I'm confused about the American Republican party

[FireIceTalon]

Yea dont worry, my rant was directed at the primary source only

RP was pretty much already on my sh!t list anyways, since A). He's a Capitalist scumbag, and B). his more recent remarks regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act (that he called unconstitutional) certainly didn't make a fan out of me. Not that I am a Constitutionalist by any means, because I'm not, but its just simply the fact he implies this progressive and revolutionary event to be a bad thing....indeed, if you are wealthy, white, reactionary, and male, it probably is. Which of course just confirms my belief that the Constitution itself is nothing more than a Bourgeois document anyway, that is said to apply to all Americans in theory, but obviously not in practice. I talk to a number of people who are surprised that I dont like him, because his anti-war politics easily appeal to leftists (though I maintain there is a HUGE difference utopian Democrats who think Capitalism can be reformed, and REVOLUTIONARY/Radical leftists like myself that truly want fundamental change in society - I am the type of person if you call me a Liberal I am rather insulted, lol), but as much as I am sick of America being the world's police, I realize that it is just another by-product of Capitalism. Anyone who thinks we are going to stop meddling in the outside worlds affairs, become isolationist, and keep this Capitalist system going is living in a utopian dream world or flashback from 1920 or something. It will never happen, because imperialism and war-time economies are an inevitable result of expanding and maintaining a hyper-Capitalist society like ours. You want to get rid of the wars and start taking care of business at home? Great. Get rid of Capitalism first then we will have something to talk about. But I digress.

Although this statement regarding sexual harassment was from his book 25 years ago, my guess is he still stands by it. I was pretty heated when I saw this. Blaming the victim or pinning any fault on them at all when it isnt warranted (something Conservatives love to do) is one of my extreme "hot buttons" and will quickly turn me from being civil to downright nasty in any political discussion. When I hear statements even in casual conversation like "maybe if she wasnt dressed so slutty she wouldnt have been raped", I realllllly have to tell myself that person is just extremely moronic to keep myself from walking up to the person who said it and knocking them into next week. Maybe its just my feminine side talking, but I am quite sensitive to such issues.

[kandrathe]

Still I find it rather odd. Did he really make this statement and is he still agreeing with it?

He was making the case, awkwardly, that rights do not manifest from membership of a special class. He was looking to foundational views of natural law.

He fails to account for systematic injustice put on the minority by the majority, which civil rights legislation attempts to resolve. Our problem in the US was resolved with national civil rights laws, to dislodge institutional racism within the state and local governments. It was more of a problem where the states and localities had segregation laws, and people were victimized by their government, and not protected by the courts.

We've touched on this before; Does a person, or a business owner have the right to be a bigot, racist, or in this case ignore harrassment. Should the government go in to force a private person or business to think correctly, or face punishment by the government?

The idea being that without legislation, most of the public will decide not to work there, and it will affect the reputation of the businesss and their products/services. From a hiring perspective, if a business refuses to hire a better qualified candidate due to bigotry against a minority (woman, ethnic, religious, etc), then the better qualified candidate will go work for another place, who over time (having the better candidates) would win in the marketplace. Also, the bigoted organization would need to deal with the negative stigma of being bigoted. It only works this way when racism, sexism, and bigotry are viewed negatively by the public at large.

I alluded to this in my statement before. Sometimes libertarians get caught out looking stupid or brutal, as they attempt to strictly adhere to the principles of individual liberty, and attempt to envision nearly zero need for government intervention in our lives. Looking stupid and/or brutal is problem that all ideologues have, whether they are libertarians, progressives or revolutionary radical leftists.

In practice, as expressed in legislation, all sides come together and create reasonable laws. From my perspective they err on the side of caretaking too much, not resolving root issues, and are short sighted when it comes to a systematic method of paying for their largess.

[eppie]

The idea being that without legislation, most of the public will decide not to work there, and it will affect the reputation of the businesss and their products/services. From a hiring perspective, if a business refuses to hire a better qualified candidate due to bigotry against a minority (woman, ethnic, religious, etc), then the better qualified candidate will go work for another place, who over time (having the better candidates) would win in the marketplace. Also, the bigoted organization would need to deal with the negative stigma of being bigoted. It only works this way when racism, sexism, and bigotry are viewed negatively by the public at large.

Thanks for the explanation. I don't really agree with the quoted part though. More often in societies such as the US a large part of the people doesn't really have the choice to just refuse a job for this reason. When it is choosing between bread on the table for your family and principles many people will choose for the first.

[kandrathe]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't really agree with the quoted part though. More often in societies such as the US a large part of the people doesn't really have the choice to just refuse a job for this reason. When it is choosing between bread on the table for your family and principles many people will choose for the first.

