Thread: Why are many Repubs similar in their beliefs and not Dems?

For example, I know of no "Democratic/Liberal agenda" or large groups of Democrats joining together to form groups equivalent to the Tea Party. And from personal experience (talking to 100's of people throughout my lifetime so far and viewing hundreds of videos..also statistical figures in threads on this forum such as the fact that 2/3's of Repubs doubt Evolution) most Republicans all agree that:

-the rich should not be further taxed

-evolution is only a "theory"

-abortion is wrong

-global warming in a myth

-the influence of God/what is percieved to be morally right is a driving force in decision-making

All of the Democrats I know, however, have varied opinions and seem to think for themselves. I, for example, don't believe it is right to abort children..I would rather see them put up for adoption. I agree with some of the points Republicans make. I would never want to feel like a sheep...so why do so many Repubs blindly follow other Repubs? And why are they so uncompromising in their beliefs?

Not sure why you think Republicans blindly follow other ones. Just because you share an opinion with someone doesn't mean you blindly follow them.

The range of republican opinions also very considerably. While not the majority, a good number believe in evolution, man-made global warming, and that abortion should be an option for women who are raped or whose life is in danger.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not sure why you think Republicans blindly follow other ones. Just because you share an opinion with someone doesn't mean you blindly follow them.

The range of republican opinions also very considerably. While not the majority, a good number believe in evolution, man-made global warming, and that abortion should be an option for women who are raped or whose life is in danger.

That is true. I simply wonder why Democrats seem, in general, to have more varied beliefs. Like you said, "not the majority" believe in evolution and man-made global warming.

I think for good and bad the Republicans have a better echo chamber and tend to excise a more regimented process. The tea party has been pretty disruptive in this respect.

Also of note are the regional differences to the party. I'm a republican from New England as a generalization tend to be more libertarian and don't cling to religion as strongly as a litmus test or as something one wears on their sleeve. On the other hand, the deep Southern republicans tend to be more overtly religious. I also think there’s been a lack of intellectual rigor in recent years, folks like William Buckley, for example, who, whether you agreed with him or not, made well reasoned arguments in favor of conservative ideals.

But see, that's the perversion. Faux News has spread the image that Repubs are all in lockstep. In reality, they are all just people with varied views, but that's not what is shown, and the less thinking part of the populace doesn't really pay much attention.

Your premise is faulty. Didn't you ever hear of RINOs (Republicans in name only)? These are the so-called moderate republicans. There aren't any moderate Democrats. They are all raving socialists.

-the rich should not be further taxed

gott; Not at this time and it's because those folks, in some way (own or vested in) pay the wages for about 130-150 million people in the workforce. Reduce those investments and who would lose, the employed. Personally, when or if this recession ever ends, I'd favor going back to the praised Clinton Tax Rates....for EVERYONE.

-evolution is only a "theory"

Most people are NOT science oriented or religious and have no idea THEORY, "
A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena, is absolute to scientist. I do accept evolution, but certainly understand their skepticism.

-abortion is wrong

They simply believe life begins at conception, that, that one sperm of millions per attempt connected with one of the 50-60 eggs any lady will ever produce, has meaning. Frankly I believe everyone feels it's "WRONG", but that some believe woman have rights over that fetus, at least according to SCOTUS, up to the third trimester.

-global warming is a myth

Looks to me as though your trying to pick up "pen pals", but many democrats are also skeptical of what I certainly call a "myth", A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people, perpetuate a myth".

fluence of God/what is perceived to be morally right is a driving force in decision-making

Oh my, just read your own comment, what's wrong with that, but out of curiosity what do you base right and wrong on?

Your premise is faulty. Didn't you ever hear of RINOs (Republicans in name only)? These are the so-called moderate republicans. There aren't any moderate Democrats. They are all raving socialists.

Harold I agree, but I think there are a lot of "Reagan Democrats" or former democrats that have turned Independent.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Your premise is faulty. Didn't you ever hear of RINOs (Republicans in name only)? These are the so-called moderate republicans. There aren't any moderate Democrats. They are all raving socialists.

Harold I agree, but I think there are a lot of "Reagan Democrats" or former democrats that have turned Independent.

Funny. I thought Harold's comment was intended to be a parody, and to show how we must be cautious not to generalize in the way the OP did. Then, in the very next post, someone quotes Harold, treats his parody as if it were intended to be a purely accurate observation, and agrees that all democrats are raving socialists. The mind just continues to boggle.

