6 ms·

Your view of modern republicans is outdated. Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We

Your view of modern republicans is outdated. Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We simply see the rampant corruption in government and propose it is a better solution to limit governmental power as opposed to increasing it. If I were to paint democrats in a similar manner they would all be bike lock wielding liberal arts professors and that would be unfair.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lern_too_spel 7y ago
The difference is that these things are written into Republic party platforms and are not merely the views of individual Democrats, and the average Republican voter absolutely picks up on this. Thus, even if bureaucrats considers themselves Republican, they appear to be Democrats to these voters.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  What party platform document are you referencing? I've never seen that.
  - hdctambien 7y ago
    I believe he is refering to this[1]. Each party publishes one each election year. [1] https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FIN...
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      Care to quote the passage? Its 60 some odd pages long.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        "religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door." "The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy." The scientists like Spencer and Legates who "dissent from its orthodoxy" that the GOP trots out for its voters actually dissent due to their religious beliefs. https://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/ https://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-ev...
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        That seems a little post hoc and doesn't mention teaching creationism in public schools. I get there are things in there that people disagree with but I was looking for the point made previously. Simply citing a large document and not having read it isn't arguing in good faith.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        I didn't cite that large document. Claiming that I did is not arguing in good faith. The particular example of creationism comes from the Texas GOP's platform. https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/28/the-texas-republican-party-platform https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/28/the-texas-repu... You can certainly see echoes of it in the national platform. That is no mistake.
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        That article is from 2012 and is about the Texas GOP. It seems like this claim was not true.
notJim 7y ago
> Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We simply see the rampant corruption in government and propose it is a better solution to limit governmental power as opposed to increasing it. Surely the nomination of Donald Trump in 2016 should call into question how large of a subset of the Republican party this represents.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Republicans wouldn't elect the Trump that Democrat media outlets show, they would elect the Trump that Republican media outlets show. Listen to a Republican describe Trump and you'll hear about someone a sane person could plausibly vote for. Would a Republican vote for a womanizing Russia-serving friend of Epstien? No way! A charismatic business-oriented people's man? You bet!
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Would a Republican vote for a womanizing Russia-serving friend of Epstien? If the alternative is a Democrat? You bet.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      A Democrat who sold uranium to Russians and whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > A Democrat who sold uranium to Russians The Democrat you're referring to never owned any Uranium to sell. > whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less. A fault of association with a womanizing friend of Epstein vs. a fault of actually being a womanizing friend of Epstein's does not seem like a very strong reason. The real reason they voted for Trump is the R next to his name.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lern_too_spel 7y ago

The difference is that these things are written into Republic party platforms and are not merely the views of individual Democrats, and the average Republican voter absolutely picks up on this. Thus, even if bureaucrats considers themselves Republican, they appear to be Democrats to these voters.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
What party platform document are you referencing? I've never seen that.
- hdctambien 7y ago
  I believe he is refering to this[1]. Each party publishes one each election year. [1] https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FIN...
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    Care to quote the passage? Its 60 some odd pages long.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      "religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door." "The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy." The scientists like Spencer and Legates who "dissent from its orthodoxy" that the GOP trots out for its voters actually dissent due to their religious beliefs. https://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/ https://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-ev...
      - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        That seems a little post hoc and doesn't mention teaching creationism in public schools. I get there are things in there that people disagree with but I was looking for the point made previously. Simply citing a large document and not having read it isn't arguing in good faith.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        I didn't cite that large document. Claiming that I did is not arguing in good faith. The particular example of creationism comes from the Texas GOP's platform. https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/28/the-texas-republican-party-platform https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/28/the-texas-repu... You can certainly see echoes of it in the national platform. That is no mistake.
        fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
        That article is from 2012 and is about the Texas GOP. It seems like this claim was not true.

notJim 7y ago

> Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We simply see the rampant corruption in government and propose it is a better solution to limit governmental power as opposed to increasing it. Surely the nomination of Donald Trump in 2016 should call into question how large of a subset of the Republican party this represents.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 7y ago
Republicans wouldn't elect the Trump that Democrat media outlets show, they would elect the Trump that Republican media outlets show. Listen to a Republican describe Trump and you'll hear about someone a sane person could plausibly vote for. Would a Republican vote for a womanizing Russia-serving friend of Epstien? No way! A charismatic business-oriented people's man? You bet!
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Would a Republican vote for a womanizing Russia-serving friend of Epstien? If the alternative is a Democrat? You bet.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    A Democrat who sold uranium to Russians and whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > A Democrat who sold uranium to Russians The Democrat you're referring to never owned any Uranium to sell. > whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less. A fault of association with a womanizing friend of Epstein vs. a fault of actually being a womanizing friend of Epstein's does not seem like a very strong reason. The real reason they voted for Trump is the R next to his name.