I'm confused about the American Republican party

[Quark]

To me, calling people 'racist' just for disagreement, and letting the practice go on in his campaign, pretty much made him un-Presidential in my eyes. If you're going to be the first minority President, step up and show the way, don't hide behind your minority status. Make up your mind. Do you want equality, or privileged status forever? I'd prefer that everyone ignore skin color, because people are people regardless, but, that's not the way people think, it seems. HIs campaign made a particular issue of it.

Sources please?

[kandrathe]

What do you think? That in my spare time my hobby is to research American polling agencies that I have never heard of before?

You might do just a little checking of the source before tossing the grenade out onto the LL. I would be (and have been) a little chagrined in the past by blindly posting a poll or statistics that "told a story" -- only to find that the interesting data was probably manufactured to "tell a lie".

If you have a good reason to believe this poll is enormous bogus, please tell us this. I think everybody is aware of te issues with polling (number of respondents, how to choose respondents etc.) but I can't seem to find any indication that this particular poll was conducted in a wrong way.

A company I once worked with had their headquarters in Mobile, and I worked there for weeks at a time and became friends with many of my peers. And, at another time in my life I was sent to Atlanta for 3 months, and again I mixed with the locals and learned quite a bit about Southern culture. I traveled extensively throughout the south visiting hundreds of manufacturing facilities seeing the most blue collar side, and as management fraternized with the white collar executives. As a northerner (Yankee), I was surprised to find much more social integration, and much less overt discrimination than I expected in the deep South. I'm sure there are a devoted minority of racist whites who still have their white hoods handy in a trunk somewhere. The preponderance of what I saw was enlightening in a positive way. But, what I did see more of in the South (opposed to the North), was more nepotism, and loyalty to relationships in business. In other words, they aren't as price motivated, but would pay significantly more for the same product from a well known friend or relative. In that way, it may be possible to create a climate more prone to institutional racism.

So did the results surprise you a lot? And is that the reason why you think this poll is wrong?

I'm pointing out the fallacies of the poll. Like, science, you need a double blind sample. I would have tested a random sample of all people in Alabama, then captured whether they live in an urban or rural environment, their age, race, gender, and then captured who they voted for in past elections. This would give you the basis for comparing their "other answers" to demographics. How many black democrats in Alabama don't believe in marrying outside their race?

And, I would reply that you are exposing yourself to be as much of a bigot as they are. You want to use this poll to paint a picture, whereas the reality is that there are idiots, and savants throughout our culture, some are democrats, and some are republicans.

From what I read in Wikipedia, PPP is known for tossing into their polls some incendiary questions. The predominant customers of PPP are SEIU, and Politico. The founder of PPP is a democratic activist. So, before I'd go further into analyzing if and how they may have created bias, I'd want to determine if there are contradictory polls from more unbiased sources (e.g. PEW).

But, is it a surprise that a democratic polling organization publishes a poll casting Republicans in a bad light? No.

And... Where I'm trying to go with my comment here is to highlight the fallacy of "All X are Y". The short path I fear you are trying to go is; "A preponderance of these 600 likely Republican voters feel this way, ergo a majority of Republicans feel this way. To have this opinion is reprehensible, thus Republicans are reprehensible". I feel the poll would tend to unfairly sub-select a population drawing conclusions confirming a stereotype of all Southerners. It would be like attempting to poll youth attitudes about the police by going to a skateboard park, and gathering your data.

The Economist -- Miscegenation and the South

Polls don't correctly give answers to the root causes, but more often lead you to new areas of inquiry. As I said above, perhaps opinions on marrying outside race are an urban/rural thing. Perhaps it is and age related thing. Or, maybe it is none of the above. In order to understand individual answers, you need to become more of a sociologist and actually interview many people to determine common threads/reasons for their opinion. In the black community in the US there is a great deal of consternation regarding black men choosing white women, over black women. Black women are the most unmarried group in America. Anyway, there is much more going on sociologically in the black community regarding marriage in general, and marrying outside the black community is a part of that.

