Is the GOP worried about its survival?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not worried about its survival, but rather the survival of the country.

Wait, is that why the GOP is trying its damndest to destroy America?

You have to understand that when Republicans say "the country," what they actually mean is "the dominance of white christian culture in the country," then it all makes sense.

They truly believe they are trying to save the country, because to them anyone who doesn't look, vote, worship, and act like them isn't really a part of the country.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the U.S. becomes increasingly non-white, unmarried and LGBTQ. What’s the plan to attract young women to the party?

Why does there need to be a “plan”? Humans have a demonstrated ability to divide themselves in to tribes / factions, always have and always will. The American political system is set up so that roughly half will organize on either side. Any perceived or actual gains by one party will be offset by future divisions (along different or similar issues) in to new tribes / factions. The obvious answer is that non-white, unmarried, and LGBTQ will, in the coming years, find issues for which they align with the Rs and move the ideological premise of the parties accordingly. Just look at how traditional conservatism morphed into neo-conservatism morphed into MAGA which will again morph into something that attracts roughly one-half of the American population.

MAGA does not attract anywhere near one-half of the American population.

Sure. And yet Trump attracted nearly half the vote. How is that? Is the R party more than just the loud MAGAs? Perhaps each party represents a coalition of disparate, but loosely-aligned voting groups? Holy Moly, that has to be it! Which explains why, somehow, each of those groups attract roughly half the vote (and, I’d suspect, pretty much always have). Those coalitions just morph over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the U.S. becomes increasingly non-white, unmarried and LGBTQ. What’s the plan to attract young women to the party?

Why does there need to be a “plan”? Humans have a demonstrated ability to divide themselves in to tribes / factions, always have and always will. The American political system is set up so that roughly half will organize on either side. Any perceived or actual gains by one party will be offset by future divisions (along different or similar issues) in to new tribes / factions. The obvious answer is that non-white, unmarried, and LGBTQ will, in the coming years, find issues for which they align with the Rs and move the ideological premise of the parties accordingly. Just look at how traditional conservatism morphed into neo-conservatism morphed into MAGA which will again morph into something that attracts roughly one-half of the American population.

MAGA does not attract anywhere near one-half of the American population.

Sure. And yet Trump attracted nearly half the vote. How is that? Is the R party more than just the loud MAGAs? Perhaps each party represents a coalition of disparate, but loosely-aligned voting groups? Holy Moly, that has to be it! Which explains why, somehow, each of those groups attract roughly half the vote (and, I’d suspect, pretty much always have). Those coalitions just morph over time.

Do you know how math works?

[Anonymous]

I'm more worried about our Constitutional Republic, not political parties. Karl Marx would be proud of what our authoritarians in charge are doing to our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the U.S. becomes increasingly non-white, unmarried and LGBTQ. What’s the plan to attract young women to the party?

Why does there need to be a “plan”? Humans have a demonstrated ability to divide themselves in to tribes / factions, always have and always will. The American political system is set up so that roughly half will organize on either side. Any perceived or actual gains by one party will be offset by future divisions (along different or similar issues) in to new tribes / factions. The obvious answer is that non-white, unmarried, and LGBTQ will, in the coming years, find issues for which they align with the Rs and move the ideological premise of the parties accordingly. Just look at how traditional conservatism morphed into neo-conservatism morphed into MAGA which will again morph into something that attracts roughly one-half of the American population.

MAGA does not attract anywhere near one-half of the American population.

Sure. And yet Trump attracted nearly half the vote. How is that? Is the R party more than just the loud MAGAs? Perhaps each party represents a coalition of disparate, but loosely-aligned voting groups? Holy Moly, that has to be it! Which explains why, somehow, each of those groups attract roughly half the vote (and, I’d suspect, pretty much always have). Those coalitions just morph over time.

Do you know how math works?

I do. Do you know how the American political system works? Go back and re-read Federalist Paper No. 10 and then think long and hard about how the two parties seem - over time, and through changing demographics, rights, and cultural mores - to somehow already be competitive. The Rbparty isn’t going anywhere. If their current strategy / coalition doesn’t win, they’ll change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not worried about its survival, but rather the survival of the country.

Wait, is that why the GOP is trying its damndest to destroy America?

You have to understand that when Republicans say "the country," what they actually mean is "the dominance of white christian culture in the country," then it all makes sense.

They truly believe they are trying to save the country, because to them anyone who doesn't look, vote, worship, and act like them isn't really a part of the country.

