6 ms·

>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligen

by hueving 10y ago

>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. >but most of us don't. Who exactly do you think you are speaking for? Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have any doubts about the Democratic party. >We wouldn't be allowed to run as a republican if we were 'fiscally conservative' but felt that gays should be treated as people Two seconds of Googling reveals your bullshit: http://ijr.com/2014/10/185584-9-prominent-republicans-who-support-gay-marriage/ http://ijr.com/2014/10/185584-9-prominent-republicans-who-su... Humans have and can be elected into the Republican party and that's how you achieve change. >freedom and NOT BE fiscally conservative in the way the republican party is. It has no evidence supporting its efficacy! The situation in Greece and various other European countries seems to suggest you can't buy your way out of a recession with entitlements either. You'll find very little evidence supporting the efficacy of any system that translates well to the US, which has the irritating job of being the entire Western World's military.

justin66 10y ago
> Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have any doubts about the Democratic party. I don't think you understand the political terrain here at all. Bernie Sanders supporters of the "I have doubts about the Democratic party" variety were very, very well represented in universities during the last election.
- hueving 10y ago
  Do you really think that students openly supporting a candidate running for a Democratic nomination who was further left than Hillary is really against the Democratic party? They wanted someone else to be the nominee, but it's not like they were voting Republican.
  - foota 10y ago
    You can be against the democratic party and the republican party (although in the current system, this means you pick the lesser of two evils)
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  Bernie Sanders and his supporters were also not democrats, just people that registered to vote in the democratic primary. If Bernie had chosen to run with his same platform but as a republican he would have gotten the same votes.
  - justin66 10y ago
    Plenty of dyed in the wool Democrats at the grass roots level supported Sanders. That's the only way to win those states where he performed quite well, the states with caucuses instead of primaries. If you managed to avoid the rather heated arguments between those people and Hillary's supporters, well, you probably had one less stressor in your life during 2016, so congratulations on that...
PhaseLockk 10y ago
> Two seconds of Googling reveals your bullshit. All of these people announced support for same-sex marriage after being elected, or after leaving public service. It seems unlikely that the republican party would run a new candidate that included support of gay marriage as part of their platform. Maybe I'm wrong though.
- jdpedrie 10y ago
  You do realize a Republican President was just elected who supported gay marriage, right? It wasn't a show stopper for him. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    What this one person does, particularly trump, is not indicative of the whole party. Republicans have a long history of being categorically against climate change, against civil rights, pro religion, against the separation of church/state and in general not big on silly little things like evidence or human compassion. Trump is a special case in so many ways. Few of the republicans in power wanted him and he pretty much stole the the republican candidacy.
    - hueving 10y ago
      No true scottsman. Democrats support slavery by your close-minded inflexibility of a political party's values.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        You can't really be serious, I think you are trying to provoke a reaction. The views that I indicated about Republicans exist today and now, not a hundred or more years ago. If you do a poll or research polls already done, the overwhelming majority of American who oppose gay marriage are republicans (and it seems a majority of republicans care). When gay marriage is brought up as an issue in discourse, it is almost always a republican saying something morally reprehensible. If not for republicans people's gender would largely not be issue in modern politic, but they seem to care about your genitals when you: sign up to be a soldier, want to do family planning, try to get married to another consenting adult.
epistasis 10y ago
>>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. >Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. I think this is meant in the context of most sciences. If you're a physicist, your work is sufficiently apolitical that you can see both parties as reasonable. If you're an epidemiologist, or a cancer researcher, or a developmental biologist, you see more examples where one political party has asserted themselves as better arbiters of fact than the science. And that political party is the Republican party. In terms of politics in general, both "left" and "right" have plenty of individuals that deny fact and scienec, but only one party has put those people in charge of the party and the party platform.
- hueving 10y ago