[Jester]

In the black community in the US there is a great deal of consternation regarding black men choosing white women, over black women. Black women are the most unmarried group in America. Anyway, there is much more going on sociologically in the black community regarding marriage in general, and marrying outside the black community is a part of that.

Mayhap this has something to do with Black men being the most incarcerated group in America?

Marriage markets work. If supply outstrips demand, the "price" moves to adjust. And when the "price" of women drops (that is, what bargaining power they have with a potential husband), there are serious consequences, both individually and socially. Marriage rates go down, single motherhood goes up, teen pregnancy goes up, STD transmission goes up... all pretty ugly.

So, maybe ending the war on drugs would be a good step one to fixing women's marriage prospects.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So, maybe ending the war on drugs would be a good step one to fixing women's marriage prospects.

That is a factor I hadn't considered. Some of this goes all the way back to the mid - 1800's slavery days where any traditional sense of family was destroyed. I think some of it reflects a cultural rejection of White Anglo Saxon Protestant values, in favor of defining the values of "The Black Community" in the US.

I think the worst part of it is the institutional barriers government has imposed on marriage in tax laws, and by penalizing poor people for being married (e.g. getting more government aid for being an unmarried mother without a supporting spouse).

And, again we return to government interfering with peoples relationships. It's not only biasing for/against gay marriage, but also marriage of the poor.

[eppie]

The founder of PPP is a democratic activist.

So this was the only bit out of that wall of text that was useful to me and could be seen as a logical continuation of this part of the thread.

That said, the page in wikipedia to which you refer, doesn't really tell the things you write down here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Polling

See for yourself.

[kandrathe]

So this was the only bit out of that wall of text that was useful to me and could be seen as a logical continuation of this part of the thread.

~ 27 sentences doesn't seem to be much of a wall of text.

You did say "If you have a good reason to believe this poll is enormous[ly] bogus, please tell us this." and "So did the results surprise you a lot? And is that the reason why you think this poll is wrong?"

In summary for the ADD challenged: I don't think the poll it is outright wrong, as much as I think it is deceptive in its limited breath of demography and narrowness of its selectivity. That is what I explained, and "why" playing the racism card on these Republicans is wrong according to my personal experiences.

Race relations and politics is different in the Southern US. It's not as simple as racism, and racial intermarriage is more or less acceptable regionally depending where you are in the world. Why should the Southern US be any different than a poll of Turks in France? Your specific geography in the Netherlands has resulted in more of a "melting pot" attitude towards people and cultures. It isn't that way everywhere. With the shrinking of travel times, Mississippi and Alabama are not the forgotten out of the way place they were 60 years ago. Even here in the great white north, my mother was told by her mother to avoid Norwegians and Germans, so you can imagine how upset she was with my German/Danish/Norwegian wife. But, the trail had been blazed. My older sister married an Irish Catholic. It was about 50 years ago (especially) in Mississippi, and Alabama where black people had to ride in the back of the bus, and were denied access to the same public amenities given to white folks. Now, they work together, ride the bus together, and share public spaces together in harmony. It might take awhile longer for them to be as cosmopolitan as your average European. You can force people to live together peacefully, but that doesn't mean you can change their minds. Only they can do that by letting them get to know each other better.

Summary of the wall of text (paragraph) above for eppie: It takes time for people to change.

See for yourself.

Well I did, which I why I told you to look into it. Don't stop there. Wikipedia isn't the be all, end all research tool. It is easy to be deceptive with polls, charts, and statistics if you try. It's often not in what they say, but in what they don't say.

[Sabra]

I'm not American, but I have this insane fascination of American politics.

So the Republican Party is conservative. I get that part. A big chunk of being "conservative" (from what I can gather) means small government, lower taxes, and an emphasis on personal freedoms as outlined in the US Constitution. I like this a lot. Who wouldn't?

What I absolutely do not understand is the connection between the US Republican Party and the Christian religion, and how the Republicans are so dependent on the "evangelical" vote (I don't fully understand what an evangelical is).

From what I can gather as an outsider looking in, the Republican Party wants to have a small government and promote personal freedoms, but only if it does not interfere with the Bible stuff.