If generalizations are oftentimes true, then why avoid them? So as not to offend the minority of Repubs with common sense? They don't worry about not offending us in the media. Dems need to be more vocal and spread the word or we will lose the battle. Inow, if you want to let Republicans alter our world for the worse without strong opposition, it's up to you. Remember, the Repubs in charge are the ones we need to worry about..and they are elected by a militant Christian following (perhaps 10-15% of the US population are evangelical Christians...no doubt they vote Republican) that is constantly molding young minds and looking for recruits. Dems don't think this way. Dems believe in freedom of thought and muliculturalism, therefore, they think and act generally on their own volition. We are so free (in general) as Democrats that we lack a solid base from which to battle Republican nonsense. We lack organization. Inow is a perfect example of this hypocrisy. He claims that he despises anti-intellectualism and not taxing the wealthy or raising tuition to the extent that the average American can't afford it, yet it is all empty talk. When push comes to shove, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "let's all be friends". I agree that we don't need to be angry here. Yet we do need to care enough to enact changes within government. At the very least to inform the average Republican that he or she is wrong concerning certain issues.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Your premise is faulty. Didn't you ever hear of RINOs (Republicans in name only)? These are the so-called moderate republicans. There aren't any moderate Democrats. They are all raving socialists.

Not to forget the Log Cabin Republicans. The Democrats don't need a group like this. They are all gay as well as being raving socialists.

Endangered Species
Responsible Republicans are nearly extinct.

Do you remember the Responsible Republicans? In the 1980s small herds of them still roamed around Washington. In 1982 they stampeded over Ronald Reagan's veto of a tax increase designed to mitigate the fiscal harm of his 1981 tax cut. In 1986 they passed bipartisan immigration reform. In 1990 they were spotted with President George H.W. Bush at Andrews Air Force Base, conspiring to reduce the deficit.

After the Andrews summit, however, Double-R glimpses outside captivity became increasingly rare. With their habitats in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast under threat, their status moved from "threatened" to "endangered." During the battle over his health-care plan, President Obama was unable to find a single one to serve as a mascot. There continue to be rumors of their return around issues such as immigration and climate change. Yet we have now gone several years without a confirmed sighting.

If Responsible Republicans are in fact approaching extinction, I think we can identify the crucial event that signaled their demise. It was a December 1993 memo by conservative strategist and commentator William Kristol. Kristol's advice about how Republicans should respond to Bill Clinton's 1993 health-care effort pushed the GOP away from any cooperation with the other side. His message marks the pivotal moment when Republicans shifted from fundamentally responsible partners in governing the country to uncompromising, hyperpartisan antagonists on all issues.

In his five-page memo, Kristol took aim at Bob Dole and other congressional Republicans who were then working to find a compromise around the shared goals of universal coverage and cost containment. Kristol called for the GOP to "adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal." He argued that a bipartisan deal on health care would be a political victory for Democrats and a defeat for the GOP. "Unqualified political defeat of the Clinton health care proposal," Kristol wrote, " … would be a monumental setback for the president, and an incontestable piece of evidence that Democratic welfare-state liberalism remains firmly in retreat."

Slowly at first, then all at once, Republicans adopted this zero-sum view of politics. Newt Gingrich, the truculent House minority leader, had risen to power attacking the more conciliatory Republican leadership that preceded him. Dole soon stopped cooperating as well, responding to Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address by echoing Kristol's line that there was "no health-care crisis." Remaining Double-Rs were left out in the cold by their party, and hopes for a deal died.

Kristol's Carthaginian strategy worked politically, or seemed to. Gingrich and his "Contract With America" Republicans swept into power in the 1994 midterm elections on a platform of monolithic opposition to Clinton's agenda. But the Gingrich revolution soon failed. Its ideas were not enacted, its leaders fell to scandals, and Clinton won reelection in 1996. Congressional Republicans kept their opposition to government at the level of rhetoric, becoming bigger spenders than ever. Yet this did not dim the GOP's faith in the Kristol approach. Under Obama, Republicans have simply replayed the script, opposing everything the president proposes, looking for heretics to burn, and calling the other side extreme—though this time they have been without success in blocking the president's major initiative.