Put another way... If you are in a minority, would you rather work for bigots forced by law to hide their bigotry, or for a company that truly embraces you and values your talent?

When a preponderance of companies are bigoted, then enforcement of common sense is the only recourse. It's hard to know where it stands, since everyone is forced to be nice.

[eppie]

Put another way... If you are in a minority, would you rather work for bigots forced by law to hide their bigotry, or for a company that truly embraces you and values your talent?

I understand your point and I think most people would want to work for the latter type company but what I am saying is that people often don't really have that choice.

[FireIceTalon]

Unless of course, you are a Capitalist. For the rest of us meager Proletarian peasants who don't have any ownership in the means to production, we're SOL. But we are still a true Democracy indeed

[Quark]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29...07076.html

Among the provisions is one which would exempt doctors from malpractice suits if they withhold information -- in order to prevent an abortion -- that could have prevented a health problem for the mother or child.

This is what you get when you vote R.

[kandrathe]

This is what you get when you vote R.

Isn't Kansas a red state? Brownback actively campaigned as a pro-life candidate, so what's the surprise?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9547.html

"No state has voted Republican more consistently or widely or for longer than Kansas. To understand red state politics, Kansas is the place. It is also the place to understand red state religion. The Kansas Board of Education has repeatedly challenged the teaching of evolution, Kansas voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, the state is a hotbed of antiabortion protest--and churches have been involved in all of these efforts."

I guess to me it seems that if you go to Austria, you'd expect Austrian politics. It's different than what is in Italy, or The Netherlands. So, then, Topeka is different than Salt Lake City, Little Rock, Boston, or Minneapolis.

[DeeBye]

"No state has voted Republican more consistently or widely or for longer than Kansas. To understand red state politics, Kansas is the place. It is also the place to understand red state religion. The Kansas Board of Education has repeatedly challenged the teaching of evolution, Kansas voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, the state is a hotbed of antiabortion protest--and churches have been involved in all of these efforts."

I can only assume Kansas is also against widespread literacy and clean drinking water. I will also assume that doctors in Kansas love Phrenology and bloodletting. Has Kansas forgiven Galileo yet?

[kandrathe]

I can only assume Kansas is also against widespread literacy and clean drinking water. I will also assume that doctors in Kansas love Phrenology and bloodletting. Has Kansas forgiven Galileo yet?

Galileo who?

But, seriously... Blonds aren't dumb. Scottsmen aren't tight. Blacks don't want to live on welfare. Kansas democrats aren't pot smoking wannabe hippie dropouts, and Kansas republicans aren't ignorant religious wackos. People are diverse. You shouldn't try to stererotype them.

Literacy rates by state --

6% - Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota.
7% - Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin.
8% - Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Rhode Island.
9% - Alaska, Connecticut, Montana, Ohio, Utah, Wyoming.
10%-Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington.
11%-Delaware, Idaho, Maryland.
12%-Kentucky, Oklahoma, Virginia.
13%-Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia.
14%-Arkansas, North Carolina.
15%-Alabama, South Carolina.
16%-Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico.
17%-Georgia, New Jersey.
18%-
19%-Texas.
20%-Florida.
21%-
22%-New York.
23%-California.

This is based on a 2003 study by the US Department of Education and reported by the National Center for Education Statistics.

[Kevin]

I can only assume Kansas is also against widespread literacy and clean drinking water. I will also assume that doctors in Kansas love Phrenology and bloodletting. Has Kansas forgiven Galileo yet?

Galileo who?

You shouldn't try to stererotype them.

Literacy rates by state --

Interesting how that literacy data matches with immigration data.... http://www.migrationinformation.org/data...census.cfm

Take a look at the percent foreign born by state link and the data they have for 2000 and 2007. One would think that English literacy and foreign born status would have a link and, look at that it appears they do.

[Jester]

Here's a fun exercise.

Subtract the % illiterate from the % foreign born for each state. The idea is to correct for the fact that migrants are vastly less likely to be literate, which reflects their origins, not the education quality in the state, or the literacy of the native-born population.

The top ten:
Rhode Island
California
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Hawaii
New Jersey
Washington
Nevada
Arizona
Illinois

... blue states.

The bottom ten?

North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Arkansas
West Virginia
South Carolina
Alabama
Louisiana
Mississippi

... Dixie. (And Pennsylvania.)

So, seems to me, we just have the conjunction of two trends: that blue states are more literate than red states, on the whole, and that migrants in any state are vastly less literate than the native-born population. Correct for the 2nd trend, and the 1st pops right out.

The migrant data are from 2000, and from here.

-Jester

Edit: Curse you, GG! Beating me to the punch!