The biggest confusion I have is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (Freedom of religion), and the Republican Party being so pro-Christianity.

I had some other questions lined up, but I forgot them while typing these ones out.

Dee, the Republican party, or the G.O.P. as it is often called, has lost its way in America by steadily moving to the right on all issues social and political. It used to be a party of small government that was pro-business and moderate socially. Now it's the party of the state mandated pre-abortion, trans-vaginal ultrasounds and limited access to oral contraceptives. I don't wonder you're scratching your head.

I am the first to say that I am a full on liberal, actually to a great extent, a socialist. My parents were Republicans so I grew up with that party and watched it shift farther and farther to the right. As it shifted farther right, the Democrats shifted farther from the left and more toward the middle.

Now there is no party for me in America and I just want them all to shut up and leave women alone. It's one thing to be the party that loves Wall Street. It's another thing all together to be the party that dictates to women how they will manage their reproductive rights and health.

All said. Bye Bye.

[FireIceTalon]

Now there is no party for me in America and I just want them all to shut up and leave women alone. It's one thing to be the party that loves Wall Street. It's another thing all together to be the party that dictates to women how they will manage their reproductive rights and health.

All said. Bye Bye.

I feel you. Its bad enough that they are the former, but they are both of these things and a lot more, it's quite scary. But as far as Wall Street goes, both parties love Wall Street now. The working class never really did have anyone to represent them, but things have become much worse. As a full blown Proletarian Communist scumbag (i have no problem labeling myself as such), I view the Democratic Party of today as being only slightly to the left of the "old" Republican Party. This new wave of conservatives are downright Fascist from my perspective, and if you ask me, all of them should be hung by their entrails French Revolution style. Both parties are quite reactionary, just that one is more so than the other. I was talking to one of my classmates the other day, he is very leftist/progressive, not quite a Marxist though. But even he says all this austerity and race to the bottom towards political and economic dystopia is enough to make someone become one, heh. Pretty soon, elections will look more like Wal-Mart vs Opec. I think as things get progressively worse, people will start to realize more and more that Marx was very spot on about Capitalism. It just disturbs and frustrates me that it will take rock bottom for most people to understand this.

[DeeBye]

Now there is no party for me in America and I just want them all to shut up and leave women alone. It's one thing to be the party that loves Wall Street. It's another thing all together to be the party that dictates to women how they will manage their reproductive rights and health.

This is what I really can't understand. The end-game of a lot of Republican platforms seems to be no abortion, limiting contraception, and no sex education other than abstinence-only teaching.

I can understand the moral objection to abortion even though I disagree with it, but the rest is just flat-out stupid. People can't NOT have sex. If you remove sex education, people will have sex. If you remove contraception, people will have sex. If there was a giant hammer that smashed people's kneecaps in the most painful way if they had sex, they would still have sex. The fuel for 200,000 years worth of human existence has been GO HAVE SEX. The availability of contraception and level of understanding of sex don't even enter into the equation.

You cannot just tell people, "Yo, don't have sex unless you wanna have a baby. Also, we are not going to give you all the information on exactly how sex works. We also know how to prevent making babies while allowing you to have sex, but you can't do that either. Peace out." That's idiotic and incredibly unreasonable.

In 1967 Canada, we had a soon-to-be Prime Minister named Pierre Trudeau that said, "We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." He was speaking about the decriminalization of homosexuality at the time (yeah, it was actually illegal to be gay in Canada at the time), but that quote absolutely applies here. The government should not insert itself between the sheets.

[kandrathe]

This is what I really can't understand. The end-game of a lot of Republican platforms seems to be no abortion, limiting contraception, and no sex education other than abstinence-only teaching.

...

In 1967 Canada, we had a soon-to-be Prime Minister named Pierre Trudeau that said, "We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." He was speaking about the decriminalization of homosexuality at the time (yeah, it was actually illegal to be gay in Canada at the time), but that quote absolutely applies here. The government should not insert itself between the sheets.