The politics of Republican implacability are based on what might seem an obvious insight that competition is a zero-sum game. But while elections are zero-sum, politics as a whole is not. Without some level of bipartisan cooperation, voters become increasingly cynical, the system becomes too paralyzed to function, and the whole country suffers as a consequence. Longer term, it is hard to see the politics of "no" as a winning Republican strategy.

The rise of hyperpartisanship is not one of those problems for which left and right are equally to blame. Democrats—who like legislating better than Republicans do, and who have seldom had the GOP's ability to march in lockstep—still instinctively prefer to work on a bipartisan basis. They continue to hope, against the odds, that Double-Rs will escape extinction and return as potential partners. Perhaps Ted Turner will find a way to breed them on his ranch.

Jacob Weisberg is chairman of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy and In An Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington.


http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/15/e...d-species.html

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I think for good and bad the Republicans have a better echo chamber and tend to excise a more regimented process. The tea party has been pretty disruptive in this respect.

folks like William Buckley, for example, who, whether you agreed with him or not, made well reasoned arguments in favor of conservative ideals.

Perhaps, but there are certain things about the man that can be a bit offsetting:

-Buckley's editorial "Why the South Must Prevail" spoke out explicitly in favor of white supremacy in the South

-Buckley felt that "Rand's style, as well as her message, clashed with the conservative ethos," and he decided that Rand's hostility to religion made her philosophy unacceptable to his understanding of conservatism. In 1957, Buckley attempted to read her out of the conservative movement by publishing Whittaker Chambers's highly negative review of Rand's Atlas Shrugged. In 1964, he wrote of "her desiccated philosophy's conclusive incompatibility with the conservative's emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral," as well as "the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding, dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable, whether it comes from the mouth of Ehrenburg, Savonarola--or Ayn Rand."

that means that he used his personal religious beliefs to invalidate her arguments

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Inow, if you want to let Republicans alter our world for the worse without strong opposition, it's up to you.

Please stick to reading the words I actually wrote, and not what your addled brain speculates I wrote.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Dems don't think this way. Dems believe in freedom of thought and muliculturalism

This is why generalizations are problematic. They're generally inaccurate and based on personal bias.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Inow is a perfect example of this hypocrisy. He claims that he despises anti-intellectualism and not taxing the wealthy or raising tuition to the extent that the average American can't afford it, yet it is all empty talk. When push comes to shove, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "let's all be friends".

What the fuck are you talking about? Holy shit... you're totally off your rocker, dude. You have some serious challenges with reading comprehension and accurately understanding what people write.

As to the last comment, I'm referring to what you've written in other threads. I haven't forgeotten. Also, in THIS thread you claim that generalizing is a bad thing...well it isn't if it turns out to be true most of the time..better safe than sorry, I say...

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Inow is a perfect example of this hypocrisy. He claims that he despises anti-intellectualism...

I have not claimed this.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

... and not taxing the wealthy...

I have not claimed this.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

... or raising tuition to the extent that the average American can't afford it...

I have not claimed this.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

When push comes to shove, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "let's all be friends".

I have not said this.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

As to the last comment, I'm referring to what you've written in other threads. I haven't forgeotten (sic).

Be specific and quote me and link to the threads or posts, or seriously STFU because you're full of shit.

Originally Posted by inow

Funny. I thought Harold's comment was intended to be a parody, and to show how we must be cautious not to generalize in the way the OP did.

Yep.

I wonder if this is related to the tendency for persons of one race to think all people of another race look the same? I.e., we lump all people of an "other" group together.

When push comes to shove, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "let's all be friends".

That's what you're doing right now.

You are 100% against anti-intellectualism and protecting the rich from taxing, are you not?

The tuition comment was Ophiolite's in my "London Protests" thread. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by inow

Funny. I thought Harold's comment was intended to be a parody, and to show how we must be cautious not to generalize in the way the OP did.

Yep.

I wonder if this is related to the tendency for persons of one race to think all people of another race look the same? I.e., we lump all people of an "other" group together.

Yes, I admit in-group bias.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I wonder if this is related to the tendency for persons of one race to think all people of another race look the same? I.e., we lump all people of an "other" group together.

I doubt it. Though it is true that ethnic groups we aren't familiar with do in fact "look the same," until we are exposed to them and our brain learns to distinguish subtle differences common within that group.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

When push comes to shove, he shrugs his shoulders and says, "let's all be friends".

That's what you're doing right now.

