First openly gay presidential Canidate!!!!!

[FArchivist]

wow must've missed that in his platform...oh wait, it's not there.

1) Those tax cuts are absolutely mentioned in the current national Republican Party platform.

2) Teddy Roosevelt is regarded today as a traitor to conservative politics who split the party and was infected by Progressivism, a form of "liberal fascism", as stated by political pundit Jonah Goldberg in the book of the same name. He and everything he did is REPUDIATED by the Republican Party today.

[FArchivist]

Sorry some of us remember what the Republican party used to be and are ACTIVELY WORKING to restore it, rather than just "jumping ship". Yes it's an uphill battle, but remember the "oh so liberal" Democratic party is the political party that OPPOSED civil rights in the 1960's.

How can you remember what the Republican Party "used to be" when the last time it actively supported rights for marginalized groups was in the days of Coolidge? You seem to have forgotten that the Civil Rights of 1964 was proposed by Democrats and was opposed on a north/south basis rather than a party basis. Here's the vote percentages on a Yea/Nay basis:

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

I would also like to note that EVERY Southern Democrat from that era has now switched parties and become a Republican. Period. So let's not fool ourselves that the Democrats were the big racists then when the numbers clearly contradict this.

Quite frankly, you don't know WHAT Republicans are supposed to believe, probably because you've never read Russell Kirk, the man who invented Modern American Conservatism in the 1950s. Here are the Six Canons of Conservatism:

1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Kirk also said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another." and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."

So, if you wish to return the Republican Party to "what it was" previous to the advent of Neo-Conservatism, this is what you are working for. Is that correct?

and claiming the 60's were "so long ago" guess what, the DNC REFUSES to acknowledge what they did, they cover it up with lies, to hide their past misdeeds, and hope no one finds out. I've had highranking officials from the WI DNC tell me to my face, that the DEMOCRATS and ONLY THE DEMOCRATS are responsible for civil rights.

Which shows that they know their history better than you do. All civil rights legislation of the 1960s and early 1970s was originated by Northern Democrats, usually with some Northern Republican assistance.

[BlaqueKatt]

Yeah, he established all those wonderful parks and reserves so that white people would have a safe place to go shoot wildlife.

I can find nothing to substantiate that claim-and I'm sure the hunting was fantastic in the grand canyon and devil's tower. And if that is the reason, that totally negates all the conservation efforts, because it was done for white people, and no one else ever gets to set foot in national parks for any reason other than to hunt.

I don't really vote for a party either.

really?

Sorry, I'll be sticking with the party that's not telling me what I can and cannot do with my uterus, TYVM.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe lower taxes for the upper 2% IS more important than me being able to make my own medical decisions.

wow must've missed that in his platform...oh wait, it's not there.

[AdminAssistant]

Yeah, he established all those wonderful parks and reserves so that white people would have a safe place to go shoot wildlife.

I don't really vote for a party either. I vote for people. It's just that I haven't found a person in the modern-day Republican party that isn't completely morally reprehensible to me. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe lower taxes for the upper 2% IS more important than me being able to make my own medical decisions.

[BlaqueKatt]

So, he wants to be like Teddy Roosevelt, who firmly believed that the US was doing those silly ol' Indians (and Cubans) a favor by taking over their lands because they just didn't know how to manage it! What a great role model.

Yes because that's ALL Roosevelt did

Roosevelt saw himself a representative of all the people, including farmers, laborers, white collar workers, and businessmen. Roosevelt therefore was focused on bringing big business under stronger regulation so that he could effectively serve all the people he represented. He sought to regulate, rather than dissolve, most trusts. Efforts continued over the next several years, to reduce the control of "big business" over the U.S. economy and workers.

He won the adoption of the Drago Doctrine, which prevented the use of force in collecting foreign debts.

In 1905, President Roosevelt formed the United States Forestry Service
During Roosevelt's time as President, the forest reserves in the U.S. went from approximately 43-million acres to about 194-million acres.

Established the forerunner to the national parks system

established 51 bird sanctuaries

wow-yup all those especially the first one are definitely things we don't want a president to do.