Perhaps, zealots aside, that is more their position. That the government should have little role in providing contraception, or in teaching children how to have sex. Everybody does have sex, so interposing the government into that action places everybody into a role of "dependency" on government.

Then there are the "holy rollers" in the Republican party who want to use governments power to tell other people what to do. But, then, there is that in the Democratic party as well, but they are more eroding peoples rights by using governments power to limit the things with which they object (e.g. gun ownership, land use, business making profit).

So, the common thread is that using the government to "prevent" something unwanted moves you quickly into that dangerous area of trampling on freedoms. Or, in the case of Iraq, merely trampling on them.

[DeeBye]

Perhaps, zealots aside, that is more their position. That the government should have little role in providing contraception, or in teaching children how to have sex. Everybody does have sex, so interposing the government into that action places everybody into a role of "dependency" on government.

I absolutely disagree with a few of these points.

The schools really do have an obligation to provide comprehensive sex education, including (and perhaps focusing) on contraception. I would have figured that those opposed to abortion would argue very loudly for this. If abortion is murder, and contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies, which leads to abortion - why the hell is contraceptive education such a taboo?

I know you hate the government's role in schooling, but there really are some things that must be taught to everyone before they start having sex. This is not a moral/religious opinion - it's just basic biology. The schools are the place for this. You can't expect parents to be responsible for this, because parents aren't always the best rolemodels. If you want proof, just visit your local Walmart.

It's not being "dependent" on the government to ensure that schools have a minimum standard of sex education. It's more of an expectation.

This is what is so frustrating to me when looking at Republican platforms. You can't have sex unless you are married. We won't teach you anything about sex. If you have sex, you can't use contraception. We won't teach you about contraception. If you get pregnant because you had sex without being fully knowledgeable about how basic biology and contraception works, you can't have an abortion. Oh, we also don't want to help you to financially care for your child because you're poor and the rich people need more tax breaks.

When I first started typing this reply I was going to say "I'm not suggesting that the government actually starts handing out condoms", but you know what? I've changed my mind. I really do think that contraception should be freely and widely available in schools, and mandatory classes on how to use them.

[FireIceTalon]

What I find ironic is the paradoxical philosophy of many Republicans. They constantly rant and rave about how government is too big and is eroding peoples freedom, but then want to tell people who they can or cannot marry based on sexual orientation, what a woman can or cannot do with her body, all the while shoving their ass-backwards pseudo intellectual Judeo-Christian values down everyone else's throats. I guess the hypocrisy shouldn't surprise me. These are the people which sometimes make me question if Darwin was really right or not, and not because of any argument they present against Darwinian theory.

Ultimately, there is really nothing confusing about the Republican Party, at least not from my perspective: They are the party of propaganda and false consciousness, that use a 'culture war' strategy by pressing forth trivial issues such as gun rights, abortion, gays and marriage, constitutionalism, and patriotism with a healthy dose of Christianity to indoctrinate the working class from understanding what is really in their interest: ECONOMICS, social justice, and class consciousness. Thus the status quo is maintained. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Gingrich, Bachmann, Faux News and the rest of them are all media pundits and corporate tools that have one specific mission - to make sure the American public doesn't ever learn how to think critically and to digest everything that is fed to them as truth. What ails you America? Stockholm Syndrome, that's what.

The Dems dont escape my wrath either. The Democratic Party is virtually the same party as the Republican Party, tailored to have a few differences, to give the illusion that choice and democracy exist. Democracy my ass. Their function is one and the same: to serve and uphold the interests of the ruling class.

[eppie]

This is what is so frustrating to me when looking at Republican platforms. You can't have sex unless you are married. We won't teach you anything about sex. If you have sex, you can't use contraception. We won't teach you about contraception. If you get pregnant because you had sex without being fully knowledgeable about how basic biology and contraception works, you can't have an abortion. Oh, we also don't want to help you to financially care for your child because you're poor and the rich people need more tax breaks.

This is basically spot on Deebye.
And, in reaction to FIT,: be thankful there are still the democrats...they aren't perfect, and also to much to the right for me, but if they weren't there the republicans would exend this conservatism to Saudi Arabia like standards.