You are 100% against anti-intellectualism and protecting the rich from taxing, are you not?

The tuition comment was Ophiolite's in my "London Protests" thread. Sorry.

I am often frustrated by anti-intellectualism, but my comments have tended to be more against willful ignorance. That's the closest to an accurate comment you've made. Further, I'm not really 100% anything. Lastly, you seem to be wrongly mixing my comments with the comments of others. Can you please tell me again what it was that you said about generalizing being okay?

I'm saying fight fire with fire. Democrats need to fight. Don't let Republicans get away with their "no taxes period" attitude...Boehner won't compromise and neither will the House Republicans (many of whom were coerced to pledge to other members of the party to not raise taxes). Obama should make it clear that he won't accept such idiocy. He should say, "Compromise is necessary. We won't reach a deal until and unless Republicans put taxes on the table." He shouldn't be so easily intimidated. He hasn't fought hard enough to set things right yet, in my opinion.

I'm not really generalizing. Look what happens to the few politicians who don't obey their overlords...they are criticized and or ostracized:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...ng-tax-pledge/

The very fact that a such a pledge exists is odd and highly disturbing. Similarly, Republicans on Capitol Hill were asked to actually sign a document vowing not to raise taxes recently.

This happened also in Michigan not to long ago, and Arizona in 2009.

At least 39 of Arizona's 90 lawmakers signed the State Taxpayer Protection Pledge promoted by Americans for Tax Reform at the time.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz1RsE332ls

Goverment is about compromise. Republicans won't fold on this vital issue. John Boehner specifically won't compromise. In a recent interview, he said that he refuses to even voice the word. He is one of the most arrogant, opinionated, self-serving (see him rubbing shoulders with the Koch brothers) fools I've ever known. And House Republicans and Democrats let him get away with it!!

Originally Posted by gottspieler

He is one of the most arrogant, opinionated, self-serving (see him rubbing shoulders with the Koch brothers) fools I've ever known. And House Republicans and Democrats let him get away with it!!

I thought it was we the people who did the voting for these folks. Are you sure the target of your blame is accurate? Why not focus on the people who do the voting? Why not focus on the educational system which allows them to be so easily duped? Why not focus on the economic system which prevents them from focusing on anything more than surviving the week and feeling afraid all of the time? Why not focus on what matters, instead of the trivial generalizations which accompany partisan labels?

I've found the problem:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...he-wealthy.php

This shows that the people who don't vote are big part of the problem. The majority of Americans are for raising taxes on the wealthy, however, their beliefs are not well-represented by our current government.The solution is either to keep religious nutjobs from voting...or to get more rational people to vote. I'll go either way.

Why not focus on the educational system which allows them to be so easily duped?

I'm uncertain if the educational system is to blame or simply the fact that video games and computers have been keeping kids from doing their homework.

Why not focus on the economic system which prevents them from focusing on anything more than surviving the week and feeling afraid all of the time?

Sure. Yet how can I improve the situation?

What ideas do you have?

out of curiosity what do you base right and wrong on?

Group survival aided individual survival in our hunger-gatherer past. Our small clans have since grown into much larger groups but things haven't changed. Since we know the value to society of any one single person (as well as the potential danger/social disruption a single deranged person could cause), we would not want to harm or offend someone without good cause. Basically, morals evolved. Also, culture influences what people consider "right and wrong".

Not the Bible, as too many people believe.

Originally Posted by inow

What ideas do you have?

As for education:

Making school more fun for kids; more interactive. Design computer programs that simulate history, for example, in order to teach it. Watch documentaries in class more often. Do things that appeal to kids instead of forcing them to sit through boring lectures everyday.

On the voting problem, I'd say give everyone the day off from work and require everyone to vote.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

On the voting problem, I'd say give everyone the day off from work and require everyone to vote.

There's a school of thought that suggest requiring citizens to vote tends to move political parties towards the center rather than volunteering voting which tends to make parties more extreme to get their base to the ballet box.

Australia seems to have moved towards the center after they imposed compulsory voting, even with a very minor fine for those that don't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb2LEdWwYQM

--

I'm uncertain if the educational system is to blame or simply the fact that video games and computers have been keeping kids from doing their homework.

Before that it was chores such as feeding the chickens or splitting wood so I don't think that's it. I'd put the fault a lot more on surge in single-parent families. Schools are holding the line against other failures in our society.