[Quark]

... Dixie. (And Pennsylvania.)

There's a reason we call the "T" in Pennsylvania that surrounds Philly and Pittsburgh "Pensyltucky". Of course, Corbett is cutting funding for education again this year, so it's only going to get better.

[kandrathe]

So, seems to me, we just have the conjunction of two trends: that blue states are more literate than red states, on the whole, and that migrants in any state are vastly less literate than the native-born population. Correct for the 2nd trend, and the 1st pops right out.

Well, I've always heard that Washington State is the most literate, followed by some other Northern states (including Minnesota :-) with Minneapolis and St. Paul both being in the top ten literate cities).

An issue here in some schools where there are lots of immigrants are that teachers are spread very thin teaching ESL, and trying to get their students scores on standardized tests highers. I have a relative who works at a Bloomington school where they have > 40 first languages represented.

Another issue for the south, is that they've traditionally been low tax, and low services states.

[LochnarITB]

Literacy rates by state --

6% - Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota..

Wow! I always considered myself literate, but I can't believe I'm in the top 6% of our state.

[kandrathe]

Literacy rates by state --

6% - Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota..

Wow! I always considered myself literate, but I can't believe I'm in the top 6% of our state.

Er, illiteracy. You know what I meant!

[eppie]

Literacy rates by state --

6% - Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota..

Wow! I always considered myself literate, but I can't believe I'm in the top 6% of our state.

Er, illiteracy. You know what I meant!

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2...ng_312.pdf


I wonder what the literacy rates of the people in this pole was.
take a good look at q22, q23 and q24.
Deebye this might enlighten you a bit more regarding your first question in this thread.

So we are talking here about some things we probably would even agree on here in the lounge. No the question was not about euthenasie or gay marriage.....now the question was if you think a white guy can marry a black woman or a black men marrying a white woman......and in mississipi 29 % say no that should not be allowed!!

I mean let's stay consequent here and let not Iran but the south east be the next 'country' you invade.

[kandrathe]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2...ng_312.pdf


I wonder what the literacy rates of the people in this poll was. Take a good look at q22, q23 and q24. Deebye this might enlighten you a bit more regarding your first question in this thread.

Right, because looking at and highlighting the opinions of some idiots and generalizing across a broad population is a great way to demagogue your ideological opponent.

So we are talking here about some things we probably would even agree on here in the lounge. No the question was not about euthanasia or gay marriage.....now the question was if you think a white guy can marry a black woman or a black men marrying a white woman......and in Mississippi 29 % say no that should not be allowed!!

And, more importantly, who would a mixed race person marry? "As interpreted by the Supreme Court of Arizona in State v. Pass, 59 Ariz. 16, 121 P.2d 882 (1942), the law prohibited persons of mixed racial heritage from marrying anyone."

So... this was the opinion of about 600 likely republican voters -- but how they chose them may be a factor for bias in these results.

And... the 1960's were only about a generation ago... when most of the laws in the South were overturned by the Federal government by force, and not by choice.

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

That question would be more interesting to have as a broader survey over a larger demographic. You are missing the comparison to the opinions of the general population, and then sub-selected by race, religiosity, etc. How many (white) southern democrats feel the same way?

I mean let's stay consequent here and let not Iran but the south east be the next 'country' you invade.

Because... the best way to enlighten or change peoples minds is at the point of a gun? It won't work with Islamic extremists or racists either. It didn't work in the South in 1861, or 1967, and it won't work now.

[Nystul]

There still seems to be a lot of confusion here about American politics. This video should help to clear things up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whFBCIzwxp8

[eppie]

Right, because looking at and highlighting the opinions of some idiots and generalizing across a broad population is a great way to demagogue your ideological opponent.

Are you saying this polling organisation is a biased one?
To me it seems they took a pretty large group of republican voters (the party we are discussing in this thread).

So... this was the opinion of about 600 likely republican voters -- but how they chose them may be a factor for bias in these results.

You could just do this results of as fake or bad statistics, but it seems most answer pretty much agree with the facts. (believing in evolution or not for example). So if you have a good reason to say that this poll has been conducted in a bad or biased way, please tell me so.

That question would be more interesting to have as a broader survey over a larger demographic. You are missing the comparison to the opinions of the general population, and then sub-selected by race, religiosity, etc. How many (white) southern democrats feel the same way?

Well I think many of us already suggested here that the religious conservative voters base in the US is not known for its inteligence.
But indeed this poll was conducted only using republican respondents...but again, that is why i posted the link.

Because... the best way to enlighten or change peoples minds is at the point of a gun? It won't work with Islamic extremists or racists either. It didn't work in the South in 1861, or 1967, and it won't work now.

Sarcasm anyone?