As I have asked more often, why don't those conservative republican not move to the middle east. The peole over there think exactly the same as them.....and I am almost sure that most of them actually would hapily support corporal punishment. All we need is someone who can explain them that god and allah are the same guy.

[kandrathe]

I absolutely disagree with a few of these points.

I respect that. This is why we discuss things. I'm gaining insight on your perspectives.

The schools really do have an obligation to provide comprehensive sex education, including (and perhaps focusing) on contraception. I would have figured that those opposed to abortion would argue very loudly for this. If abortion is murder, and contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies, which leads to abortion - why the hell is contraceptive education such a taboo?

There are two issues here. The first I will discuss below. The second is that the "Republican" is not a monolithic mass of single minded opinion. Abortion and gay rights are pretty evenly split issues, for both parties. Democrats tend to attract the majority of people who are in favor, but not all Democrats side that way. The same is true for the Republicans with those opposed. Those who have more middle of the road views are marginalized by the extremes of either side (Sabra's point).

I know you hate the government's role in schooling, but there really are some things that must be taught to everyone before they start having sex. This is not a moral/religious opinion - it's just basic biology. The schools are the place for this. You can't expect parents to be responsible for this, because parents aren't always the best role models. If you want proof, just visit your local Walmart.

Hate is too strong. I oppose it, and I will fight(politically) to get government out of running my life and controlling how and what we teach our children. And... I do expect parents to take seriously their responsibility of raising their own children, which includes preparing them for the realities of adulthood in our modern world.

From my perspective, I've hired those professional teachers to teach my children so my wife and I can go to work and do what we do best. If they deviate from the societal norm in what they are teaching, then I'll need to take them out of public school and hire someone who will teach them what I would like them to be taught. This has happened to many of our inner city schools. Not only do the parents object to what is being taught, they object to the violent atmosphere their children experience daily. No sane parent would willingly send their children into that. It is the government that forces them to do it by law. In Minnesota a few years ago, the Republican governor Pawlenty and our split legislature passed a school choice bill that allows parents to send their children to any school they like -- the parents need to supply the transportation for other public schools, or arrange for the financing of private schools. Many of the private schools have large scholarships, and financial aid for disadvantaged students. The result is that the worst schools have emptied and have been shut down. We also have a thriving industry of specialty Charter schools that must subscribe to the State's guidelines and MCA testing programs. All schools (due to NCLB), public and private, must perform or be subject to closure.

Luckily, I live in an are where people share my views and the schools teach and emphasize what I believe needs to be taught. Here is the middle school my son will be attending in the fall. It is #4 in the State, and Minnesota is one of the best states for K-12 education in the US. My issue is just getting my kids to understand the opportunities they have and take it seriously. If I didn't have kids, I would have moved to California by now. We chose this area, and our home with the intention of having children, and we've struggled to stay here.

And... mom likes to shop at Walmart, and Target. You shouldn't generalize the quality of parenting by a few negative examples that you've witnessed in your local discount shop. Walmart wasn't around when I was young, so maybe that is why I was well behaved.

It's not being "dependent" on the government to ensure that schools have a minimum standard of sex education. It's more of an expectation.

It is a complicated issue fraught with extreme examples. I agree that there should be a part of health class and biology class that teaches age appropriate materials on the mechanics. But, just because a small minority of age <13 children have sex, doesn't mean we need to educate all 12 year old children on the explicit details and the functional use of contraception. At some point between 12 and 16 we do need to teach them -- I would lean more towards 14-15. And... I don't think it is a bad thing to emphasize abstinence. I disagree with the "Abstinence Only" crowd. It certainly isn't the choice that everyone would make, but it is a good choice for those that can wait until they are more mature.

This is what is so frustrating to me when looking at Republican platforms. You can't have sex unless you are married. We won't teach you anything about sex. If you have sex, you can't use contraception. We won't teach you about contraception. If you get pregnant because you had sex without being fully knowledgeable about how basic biology and contraception works, you can't have an abortion. Oh, we also don't want to help you to financially care for your child because you're poor and the rich people need more tax breaks.