  If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison. >but only one party has put those people in charge of the party and the party platform. If only there were some way to get people elected into the party to change this.... nah, let's just dig in with the party that got summarily rejected by the current voting system we have.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    Vaccine opposition is definitely from both political wings, but not from either of the parties. GMOs are also not a problem at the party level, the Democratic party does not adopt that extreme position even though many uninformed people on the local level do.
  - cryoshon 10y ago
    >If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison. hi, former vaccine scientist here: there was never any pushback from democrats that i ever heard of, and i can say with authority that nobody would pick republican any percentage of the time for any purpose. i'm not even exaggerating. scientists are liberals. that's all.
intended 10y ago
About the LGBT bit >TIME MAGAZINE: There was a back and forth in which another delegate argued for LGBT inclusive language and someone else responded to her, alleging that she was suggesting everyone who didn’t agree with her was a bigot. People clapped in agreement. She said that wasn’t her intention, but it was tense. What were you thinking during that exchange? >Rachel Hoff: The reality is that all of us who support LGBT rights got frustrated. Another member offered an amendment to stand with LGBT people around the world who are targeted by violence and terrorism, and that went down in flames. In another section, the Orlando attack was mentioned, so I offered an amendment to describe it as ‘the terrorist attack on the LGBT community in Orlando.’ And they wouldn’t even do that. We knew that the platform committee wasn’t our home turf, and I did not expect to win every amendment, but I also did not expect the rigidity with which the committee would refuse to even mention the LGBT community more broadly in a positive way. Later in the article >time: You mentioned that you had given some thought to being an Independent over the last couple days as these meetings went on. What frustration brought you to that point? >RH: It wasn’t the marriage stuff. I had anticipated that my amendment would not pass. It was the amendments where the committee members refused to even stand with the basic human rights of LGBT individuals. We name so many individual groups in that document, and let’s name LGBT people. When they refused to even do that, I thought, what do we even stand for? Why am I even here? ... These last few days is the first time I ever thought about leaving the Republican Party. But I’ve decided not to. This is the Republican Party, in July 2016. I thought the article was interesting coming from an openly gay GOP member. Link - http://time.com/4405261/gay-republicans-convention-rachel-hoff-platform/ http://time.com/4405261/gay-republicans-convention-rachel-ho...
EdHominem 10y ago
Sorry, but this Trump thing really demonstrated the lie behind all that. His race-baiting and so forth make him unfit as a person let alone a leader. His lies and crimes were clear before he got elected and yet pretty much every republican obediently fell in line behind him. Obviously their personal power was worth more than whatever platform they ran on originally. The entire party has no integrity. > Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. Oh yeah? How many people were at the inauguration? Trump/Sean/Kelly's words are direct and obvious lies that contradict video of the event from multiple sources. How's that a party for intelligent honest people? > Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have any doubts about the Democratic party. Says the non-liberal who isn't at university and read it from a Facebook-linked news article. Alternate facts from an alternate universe. I know you didn't pay any attention to the Democratic primaries but nobody holds the democratic party to be sacred. Nobody calls it the Grand Old Party or in any other way reveres the institution. That hero worship of the past is a Republican thing.
SpikeDad 10y ago
Sorry your link to that list is a joke. Half of the people on the list are not active or even elected politicians. One (Susan Collins) was happy to voice support AFTER the state voted for same sex-marriage. You're talking about a handful across a political party of thousands of virulent anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science elective officials. Who's going to vote for Progressive Republicans? No Republican. Funny but already we have Republicans ready to spend billions on a stupid wall. Data shows over and over that it's Democratic Presidents that provide the most stable and fiscally responsible administrations. Your arguments are full of holes
- hueving 10y ago
  >Who's going to vote for Progressive Republicans? No Republican. You used a capitalized P so I assume by "Progressive", you just mean Democrats, in which case you are probably right. However, if you get your mind out of the two party system long enough for critical thought, you might find that you can have socially progressive and fiscally conservative people. Or socially progressive and states rights people. Or socially progressive and small government people. >Data shows over and over that it's Democratic Presidents that provide the most stable and fiscally responsible administrations. How much did the debt grow under the Obama administration? >Your arguments are full of holes That's not an argument. >You're talking about a handful across a political party of thousands of virulent anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science elective officials. That was the result of a two second search to show refute a false claim. Don't shift the goal posts.