I think there's definitely room for compulsory voting, and also improvements in our voting process and technologies. If I can download the complete works of William Shakespeare in less than 60 seconds while riding on a train in the middle of nowhere, pay my mortgage in 15 seconds from from my cell phone while in the dairy section at the grocery store, and buy life insurance for my kids while sitting on a toilet at a baseball game, I should also be able to cast my vote without waiting in line for hours just to get myself to a crusty old machine which looks like it belongs to carnival's fortune teller at the Rotary Club on a Tuesday night.

After all, more people vote for American Idol than for our president, which is disheartening, dysfunctional, and destructive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006...alitytv.usnews

I'm not saying that it is actually a good idea. But an interesting democratic experiment might be a "reality TV" style election. Net and phone voting in an elimination format. With a "wildcard" return. It would also be publicly financed.
The candidates could debate and face challenges. While there wouldn't be elimination through challenge, the challenges and competition would help "illuminate" the candidate to the electorate.

We would have to be cautious that any new systems don't result in a tyranny of the majority, and we'd need to ensure adequate protection for minority positions.

Given this, however, it would be cool if we could vote for our top three... This person I want most, this person would be my second choice, and this other person would be my last. You then weight each selection differently... 3x for first choice, 2x for second choice, 1x for last choice. That way, if our #1 choice doesn't win, our vote is not totally lost, and we're not continued to force ourselves to choose between "who we want" and who we think "has the greatest chance at success." It would help us to eliminate the problems which come with such a "first past the post" setup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurali...#Disadvantages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law

If I can download the complete works of William Shakespeare in less than 60 seconds while riding on a train in the middle of nowhere, pay my mortgage in 15 seconds from from my cell phone while in the dairy section at the grocery store, and buy life insurance for my kids while sitting on a toilet, I should also be able to cast my vote without waiting in line for hours just to get myself to a crusty old machine which looks like it belongs to carnival's fortune teller at the Rotary Club on a Tuesday night.

ROFL.

I'm glad I live in a vote by mail state.

Originally Posted by inow

Funny. I thought Harold's comment was intended to be a parody,

It's pretty difficult to come up with a parody of standard right wing or Republican rhetoric these days.

Originally Posted by inow

Why not focus on the people who do the voting? Why not focus on the educational system which allows them to be so easily duped? Why not focus on the economic system which prevents them from focusing on anything more than surviving the week and feeling afraid all of the time? Why not focus on what matters, instead of the trivial generalizations which accompany partisan labels?

Sure. But along the way, slapping a perfectly accurate and easily verified generalization on the Republican Party only takes a minute or two, and shouldn't cause much controversy - if it really is that trivial an issue.

The cohesiveness of the Rep Party - overt, publicly arranged, firmly defended (the Reps have been running primary opponents against incumbent defectors from Party unity, for several election cycles now), and legislatively powerful, is noteworthy, one would think.

Originally Posted by lynx fox

There's a school of thought that suggest requiring citizens to vote tends to move political parties towards the center rather than volunteering voting which tends to make parties more extreme to get their base to the ballet box

That doesn't explain the US situation: why the Dems in general have moved away from their base toward the moderate right, while the Reps in toto are hanging ten off the rightwing cliff.

Why do Americans take so long to vote? I worked as a registration officer during the previous election, registering unregistered voters at the polling station, and I didn't see anyone wait longer than 5-10 minutes to vote. When I voted myself there were no lines at all at the advance polling station.

Maybe you guys could work on just improving the efficiency of your voting process lol.

Originally Posted by iceaura

why the Dems in general have moved away from their base toward the moderate right, while the Reps in toto are hanging ten off the rightwing cliff.

I don't think that's really true, or at least not on all issues. The yellow dogs, which were the most conservative lot have nearly dissipated from the party, though many either died off or switched sides. On some social issues, such as gay marriage, the democrats have become more liberal as a party. That many white democrats were far more prejudice towards blacks a decade or two ago is another example.

--
Fixed the quote tag. My apology to Inow.

Note: The above quote was attributed to me, wherein iceaura posted it and should have received ownership.

Originally Posted by inow

We would have to be cautious that any new systems don't result in a tyranny of the majority, and we'd need to ensure adequate protection for minority positions.