And now I understand why the GOP doesn't consider me a "patriot" despite my service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm more worried about our Constitutional Republic, not political parties. Karl Marx would be proud of what our authoritarians in charge are doing to our society.

And Stalin would be proud of what the GOP would like to do to our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm more worried about our Constitutional Republic, not political parties. Karl Marx would be proud of what our authoritarians in charge are doing to our society.

You people obsessed with Karl Marx! Have you ever even read any of his writings?

At any rate, he wasn't an authoritarian, he completely rejected authoritarianism, he grew up in authoritarian societies and wanted to get rid of that. You can disagree with his political philosophy (as I do) but there's no need to misinterpret it except to score cheap political points among those who are ignorant about what his political philosophy was.

Stalin was an authoritarian and Stalinism was authoritarianism. You'd sound a lot smarter if you starting flinging that as an insult. But I think you realize that no one believes there is a Stalinist movement anywhere, so you can't use it as a bogeyman.

In any event, we all know Trump loves strongmen and authoritarians and wants to emulate them. He's on record saying so. So it's confusing when Trumpsters moan about authoritarians while following one yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm more worried about our Constitutional Republic, not political parties. Karl Marx would be proud of what our authoritarians in charge are doing to our society.

I'm not sure that Republicans consider themselves Marxists, but you're right to worry about the damage they're doing to our country. It's scary that so many Republicans (and their voters) desperately want to throw out our democratic norms in favor of authoritarian populists like Trump and DeSantis.

[Anonymous]

Marxism predates communism, yet the lwnjs on here doesn't know the difference...

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism and seeks to identify an alternative, which he called "utopian socialism."

Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.

Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Those on the left want communism, not a constitutional republic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marxism predates communism, yet the lwnjs on here doesn't know the difference...

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism and seeks to identify an alternative, which he called "utopian socialism."

Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.

Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Those on the left want communism, not a constitutional republic.

this is incorrect. Most of the left that I know want the socialism prominent in northern and Western Europe. Better funding of education, affordable and good healthcare that is not tied to employers, conservation and laws so our air, food, water ….. are healthy, less spending on the industrial military complex that Eisenhower warned us about, Things like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marxism predates communism, yet the lwnjs on here doesn't know the difference...

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism and seeks to identify an alternative, which he called "utopian socialism."

Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.

Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Those on the left want communism, not a constitutional republic.

Wrong. Take a step back from whatever far right wing tripe you read, step outside, take a deep breath of fresh air, and then look for some actual data.

Less than 2% of Americans support communism and this has been the case, unwaveringly, for the last 70+ years. To say ludicrous things like "the left wants communism" does not even remotely square with the reality of the American left.

Now consider your complaint about how "the left doesn't know the difference between marxism and communism" - it's because most on the left aren't even interested in either of those things. The closest you might come is that the progressives on the left are interested in European-style social democracy (which is not even remotely marxist or communist, and not even remotely "Venezuela"), and even that's probably only about 20% of the left, with the remainder of the left being far more middle-of-the-road and to the right of those progressives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marxism predates communism, yet the lwnjs on here doesn't know the difference...

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism and seeks to identify an alternative, which he called "utopian socialism."

Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.

Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Those on the left want communism, not a constitutional republic.

Name specific people who want communism here in the US rather than a constitutional republic. Even just one person who has outright stated that.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marxism predates communism, yet the lwnjs on here doesn't know the difference...

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism and seeks to identify an alternative, which he called "utopian socialism."

Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.

Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Those on the left want communism, not a constitutional republic.

100+ years ago you'd have been among the folks working to stop the movement toward equal rights for women and non-white Americans, and against the labor movement that wanted to ban child labor and introduce reforms to help workers. Admit it.

p.s. if you deny that, then you have to admit that 100+ years ago you'd have been a leftist for supporting such things as civil rights and voting rights for women!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marxism predates communism, yet the lwnjs on here doesn't know the difference...

Marxism is an economic and political theory that examines the flaws inherent in capitalism and seeks to identify an alternative, which he called "utopian socialism."

Marxist theories were influential in the development of socialism, which requires shared ownership by workers of the means of production.

Communism outright rejects the concept of private ownership, mandating that "the people," in fact the government, collectively own and control the production and distribution of all goods and services.

Those on the left want communism, not a constitutional republic.

OMG, you give a didactic lecture on different economic systems and still manage to mischaracterize what main stream Democrats want. Even Bernie, who considers himself a socialist, support capitalism with guardrails. We need guardrails to protect the environment, workers rights and have consumer protections. But democrats do not support public ownership of corporations etc. Yes, there are exceptions, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.