I hope you are being facetious, because otherwise it is completely erroneous.

Here is their platform. http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/

When I first started typing this reply I was going to say "I'm not suggesting that the government actually starts handing out condoms", but you know what? I've changed my mind. I really do think that contraception should be freely and widely available in schools, and mandatory classes on how to use them.

At what age would you suggest children start having sex?

[FireIceTalon]

This is what is so frustrating to me when looking at Republican platforms. You can't have sex unless you are married. We won't teach you anything about sex. If you have sex, you can't use contraception. We won't teach you about contraception. If you get pregnant because you had sex without being fully knowledgeable about how basic biology and contraception works, you can't have an abortion. Oh, we also don't want to help you to financially care for your child because you're poor and the rich people need more tax breaks.

This is basically spot on Deebye.
And, in reaction to FIT,: be thankful there are still the democrats...they aren't perfect, and also to much to the right for me, but if they weren't there the republicans would exend this conservatism to Saudi Arabia like standards.

As I have asked more often, why don't those conservative republican not move to the middle east. The peole over there think exactly the same as them.....and I am almost sure that most of them actually would hapily support corporal punishment. All we need is someone who can explain them that god and allah are the same guy.

But the Democrats havent been a working man's party for decades now, if they ever were. Both them and the Republicans are the party of the corporation...sure the Dems might have a real progressive in their camp here and there but it makes little difference. Even someone like Bernie Sanders, who is probably the most left wing politician in America (as well as being a self proclaimed Socialist), is a 'utopian' social Democrat that thinks Capitalism can be reformed and we can achieve Socialism through 'evolutionary policy change', which is absurd. This is the type of thinking that leads to people calling someone like Obama a Socialist, which is completely laughable. Marx criticized this very type of 'Socialism' in the Manifesto, and for good reason: Cause it is "bourgeois socialism". You can never implement Socialism through policy change, because reactionary changes always take place as long as Bourgeois society remains intact, and class antagonisms continue. Ive said it many times, revolution is the only solution.

It almost may as well be the Republican party only, because the corporations and media pundits have complete control over both parties anyway.

While I disagree with the idea of a Vanguard party to represent the workers as in Leninism, they need some sort of radical movement (perhaps one similar to the OWS movement, but with more revolutionary minded principles) to be organized and create solidarity for them. The first thing that must happen though before any idea of revolution can take place, is that this spell of 'false consciousness' must be broken. It has such an incredibly powerful stronghold on the working class and has due to 50 years of Cold War Propaganda and anti-Communist socialization.

[Taem]

This is what is so frustrating to me when looking at Republican platforms. You can't have sex unless you are married. We won't teach you anything about sex. If you have sex, you can't use contraception. We won't teach you about contraception. If you get pregnant because you had sex without being fully knowledgeable about how basic biology and contraception works, you can't have an abortion. Oh, we also don't want to help you to financially care for your child because you're poor and the rich people need more tax breaks.

I hope you are being facetious, because otherwise it is completely erroneous.

Here is their platform. http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the current political standing of Republicans running for office. The two front-runners outright proclaim their embrace for a biblical structure of a way of life. This concept includes all the things Deebee mentioned. However, Newt and Ron don't concede with these points of view, so he is not fully correct in his assertions, but it is clear from having watched news recently that media outlets paint Republicans to be politically motivated by the bible, rather that is true or not.

Because of that, I will never vote for the two Republican front-runners, and even though I don't want Obama to win, I'd rather have him in office than those two rights-devolving twits currently in the running for top Republican.

When I first started typing this reply I was going to say "I'm not suggesting that the government actually starts handing out condoms", but you know what? I've changed my mind. I really do think that contraception should be freely and widely available in schools, and mandatory classes on how to use them.

At what age would you suggest children start having sex?

