Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?
That was fantastic. Hear hear Michael D!
I love that he won't allow anyone to speak over him!
I wish these fora now had a "like" button for individual posts. :(
I think I would have been a Republican 100 years ago. I consider myself a 'Social Conservative' or 'Conservative Socialist', depending on my mood. I have a strong affinity for the ideals of the 'free market' - but my free market doesn't monopolize lobby power to control government, nor does it rely on government bailouts.
I guess what I'm saying is that I am a Republican in the old-school vision of the party - I have no idea what Republicans have become, other than a bigoted, faith based club for the rich that has a bizarre, inexplicable grip over the very people who should, by its modern platform, hate it.
From what I can tell (I'm Australian so I could be wrong) the Republican party stands for individual liberty and freedom. Ironically, in reality, it represents the opposite.
In Australia, we have the Liberal party... sounds like a party who stands for liberty and freedom right? WRONG. They are totally right wing. Their leader's sister is a lesbian and they still won't even allow their party members a conscience vote on marriage equality. Unfortunately for the two main parties and their duopoly on Australian politics, voters are voting with their votes and voting for real left wing parties with progressive social policies. I am actually kind of excited about politics in my country at the moment (can you tell?)
I'm a libertarian at the liberal end of the libertarian spectrum. I believe in freedom, EXCEPT not to the extent that it results in a widening gap between the rich and poor, which is what the conservative end of the libertarian spectrum would tolerate. And, in fact, Republicans CLEARLY aren't bothered by the slippage of the middle class slowly toward poverty. Oh, they'd accept an upgrade for the middle class as long as the rich continued to get even richer and the power became even more concentrated in the hands of oligarchs.
So, clearly, when I call myself a libertarian, I'm not a Libertarian in the sense of the Libertarian Party which seems to consist largely of crazy people who are willing to take their logic to a conclusion few people would find happiness inducing.
Lots of single issue voters (abortion, gun rights, theocracy, etc.) vote republican.
That may be, but the Republican problem for the future is that they are busily turning voters away by alienating one group after another and implying that anyone who isn't rich like them is simply lazy or stupid.
I don't think I qualify as a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter. I am definitely PRO-GUN rights and balancing the budget/ removing the national debt. Where does that place me politically? Have you ever seen the national debt ticker running? It's phreakin' scary.
That's the Republican line, pure and simple. The main things you left out were a hard line on immigration and keeping women barefoot and in the kitchen pumping out babies.
keeping women barefoot and in the kitchen pumping out babies. that's a stupid comment pure and simple.