by hueving 10y ago

justin66 10y ago

> Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have any doubts about the Democratic party. I don't think you understand the political terrain here at all. Bernie Sanders supporters of the "I have doubts about the Democratic party" variety were very, very well represented in universities during the last election.

hueving 10y ago
Do you really think that students openly supporting a candidate running for a Democratic nomination who was further left than Hillary is really against the Democratic party? They wanted someone else to be the nominee, but it's not like they were voting Republican.
- foota 10y ago
  You can be against the democratic party and the republican party (although in the current system, this means you pick the lesser of two evils)
jonwachob91 10y ago
Bernie Sanders and his supporters were also not democrats, just people that registered to vote in the democratic primary. If Bernie had chosen to run with his same platform but as a republican he would have gotten the same votes.
- justin66 10y ago
  Plenty of dyed in the wool Democrats at the grass roots level supported Sanders. That's the only way to win those states where he performed quite well, the states with caucuses instead of primaries. If you managed to avoid the rather heated arguments between those people and Hillary's supporters, well, you probably had one less stressor in your life during 2016, so congratulations on that...

PhaseLockk 10y ago

> Two seconds of Googling reveals your bullshit. All of these people announced support for same-sex marriage after being elected, or after leaving public service. It seems unlikely that the republican party would run a new candidate that included support of gay marriage as part of their platform. Maybe I'm wrong though.

jdpedrie 10y ago
You do realize a Republican President was just elected who supported gay marriage, right? It wasn't a show stopper for him. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this thread.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  What this one person does, particularly trump, is not indicative of the whole party. Republicans have a long history of being categorically against climate change, against civil rights, pro religion, against the separation of church/state and in general not big on silly little things like evidence or human compassion. Trump is a special case in so many ways. Few of the republicans in power wanted him and he pretty much stole the the republican candidacy.
  - hueving 10y ago
    No true scottsman. Democrats support slavery by your close-minded inflexibility of a political party's values.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      You can't really be serious, I think you are trying to provoke a reaction. The views that I indicated about Republicans exist today and now, not a hundred or more years ago. If you do a poll or research polls already done, the overwhelming majority of American who oppose gay marriage are republicans (and it seems a majority of republicans care). When gay marriage is brought up as an issue in discourse, it is almost always a republican saying something morally reprehensible. If not for republicans people's gender would largely not be issue in modern politic, but they seem to care about your genitals when you: sign up to be a soldier, want to do family planning, try to get married to another consenting adult.

epistasis 10y ago

>>The republican party is simply unacceptable on many levels for any intelligent, honest person. >Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. I think this is meant in the context of most sciences. If you're a physicist, your work is sufficiently apolitical that you can see both parties as reasonable. If you're an epidemiologist, or a cancer researcher, or a developmental biologist, you see more examples where one political party has asserted themselves as better arbiters of fact than the science. And that political party is the Republican party. In terms of politics in general, both "left" and "right" have plenty of individuals that deny fact and scienec, but only one party has put those people in charge of the party and the party platform.

hueving 10y ago
If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison. >but only one party has put those people in charge of the party and the party platform. If only there were some way to get people elected into the party to change this.... nah, let's just dig in with the party that got summarily rejected by the current voting system we have.
- epistasis 10y ago
  Vaccine opposition is definitely from both political wings, but not from either of the parties. GMOs are also not a problem at the party level, the Democratic party does not adopt that extreme position even though many uninformed people on the local level do.
- cryoshon 10y ago
  >If you're a vaccine developer or someone working on genetically modified crops, you'll get pushback from Democrats. Pick your poison. hi, former vaccine scientist here: there was never any pushback from democrats that i ever heard of, and i can say with authority that nobody would pick republican any percentage of the time for any purpose. i'm not even exaggerating. scientists are liberals. that's all.

