reagan, but I haven't verified that.

There have also been numerous pieces of analysis which note that it will be easier for Republicans to peel off a 1% white vote from the Democrats than to get the same number of Hispanic voters but needing to capture 5% in order for the voter totals to be equal.

Lastly, it all boils down to policies. From whom will the money be extracted and to whom shall that money be directed. Obama has put Affirmative Action into many places in the ObamaCare legislation, it's now in the Financial regulations. These hiring quotas will only increase.

Look at what happened in Texas in the Fisher AA case - the U of Texas wanted to grant Affirmative Action to the children of rich Black and Hispanic professionals and disadvantage the children of white working class parents who outscored them in grades and SATs.

This race-based stuff will only increase in scope as the country gets more multicultural. Even the white political leaders and operatives in the Democratic Party are going to be squeezed out eventually - it will become impossible to run a plantation like political system - white leaders and staffers lording over the brown mass of voters. There are ambitious people in that brown mass of people and they're going to want to be leaders. How much longer do you think that this is going to be possible:

As you can see here, beyond Cory Booker (who faced a real race in October but as of now has no real opponent), not only are the Democrats running a virtually all-white slate of candidates in the marquee statewide races, just about every Democrat in a hotly contested race this year is white.​

One last point - Pew ran a poll recently which asked Young Millennials whether they wanted to increase the scale and scope of government or reduce it. The vast majority of white respondents thought government was too large and doing too many things and should be scaled back. Minority voters thought government was not going enough to help them and wanted to increase the scale and scope of government operations in society.
 
RiverDad said:
Sure, google-fu the term "Romney won the white vote" and that will start you off. I believe I read somewhere that Romney won a greater share of the white vote than did Reagan, but I haven't verified that.

There have also been numerous pieces of analysis which note that it will be easier for Republicans to peel off a 1% white vote from the Democrats than to get the same number of Hispanic voters but needing to capture 5% in order for the voter totals to be equal.

Lastly, it all boils down to policies. From whom will the money be extracted and to whom shall that money be directed. Obama has put Affirmative Action into many places in the ObamaCare legislation, it's now in the Financial regulations. These hiring quotas will only increase.

Look at what happened in Texas in the Fisher AA case - the U of Texas wanted to grant Affirmative Action to the children of rich Black and Hispanic professionals and disadvantage the children of white working class parents who outscored them in grades and SATs.

This race-based stuff will only increase in scope as the country gets more multicultural. Even the white political leaders and operatives in the Democratic Party are going to be squeezed out eventually - it will become impossible to run a plantation like political system - white leaders and staffers lording over the brown mass of voters. There are ambitious people in that brown mass of people and they're going to want to be leaders. How much longer do you think that this is going to be possible:

As you can see here, beyond Cory Booker (who faced a real race in October but as of now has no real opponent), not only are the Democrats running a virtually all-white slate of candidates in the marquee statewide races, just about every Democrat in a hotly contested race this year is white.​

One last point - Pew ran a poll recently which asked Young Millennials whether they wanted to increase the scale and scope of government or reduce it. The vast majority of white respondents thought government was too large and doing too many things and should be scaled back. Minority voters thought government was not going enough to help them and wanted to increase the scale and scope of government operations in society.
Click to expand...

Sounds like its a politics war over the role of government, in a way
 
MildSteel said:
And surely you must be aware that men, no different than any other men, wrote the dictionary. Furthermore you must be aware that words acquire different meanings as they are used over time. And, you must be aware that if a person wants to communicate with others, they should chose their words carefully so that their meaning is clear.

I have pointed out the problem with the usage of the term in that context. I have provided a reference to support my claim. You can accept it or reject it as you like.
Click to expand...

so if you or i write a story for a newspaper this empowers us to change the meaning of words....sorry i think not!
 
ernst barkmann said:
so if you or i write a story for a newspaper this empowers us to change the meaning of words....sorry i think not!
Click to expand...

The story did not change the meaning, usage changed the meaning. It already meant that, I knew that meaning when I heard Rush say it in 2008. Sorry, try again.
 
MildSteel said:
The story did not change the meaning, usage changed the meaning. It already meant that, I knew that meaning when I heard Rush say it in 2008. Sorry, try again.
Click to expand...

sorrry no your try again, you dont get to change things because you wrote a story, you idea of things suited to meet your needs fails.

i wonder how many blacks are running around china these days committing crimes, since they refer to criminals as thugs.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorrry no your try again, you dont get to change things because you wrote a story, you idea of things suited to meet your needs fails.

i wonder how many blacks are running around china these days committing crimes, since they refer to criminals as thugs.
Click to expand...

I didn't write the story and I didn't change the meaning of the word. Times change and the meaning of words and how they are used changes. I didn't create that system either.
 
MildSteel said:
I didn't write the story and I didn't change the meaning of the word. Times change and the meaning of words and how they are used changes. I didn't create that system either.
Click to expand...

but it does not change on a dime, with the writer being one who makes the change.

would you have say thug, mean black 2 years, ago ..i think not.

this is more stupidity like the 1990's where the it was said that any republican who wore a red tie, was a member of the KKK..
 
ernst barkmann said:
but it does not change on a dime, with the writer being one who makes the change.

would you have say thug, mean black 2 years, ago ..i think not.

this is more stupidity like the 1990's where the it was said that any republican who wore a red tie, was a member of the KKK..
Click to expand...

Oh no, it's been that way for a while, like I said that's what I immediately thought back in 2008.

Never heard the one about a Republican with a red tie. Now I know why white guys wear those blue suits and red ties.
 
MildSteel said:
Oh no, it's been that way for a while, like I said that's what I immediately thought back in 2008.

Never heard the one about a Republican with a red tie. Now I know why white guys wear those blue suits and red ties.
Click to expand...

this is just more stupidity, with people buying into it.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom