Gun Rights And Abortion Are The Only Things Keeping The Republican Party Surviving...

[PoliTalker]

Gun Rights And Abortion, With a side of Immigrant Hatred Are The Only Things Keeping The Republican Party Surviving...

The deep pocketed power behind Republicans -never- cared about these things until they realized they were losing the populace, losing power.

The popular vote would never support plutocracy, so the Republican Party skillfully made the call to support these emotional issues.

That's how they maintain the corporate oligarchy and government for the rich.

The only reason we have any policy that Promotes The General Welfare is because of Democrats.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

If Republicans flipped on ANY of those three (much less all of them,) the party would be dead.

By exploiting these issues, (which, I assure you, the leaders of the party don't really care about) the Republican Party turns the majority of it's voters into issue-based voters, which gets them to actually vote against their own best interest.

Skillfully Done!

And now it is time to undo it.

 

[cawacko]

If that’s the case then ban/severely limit abortion, losen restrictions on guns and (almost) everyone will vote Democratic right?

 

[iolo]

If that’s the case then ban/severely limit abortion, losen restrictions on guns and (almost) everyone will vote Democratic right?

Except decent people, eh? Don't be so bloody soft!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

If that’s the case then ban/severely limit abortion, losen restrictions on guns and (almost) everyone will vote Democratic right?

It is totally the case.

And, no, your conclusion does not follow because then the rhetoric would simply turn to protecting those conditions.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



It is totally the case.

And, no, your conclusion does not follow because then the rhetoric would simply turn to protecting those conditions.

Not if legislatures and courts don't try and take them away right? (the point being by not threatening those two issues you completely take them off the table and then folks will focus on economic issues solely, based on your theory)

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

Not if legislatures and courts don't try and take them away right? (the point being by not threatening those two issues you completely take them off the table and then folks will focus on economic issues solely, based on your theory)

No, I don't see that.

Those three issues are what turns out the majority of Republican voters.

Republicans did not always support those issues.

At lease one of them is totally ridiculous for traditional Republicans to be supporting. It is so absurd, it has Republicans favoring big government telling people what to do, something Republicans NEVER supported in the past. Old-time Republicans never would have supported the government telling people what decision to make with a very personal decision in their own private life, but that is exactly what taking a stand on abortion is doing. Anti-abortionists are anti-choice, anti-freedom. They want the government to get in people's face and tell them what to do. They want the government to punish people for making a personal decision in their own lives that anti-abortionists disagree with. That goes completely against traditional Republican values and standing up for small government and personal freedom of choice.

Just that one issue would flip so many voters Republicans would lose. President Trump had no choice but to take the current Republican-favored position on that. He probably doesn't care at all one way or the other. But he was savvy enough to see that if he didn't take the anti-abortion position that he would never have won the election in 2016.

Without taking emotional stands on all three of those issues? The Republican party would be DEAD.

The Republican party can't stand on principles of small government alone. They have to have their crutch issues. That's what these three issues are. Crutch Issues. They prop the Republican Party up so the powerful rich can use it to carry out the class war and extract wealth from everybody else. That's how their power works. It's what makes them powerful. They would have no power without them.

It's really quite the slick trick.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



No, I don't see that.

Those three issues are what turns out the majority of Republican voters.

Republicans did not always support those issues.

At lease one of them is totally ridiculous for traditional Republicans to be supporting. It is so absurd, it has Republicans favoring big government telling people what to do, something Republicans NEVER supported in the past. Old-time Republicans never would have supported the government telling people what decision to make with a very personal decision in their own private life, but that is exactly what taking a stand on abortion is doing. Anti-abortionists are anti-choice, anti-freedom. They want the government to get in people's face and tell them what to do. They want the government to punish people for making a personal decision in their own lives that anti-abortionists disagree with. That goes completely against traditional Republican values and standing up for small government and personal freedom of choice.

Just that one issue would flip so many voters Republicans would lose. President Trump had no choice but to take the current Republican-favored position on that. He probably doesn't care at all one way or the other. But he was savvy enough to see that if he didn't take the anti-abortion position that he would never have won the election in 2016.

Without taking emotional stands on all three of those issues? The Republican party would be DEAD.

The Republican party can't stand on principles of small government alone. They have to have their crutch issues. That's what these three issues are. Crutch Issues. They prop the Republican Party up so the powerful rich can use it to carry out the class war and extract wealth from everybody else. That's how their power works. It's what makes them powerful. They would have no power without them.

It's really quite the slick trick.

The Supreme Court is what made abortion an issue with it's Roe v. Wade ruling. It was never a big issue (to my knowledge) with voters prior. But since the ruling went through the court and not the legislature it created the situation we have today.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

The Supreme Court is what made abortion an issue with it's Roe v. Wade ruling. It was never a big issue (to my knowledge) with voters prior. But since the ruling went through the court and not the legislature it created the situation we have today.

Precisely. After that decision, which angered many extremely religious people, Republicans realized a new opportunity had been presented. An opportunity they quickly exploited. And with that one strategic move, they vacuumed up an entire block of emotional issue-based voters who only vote for that one reason. Republicans have mixed religion with government. That produced a foul stench which is repulsive to freedom.

There is a reason we have the principle of separation of church and State. Republicans have foolishly ignored that. They have used it as a Crutch Issue to gain power so they can wage class war.

I don't believe the rich and powerful really care about abortion that much, but if it helps them exploit the nation for wealth, they have no problem with it. None at all. When it comes to big money, that is the only thing which is important to people like that. Everything else is expendable. Principles? Who needs them. They got money.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Precisely. After that decision, which angered many extremely religious people, Republicans realized a new opportunity had been presented. An opportunity they quickly exploited. And with that one strategic move, they vacuumed up an entire block of emotional issue-based voters who only vote for that one reason. Republicans have mixed religion with government. That produced a foul stench which is repulsive to freedom.