Given this, however, it would be cool if we could vote for our top three... This person I want most, this person would be my second choice, and this other person would be my last. You then weight each selection differently... 3x for first choice, 2x for second choice, 1x for last choice. That way, if our #1 choice doesn't win, our vote is not totally lost, and we're not continued to force ourselves to choose between "who we want" and who we think "has the greatest chance at success." It would help us to eliminate the problems which come with such a "first past the post" setup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurali...#Disadvantages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law

Instant run off voting; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.
Hell yea. With paper ballots of course.

Originally Posted by lynn

I don't think that's really true, or at least not on all issues. The yellow dogs, which were the most conservative lot have nearly dissipated from the party, though many either died off or switched sides. On some social issues, such as gay marriage, the democrats have become more liberal as a party. That many white democrats were far more prejudice towards blacks a decade or two ago is another example.

But these are not right/left issues - more libertarian/authoritarian, and both Parties have visibly moved toward more libertarian positions in a few small areas where such positions do not threaten the corporate rightwing campaign contributions.

They still have to get votes, after all. Most Americans are more libertarian than either Party.

As far as the racial bigotry, neither Party has moved toward the extreme of its base - the Reps have attracted the serious bigots from the formerly Democratic Confederacy (Nixon's Southern Strategy, nailed by Reagan), overcoming the Lincoln hangover and putting them in contention for national power they would otherwise have no chance at, but that is not the same as being drawn to their own extreme base in that matter. The Dem racial tolerance, on the other hand, is hardly an "extreme" position. (Neither is the Dem position on gay marriage, but what the hey).

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Why do Americans take so long to vote?

With senate, house and five or six local political positions to vote for, plus nine initiatives that some idiots managed to get on the ballot it takes a while. Initiatives included "definition of a human being" and other absurdities although the one to seat a committee to prepare a welcome for extra-terrestrials luckily didn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot. You have to take enough time to make sure you don't accidentally vote to define human life as an egg and a sperm waving at each other.

Originally Posted by iceaura

But these are not right/left issues

I disagree. They certainly are especially on gays.

Originally Posted by lynx fox

But these are not right/left issues

I disagree. They certainly are especially on gays.

You will find support for gay rights and so forth in libertarians of both leftwing and rightwing ideologies. You will find opposition to gay marriage etc among authoritarians - especially religious ones in Abrahamic traditions - of both leftwing and rightwing ideologies.

How do you find this to be a left/right issue? It has almost nothing to do with economics at all, and the various positions on it are all distributed across the entire left/right spectrum.

Originally Posted by iceaura

How do you find this to be a left/right issue? It has almost nothing to do with economics at all, and the various positions on it are all distributed across the entire left/right spectrum.

Right and left extend well beyond economics.


Libertarians find common group with both parties, the democrats on social issues and the republicans on economic issues. The so calls "tea party," often forgets the social side of their association with libertarians.

Just because libertarians support it doesn't make a right and left issue. If you consider the Republican position "right," and Democratic positions "left," there is a sharp contrast between to groups. Republicans haven't moved much on the issue and continue to be strongly against gay rights, while democrats have progressively gotten more accepting of gay rights.

Originally Posted by Lynx fox

Right and left extend well beyond economics.

Not really - how?

Originally Posted by Lynx Fox

Libertarians find common group with both parties, the democrats on social issues and the republicans on economic issues.

Or the Republicans on social issues (PC speech, affirmative action) and the Democrats on economic issues (hiring of immigrants, patent law).

Originally Posted by lynx fox

The so calls "tea party," often forgets the social side of their association with libertarians.

The Republican fundie base, the core of the Party, is authoritarian, and in conflict with the fringe population of actual libertarians in the Party.

Originally Posted by lynx fox

Just because libertarians support it doesn't make a right and left issue. If you consider the Republican position "right," and Democratic positions "left," there is a sharp contrast between to groups.

? Confused, that.

Why would you consider rightwing positions espoused by Democrats "left"?

And my point above was that libertarian positions are found across the entire left/right political spectrum - as are authoritarian positions.

And my point above was that libertarian positions are found across the entire left/right political spectrum - as are authoritarian positions.

I agree, and said much the same, but don't see how it relates all that much to my point.

You said to the effect that the Dems have become more right with time and I disagreed. For gay-rights the dems have become more left with time. The pole showed that it's absolutely central and decidedly different between the Democrats and Republicans.

It's also one areas where I think the Republicans are wrong but I am clearly in the minority.