Lol, you know damn well what me meant. Your being snarky. On the flip-side, if you don't feel schools should help protect children from potential harm, then why support seat-belt and helmet laws? Why not abolish the legal drinking age, or sop making children go to school altogether? The obvious answer is obvious; we want to protect our children from harm? Why would you want to do otherwise? Because your embarrassed about sex ed? Because you don't feel it will be taught right? Perhaps you think the system can be or is ripe for abuse?

[Hammerskjold]

At what age would you suggest children start having sex?

Oh...probably around the same time you stop beating your wife.
Or after you bury the plane crash survivors.

Jeesus christ on a cracker. Someone mentions condoms and sex ed should be available in schools, well obviously they -must- be talking about kindergarten age children.

[Taem]

Now there is no party for me in America and I just want them all to shut up and leave women alone. It's one thing to be the party that loves Wall Street. It's another thing all together to be the party that dictates to women how they will manage their reproductive rights and health.

All said. Bye Bye.

I feel you. Its bad enough that they are the former, but they are both of these things and a lot more, it's quite scary. But as far as Wall Street goes, both parties love Wall Street now. The working class never really did have anyone to represent them, but things have become much worse. As a full blown Proletarian Communist scumbag (i have no problem labeling myself as such), I view the Democratic Party of today as being only slightly to the left of the "old" Republican Party. This new wave of conservatives are downright Fascist from my perspective, and if you ask me, all of them should be hung by their entrails French Revolution style. Both parties are quite reactionary, just that one is more so than the other. I was talking to one of my classmates the other day, he is very leftist/progressive, not quite a Marxist though. But even he says all this austerity and race to the bottom towards political and economic dystopia is enough to make someone become one, heh. Pretty soon, elections will look more like Wal-Mart vs Opec. I think as things get progressively worse, people will start to realize more and more that Marx was very spot on about Capitalism. It just disturbs and frustrates me that it will take rock bottom for most people to understand this.

You do realize that issues come and go in waves, the ebb and flow of all things. Back when Abraham Lincoln was president, he abolished slavery, but he was a Republican and this had a great negative effect on the working class. Actually, back then, some party views were flipped compared to how they are now. Times change - parties adopt policies that propel their agenda, regardless of age. You see this a lot with religious studies and the political motives behind many "god" inspired decisions. YOU, Fire, trying to make out one party sound bad or worse than another (even your own) is ridiculous and hypocritical... Communism had its day in the sun, and faltered as you well know. You speak of it having a rebirth properly, fine. But clearly you of all people can see and respect the need for the ebb and flow of all things politically motivated. Perhaps it is time for change, but I doubt it will be what you expect; I foresee Republic and Democratic principles in America evolving with each passing year to win votes. Their stances will change, maybe even flip again, but so long as they remain diametrically opposed, all will be balanced. It's only when they agree on certain important issues that a third party can rise up to fill in the need for... everyone else I suppose.

[FireIceTalon]

Now there is no party for me in America and I just want them all to shut up and leave women alone. It's one thing to be the party that loves Wall Street. It's another thing all together to be the party that dictates to women how they will manage their reproductive rights and health.

All said. Bye Bye.

I feel you. Its bad enough that they are the former, but they are both of these things and a lot more, it's quite scary. But as far as Wall Street goes, both parties love Wall Street now. The working class never really did have anyone to represent them, but things have become much worse. As a full blown Proletarian Communist scumbag (i have no problem labeling myself as such), I view the Democratic Party of today as being only slightly to the left of the "old" Republican Party. This new wave of conservatives are downright Fascist from my perspective, and if you ask me, all of them should be hung by their entrails French Revolution style. Both parties are quite reactionary, just that one is more so than the other. I was talking to one of my classmates the other day, he is very leftist/progressive, not quite a Marxist though. But even he says all this austerity and race to the bottom towards political and economic dystopia is enough to make someone become one, heh. Pretty soon, elections will look more like Wal-Mart vs Opec. I think as things get progressively worse, people will start to realize more and more that Marx was very spot on about Capitalism. It just disturbs and frustrates me that it will take rock bottom for most people to understand this.