There is a reason we have the principle of separation of church and State. Republicans have foolishly ignored that. They have used it as a Crutch Issue to gain power so they can wage class war.

I don't believe the rich and powerful really care about abortion that much, but if it helps them exploit the nation for wealth, they have no problem with it. None at all. When it comes to big money, that is the only thing which is important to people like that. Everything else is expendable. Principles? Who needs them. They got money.

More people vote based on abortion than any other issue so Democrats use it just as Republicans do to create and rally their base.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

More people vote based on abortion than any other issue so Democrats use it just as Republicans do to create and rally their base.

Democrats naturally take a logical position on the issue, but it isn't nearly the motivator for pro-choice advocacy that it is for the overly religious holier-than-thou anti-freedom crowd who thinks they are doing 'the lord's work' by imposing their position upon others, and often destroying their lives by forcing them to bear children they neither want, nor have the capacity to raise.

And then Republicans wonder why there are so many poor people who can't get ahead. Instead of understanding that there is no good substitute for good parenting, Republicans blame the poor for their own condition, often preaching that 'they made poor choices in life.' (Victim-blaming) A lot of poor people did not ask to be brought into this world - they were forced into it by antiquated Republican measures.

And that is so bizarre. Republicans cause more opposition babies to be born, thus sabotaging their own political power. It seems that Republicans want to control things but have no idea what to do with the power to control.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Democrats naturally take a logical position on the issue, but it isn't nearly the motivator for pro-choice advocacy that it is for the overly religious holier-than-thou anti-freedom crowd who thinks they are doing 'the lord's work' by imposing their position upon others, and often destroying their lives by forcing them to bear children they neither want, nor have the capacity to raise.

And then Republicans wonder why there are so many poor people who can't get ahead. Instead of understanding that there is no good substitute for good parenting, Republicans blame the poor for their own condition, often preaching that 'they made poor choices in life.' (Victim-blaming) A lot of poor people did not ask to be brought into this world - they were forced into it by antiquated Republican measures.

And that is so bizarre. Republicans cause more opposition babies to be born, thus sabotaging their own political power. It seems that Republicans want to control things but have no idea what to do with the power to control.

How is being pro-choice any more logical than being anti-abortion?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

How is being pro-choice any more logical than being anti-abortion?

Because it leaves the very sensitive and personal decision with the individual, instead of forcing big government into people's lives, something Republicans once thought was important.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Because it leaves the very sensitive and personal decision with the individual, instead of forcing big government into people's lives, something Republicans once thought was important.

If the logic of the decision is a partisan one why are democrats against choice on so many other issues?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

If the logic of the decision is a partisan one why are democrats against choice on so many other issues?

There are always logical reasons for whatever liberals support. Liberals are Pro-Society!

Being Pro-Society is a good thing, because we live in societies. It is logical to accept the facts:

1. We are here.
2. There are a lot of us.
3. We improve our lives by working together with others.
4. Given that 1, 2 and 3 are simply basic facts, nobody should argue about at least that much, it is logical that we do things as a society that help society.

How is society organized?

We have such an organization, our government. We created it ourselves, and we have the power to change it, improve it, however we see fit, as a group of 329 million. We have a system for deciding what 329 million people want. Our Constitution. Right there in the very first few words are: "In order to form a more perfect union." "Union." Have you ever thought about that word? I mean, - what it REALLY means?

It means we are all in this together. This is OUR country. It's our country and, big surprise, we have lots of disagreements on how to run it. Yes, we do. We surely do.

The only way it is logical to hate the self-government that we created, and have the power to modify, is if we hate ourselves. Which is absurd. Totally illogical. But, hey, crowd mentality has never been stellar, so lots of us hate other members of our group of 329 million. I gotta tell ya, that part is not impressive. Makes me sad for our country when I see it. I don't know what is wrong with those people. Hatred doesn't make any sense. This is real life, not a movie. We need to work together, not pretend the other side is going to vanish or be shamed into silence.

I gotta say: it's so frustrating to think that if we could drop all this personal stuff and victimization; and just talk about what the most logical conduct of OUR NATION should be, then we would have a far more effective way of establishing policy. The self-government vision of our forefathers would be realized. They can't be here now, so they depend on US to carry it forward. Hatred doesn't do that. We have to recognize the right of others to express themselves, speak to issues, not all this in-your-face stuff. Let the best IDEAS be what guides our policy, not the nastiest delivery. If we could really do that, our democracy would be amazing. EVERYBODY would be doing better, including the rich. But that's a dream. There's too many mean and nasty people on both sides. They poison the discussion for many. Run others off, shut down voices.

I gotta tell ya what it looks like. There's a lotta people with a lotta issues; and they're taking their rage out on perfect strangers who came to an internet site to discuss facets of national policy and learn how others feel about some of the issues.

I have a challenging time finding many conservative voices like yours who can even discuss these important issues in a mutually respectful way. I'm sure the flip side is just as difficult. That endless feud thing is just so counterproductive. As it is designed to be by operatives who see that as helping their cause. (Which is why I simply don't tolerate that)

It occurs to me that it might be a great idea to tax the rich more, for the express purpose of offering completely free mental counseling through moderating chat sites online.

There should be a fully staffed, well moderated, federal government-run political chat site!

You know that: What a lot of these people really need - is just somebody to talk to. All of this trolling is a cry for help.

People need attention.

It's a social thing. See fact 3 above.

Totally logical. Liberal logic. Another government function that could help society. To Insure the Domestic Tranquility, right? Makes SENSE!