I really don't understand why people can say-well I agree with him on the issues but refuse to vote for him due to his party-then turn around and say it's stupid to vote for a party that doesn't have your interests at heart.
IT's doing the same damn thing.

I DON'T VOTE FOR A PARTY, I VOTE FOR A PERSON.

and claiming the 60's were "so long ago" guess what, the DNC REFUSES to acknowledge what they did, they cover it up with lies, to hide their past misdeeds, and hope no one finds out. I've had highranking officials from the WI DNC tell me to my face, that the DEMOCRATS and ONLY THE DEMOCRATS are responsible for civil rights.

[smileyeagle1021]

So...it's not a fact that in an election where we actually had someone who was young and black, something completely different from the past elections, there was a spike in black voters and young voters?

You're right, it doesn't say who they voted for. But the most logical reason was because of who they most likely were going to vote for (hint: not the old, white guy).

That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been the same spike if it had been McCain running against a young progressive white guy... they may have come out in equal force to vote down McCain and vote in a progressive after 8 years of a regressive presidency.

eta-

Sorry, I'll be sticking with the party that's not telling me what I can and cannot do with my uterus, TYVM.

And I'll be sticking with the party that isn't trying to force me to be attracted to someone with a uterus

[Andara Bledin]

Yes it's an uphill battle, but remember the "oh so liberal" Democratic party is the political party that OPPOSED civil rights in the 1960's.

Last I checked, the 60's were, oh yeah, half a century ago.

I'm afraid I have to live in the present, as does everybody else, and presently, the GOP is not my friend in any manner. Most of the time, neither are the democrats, which is why I usually vote for someone else entirely.

I don't see any point in supporting someone who doesn't represent my best interest in the hope that, hey, somewhere down the line, maybe another fifty years from now, the party they represent might stop being bastards.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

So, he wants to be like Teddy Roosevelt, who firmly believed that the US was doing those silly ol' Indians (and Cubans) a favor by taking over their lands because they just didn't know how to manage it! What a great role model.

Sorry, I'll be sticking with the party that's not telling me what I can and cannot do with my uterus, TYVM.

[BlaqueKatt]

Count me among those who doesn't understand why anyone would choose to support a group that actively works to keep them marginalized.

know how I know you didn't read the links provided?

“Being a gay Republicans is kind of an oxymoron,” but “I have been a fighter in my party, I have always been on the more moderate side but I’m also a protégé of Lee Atwater. We need to open up this party and that’s one of my reasons for running. The party should not be dominated by one faction or another. It should be open to all.”

“I want to be a different kind of Republican. The kind of Republican I grew up with. I consider myself to be Progressive. The last Progressive Republican president was over 100 years ago; Theodore Roosevelt,”

Sorry some of us remember what the Republican party used to be and are ACTIVELY WORKING to restore it, rather than just "jumping ship". Yes it's an uphill battle, but remember the "oh so liberal" Democratic party is the political party that OPPOSED civil rights in the 1960's.

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools.

My mother marched in Birmingham, with her African fiance, oh sorry mom I joined the party that assaulted you and Fausey for marching peacefully for equality. I know you fought hard against them but it was just too much work to try and change things, so I went with the path of least resistance, and threw the baby out with the bathwater-you understand, right mom, young people are lazy.

[Greenday]

To summarize, correlation does not equal causation. Don't try to paint off your theory as fact without evidence to back it up.

So...it's not a fact that in an election where we actually had someone who was young and black, something completely different from the past elections, there was a spike in black voters and young voters?

You're right, it doesn't say who they voted for. But the most logical reason was because of who they most likely were going to vote for (hint: not the old, white guy).

[Andara Bledin]

Well, from the standpoint of who is going to support rights for black people and the issues they care about, who do you think they were going to pick, some old white guy or some young black guy?

When you get people thoughtful enough to consider which candidate is more likely to support things that benefit them, they would have voted for him due to being a Democrat well before they'd have voted for him for being black. At that point, it's entirely moot.