intended 10y ago

About the LGBT bit >TIME MAGAZINE: There was a back and forth in which another delegate argued for LGBT inclusive language and someone else responded to her, alleging that she was suggesting everyone who didn’t agree with her was a bigot. People clapped in agreement. She said that wasn’t her intention, but it was tense. What were you thinking during that exchange? >Rachel Hoff: The reality is that all of us who support LGBT rights got frustrated. Another member offered an amendment to stand with LGBT people around the world who are targeted by violence and terrorism, and that went down in flames. In another section, the Orlando attack was mentioned, so I offered an amendment to describe it as ‘the terrorist attack on the LGBT community in Orlando.’ And they wouldn’t even do that. We knew that the platform committee wasn’t our home turf, and I did not expect to win every amendment, but I also did not expect the rigidity with which the committee would refuse to even mention the LGBT community more broadly in a positive way. Later in the article >time: You mentioned that you had given some thought to being an Independent over the last couple days as these meetings went on. What frustration brought you to that point? >RH: It wasn’t the marriage stuff. I had anticipated that my amendment would not pass. It was the amendments where the committee members refused to even stand with the basic human rights of LGBT individuals. We name so many individual groups in that document, and let’s name LGBT people. When they refused to even do that, I thought, what do we even stand for? Why am I even here? ... These last few days is the first time I ever thought about leaving the Republican Party. But I’ve decided not to. This is the Republican Party, in July 2016. I thought the article was interesting coming from an openly gay GOP member. Link - http://time.com/4405261/gay-republicans-convention-rachel-hoff-platform/ http://time.com/4405261/gay-republicans-convention-rachel-ho...

EdHominem 10y ago

Sorry, but this Trump thing really demonstrated the lie behind all that. His race-baiting and so forth make him unfit as a person let alone a leader. His lies and crimes were clear before he got elected and yet pretty much every republican obediently fell in line behind him. Obviously their personal power was worth more than whatever platform they ran on originally. The entire party has no integrity. > Anyone who would say this with a straight face isn't intelligent or isn't honest, so they can't speak for intelligent honest people. Oh yeah? How many people were at the inauguration? Trump/Sean/Kelly's words are direct and obvious lies that contradict video of the event from multiple sources. How's that a party for intelligent honest people? > Identity politics and strong liberal populations in universities has made it social suicide for anyone to admit they have any doubts about the Democratic party. Says the non-liberal who isn't at university and read it from a Facebook-linked news article. Alternate facts from an alternate universe. I know you didn't pay any attention to the Democratic primaries but nobody holds the democratic party to be sacred. Nobody calls it the Grand Old Party or in any other way reveres the institution. That hero worship of the past is a Republican thing.

SpikeDad 10y ago

Sorry your link to that list is a joke. Half of the people on the list are not active or even elected politicians. One (Susan Collins) was happy to voice support AFTER the state voted for same sex-marriage. You're talking about a handful across a political party of thousands of virulent anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science elective officials. Who's going to vote for Progressive Republicans? No Republican. Funny but already we have Republicans ready to spend billions on a stupid wall. Data shows over and over that it's Democratic Presidents that provide the most stable and fiscally responsible administrations. Your arguments are full of holes

hueving 10y ago
>Who's going to vote for Progressive Republicans? No Republican. You used a capitalized P so I assume by "Progressive", you just mean Democrats, in which case you are probably right. However, if you get your mind out of the two party system long enough for critical thought, you might find that you can have socially progressive and fiscally conservative people. Or socially progressive and states rights people. Or socially progressive and small government people. >Data shows over and over that it's Democratic Presidents that provide the most stable and fiscally responsible administrations. How much did the debt grow under the Obama administration? >Your arguments are full of holes That's not an argument. >You're talking about a handful across a political party of thousands of virulent anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science elective officials. That was the result of a two second search to show refute a false claim. Don't shift the goal posts.