You do realize that issues come and go in waves, the ebb and flow of all things. Back when Abraham Lincoln was president, he abolished slavery, but he was a Republican and this had a great negative effect on the working class. Actually, back then, some party views were flipped compared to how they are now. Times change - parties adopt policies that propel their agenda, regardless of age. You see this a lot with religious studies and the political motives behind many "god" inspired decisions. YOU, Fire, trying to make out one party sound bad or worse than another (even your own) is ridiculous and hypocritical... Communism had its day in the sun, and faltered as you well know. You speak of it having a rebirth properly, fine. But clearly you of all people can see and respect the need for the ebb and flow of all things politically motivated. Perhaps it is time for change, but I doubt it will be what you expect; I foresee Republic and Democratic principles in America evolving with each passing year to win votes. Their stances will change, maybe even flip again, but so long as they remain diametrically opposed, all will be balanced. It's only when they agree on certain important issues that a third party can rise up to fill in the need for... everyone else I suppose.

I fail to see how the abolishment of slavery had a negative impact on the working class. Please elaborate for me? I dont think there is a single Communist on the planet that would disagree with the Abolishment of slavery, and all probably viewed it is a progression of society.

The Democrats and Republicans back then were flipped opposites of what they are today. If Abe was alive today, he would most likely be a Democrat, and someone like Newt Gingrich would be a Democrat during the Slavery period. Obama would be a moderate Republican during that era also.

No, Communism has NOT had its day, or anything close to it. What DID have its day was State Capitalism combined with Totalitarian dictatorships that American Leadership has labeled as "Communist Countries" through mass propaganda, of which there can be no such thing since the term "Communist Country" is an oxymoron - it cannot exist by technical definition - for the sake of bastardizing and redefining an ideology as they see fit to keep their precious Capitalism safe. They had absolutely nothing to do with Communism (and were in fact much closer to Fascism), and anyone who has read the works of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, or even Trotsky knows this. Regular privatized American Capitalism has also had its day, it has failed (and was doomed to fail from day 1), and we are seeing the beginning of its end. You dont like Communism and disagree with its fundamental principles in the context of what it REALLY is? Fine. But at least be intellectually honest and dont change the original meaning of things to fit your agenda. Id rather you come out and say "I like Capitalism, I dont care about the poor, its their problem, wars are inevitable, some races are better than others, etc". I have more respect for a man who is honest of where he really stands, even if he's wrong, than someone who misrepresents things to look politically correct.

Indeed, times do change. No one understands this better than us Marxists, in fact. However, every era of history has had a group of people, usually the ruling class as well as those who believe in the propaganda they spew forth, that resist these changes and want to keep traditional values intact in a changing material world, which just isnt logical, let alone just. It's called being a reactionary idealist. In fact, I am pretty sure it was Nietzsche that observed this concept (Master and Slave morality) and wrote about it even more so than Marx. Although I am by no means a "Nietzscheist", I see alot of this aspect of his philosophy in American society: We need a VERY serious and critical re-examination of our values, because the ones we have now are not working at all. But this is hardly enough to change society in a fundamental way. We can have the greatest values in the world, and it doesn't mean spit if class antagonisms are not eliminated.

I dont see American politics evolving at all. I see it DEVOLVING. I mean, we have states that cant even vote properly *COUGhFloridaCOUGH* The whole system is a complete sham because as ive said a million times, both parties are bought out and owned by Corporate interests. Want proof? Simply look at the last two Democratic presidents, and i dont know how many Republican presidents, as well as both parties in the Congress, that mingle corporate interests with political agenda. Not to mention the SCOTUS (Citizens United = epic fail). Both parties are not as opposed to one another as you are led to believe. Why bother voting when you get the same result regardless of who wins? But why have any parties at all to begin with? If there are political parties, it means there is a system of class antagonisms that functions as the Base of society, and that shouldnt be the case to begin with.

[Taem]

Do you really not know how important slavery was to working Americans running cotton and agriculture farms? The price of having to pay laborers as opposed to free labor was huge blow to... damn, I don't even know why I have to explain something so obvious.

It's clear to me from your ranting that conversing with you [in this thread] is not going to be productive. Good day.