Where in that report does it say how they voted and why? Your assuming that all the new voters voted for Obama and only because he was black, when there is no physical evidence either way. Those votes for Obama could have come from 40-50 year old white suburbanites because they had family members serving in Iraq and they wanted them home, which Obama promised. They could have come from senior citizens because they needed support, which Obama had promised. The less well off for the public health care option as well.

In several polls, it seems they came from older white bigots who so hated McCain or Palin that they were willing to vote for "the negro" in the words of one individual over the people supposedly representing their own party. A lot of people actually were voting against McCain/Palin and Obama just happened to be the one to vote for in that instance.

As for why the influx in blacks voting, once again all you have is that there was an influx. There's no proof as to who they voted for and why. It could be as much to do for policy as it did for skin colour and they could have voted republican as well.

It could have also been due to the extensive use of social networking, outreach, and awareness programs put into play by Obama's campaign. This was the first major campaign to actually leverage the Internet and make a serious connection with a generation that has grown up not watching the news but getting digests in their morning email.

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

Where in that report does it say how they voted and why? Your assuming that all the new voters voted for Obama and only because he was black, when there is no physical evidence either way. Those votes for Obama could have come from 40-50 year old white suburbanites because they had family members serving in Iraq and they wanted them home, which Obama promised. They could have come from senior citizens because they needed support, which Obama had promised. The less well off for the public health care option as well.

As for why the influx in blacks voting, once again all you have is that there was an influx. There's no proof as to who they voted for and why. It could be as much to do for policy as it did for skin colour and they could have voted republican as well. We just plain don't know, and the assumptions you've made do not help your case unless you can prove that those black voters did vote for Obama and that they did so exclusively because he's black.

To summarize, correlation does not equal causation. Don't try to paint off your theory as fact without evidence to back it up.

[Greenday]

I simply don't buy that 12 percent of his popular vote was from hipsters or blacks only voting to be part of electing a black man.

Well, from the standpoint of who is going to support rights for black people and the issues they care about, who do you think they were going to pick, some old white guy or some young black guy? You don't even have to think about any specific issues to instantly think it's going to be the young black guy. There are also people who wanted to stick it to the man by voting for a black guy. Apparently, black people voted more than any other election in 2008. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf) It's not a shocker as to why this is. The census shows that the youngest age group for voting also drastically increased in voting. It's not because some old conservative white guy was running, that's for sure.

[Hyena Dandy]

Its a sideshow issue.

The whole "First Black President" thing is like the whole "Hell" thing.

People talk about it a lot, but most Christians aren't only Christians to get out of hell. You ask a Christian "Why are you Christian" they'll probably tell you about love for god, acceptance in a community, how they were treated well by a group of Christians and joined them, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, they still TALK a lot about hell, but they're not really mainly focused on it.

Of course, there are some Christians whose only interest is not going to hell. But its not the majority of them.

Same with Obama voters. I don't think the majority of voters who voted Obama would have not voted for him if he'd not been black.

Barack Obama won popular by 8.5 million votes, which is 12 percent of his total vote count.

To say Obama was elected entirely on the basis of his race, then APPROXIMATELY 12 percent of Obama voters ONLY voted for him because he was black. This means they had no other reason to vote for him. And I'm also assuming in that calculation that NONE of McCain's voters voted McCain because he wasn't black.

I simply don't buy that 12 percent of his popular vote was from hipsters or blacks only voting to be part of electing a black man.

Keep in mind, both of those demographics tend to vote Democrat anyway.







Edit: Yes, I /KNOW/ the way the electoral system works. Just to be clear. I just don't feel like doing the numbers on each and every state Obama won.

[Greenday]

Whether people reported on it or were polled about it, obviously there were going to be people who voted for him because they wanted to be a part of something different or because they wanted to vote in someone black like themselves. I'm not saying all the "trendy hipsters" did this nor that all black people did this. But certain groups stick together. This was one of them. It may not have been enough to win the election but the combination of the two definitely did.

And it's obvious that there are plenty of bigoted people in America who'd never vote for some gay guy, black guy, or woman. If you don't believe this, I'm not sure you've ever left your home.