Party of hate?

[Elizabeth]

Funny, The Israeli Army has had both women and Gay's in their service far longer than the US ever "thought" about it, and they seemed to be doing quite well (not to mention kicking ass where necessary).
Which brings me to this simple point, It's difficult to defend a practice that has been in effect in other countries for quite a while (and proven successful) and then say it's evil or something stupid to that effect for the US. (Religion has a way of getting in the way of common sense an awful lot).

Love,
Liz

[Katiebee]

Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.

Nice Godwinism...

I often cannot resist an opportunity placed upon a golden platter.

[MissBarbara]

Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.

Nice Godwinism...

I often cannot resist an opportunity placed upon a golden platter.

Nor should you ever.

[Gina Marie]

Even Santorum looks uncomfortable...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAYYGUP-pA

[Lois]

There is crazy and then there is BAT-SHIT CRAZY.

[MissBarbara]

An excerpt from an email alert I just received from a right wing Catholic organization:

Gay Marriage Ruling Is Ominous

Once again, five Supreme Court justices have invented a right that is nowhere mentioned or implied in the U.S. Constitution. Instead of allowing the states the right to make decisions about marriage, these judges have elected to impose their will on the nation.



These two, short sentences are filled with historical and logical errors (e.g. I wonder if the decision had gone the other way, would he have condemned SCOTUS for "imposing their will upon the nation"?)

Well that, and the fact that virtually all specific rights are "nowhere mentioned or implied in the U.S. Constitution."

With all charity, and with all due respect, today my simple response to these people is: Suck It!

[Athos_131]

A Glorious Treasury of the Conservative Gay Marriage Freakout

[Lois]

[Lois]

love wins!

[MissBarbara]

Ok as a republican (and other issues I don't want to get into here yet) I do see the radical right as being more hateful than the radical left.

Having said that, the mainstream of the Republican party is less hateful than the mainstream of the Democratic party.

The last two Republican presidential nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney.   John McCain is a certified Moderate, and specifically rebutted the idea that Islam is a terrorist religion. 

Romney is  a true moderate.  While he may be a bit insular and geeky, he never said anything hateful about anyone that I am aware of.

The leader of the Colorado State Senate declared that gun owners have a 'Sickness in their souls.'  This would constitute hate speech if it came from a Republican towards, say, African Americans.  Why is this rhetoric not considered hateful when it comes from the mainstream of the Democratic party.  ( The Majority leader of the State Senate is mainstream).

Also, I mentioned that at Least 2 Republicans that could be considered moderate even by Democrats. 2 Republicans respected by both sides of the isle.

I can't think of one Democrat this Republican can say that about.

This would make the Democrats the party of Hatred.

Good, interesting post.

I'd also add Jeb Bush to your list of moderate GOP candidates.

But I disagree with your assertion that one Colorado state senator represents "the mainstream of the Democratic party." Someone who would make a stupid statement like that is an extremist and an outlier, in no way representative of "the mainstream of the Democratic party."

Also, I don't see at all how a statement like that, as silly as it is, could remotely be considered hate speech -- your hypothetical/straw man argument notwithstanding. Yes, if he said something like, "all Blacks are potential criminals," that would be hate speech. But he said nothing of the sort.

At the same time, I agree with your central premise: leaving extremists in both parties aside, the mainstream of the GOP is no more, or less, hateful than the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

[MissBarbara]

However, the Colorado state senator in Question was the Democratic Majority Leader of the State Senate.  This means he represented the main stream of the Democratic State Senators in Colorado. 

Not even that. Unless the balance of the Democratic Colorado state senators seconded his assertion, which they did not. It's still just one guy, and an extremist outlier at that.

but if he said 'all blacks had a sickness in their hearts'  that would be hate speech.  True?

Hypothetically, yes, if he HAD said that, it MIGHT be deemed hate speech.

But that's a hypothetical, and a straw man argument. He did not say anything of the sort.

[Athos_131]

Boy, this is something.  SNL couldn't write this.

[Lois]

Trump Preaching to Shrinking White Electorate Creates Problems for GOP
His anti-immigrant rhetoric and visceral stance on citizenship rights are forcing Republicans into opposing corners.
BY RONALD BROWNSTEIN

August 26, 2015

Exactly 19 years ago this week Bob Dole, as the recently chosen 1996 Republican presidential nominee, faced the same question that Donald Trump has presented his rivals today: whether to support ending the Constitution's guarantee of automatic citizenship for all children born in the U.S.

At the national convention that nominated Dole and Jack Kemp that summer, the party's platform called for revoking the provision in the 14th Amendment that ensured citizenship for all U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Dole had remained vague on that plank during the convention, but in an appearance with Kemp before the National Association of Black Journalists on Aug. 23, 1996, the new nominee briskly rejected the idea.

''For generations, white children of white immigrants, regardless of their status, enjoyed citizenship,'' one reporter said to him, according to The New York Times. ''Now that the new immigrants are black and brown, would you support a constitutional amendment denying them citizenship?'' Dole's reply was unequivocal: "No."

For Dole, the choice of defending the 14th Amendment's promise of birthright citizenship "was a no-brainer," recalled Scott Reed, his campaign manager. "There were a handful of issues Dole just didn't agree with [in the platform] and he wasn't going to roll along without saying something."

Trump is proposing more sweeping change than the 1996 platform Dole repudiated.

The businessman argues that the 14th Amendment does not, in fact, guarantee citizenship to the estimated 4.5 million U.S. children born of undocumented immigrants; if the courts agreed, that presumably would make those children subject to the deportation he pledges to pursue against all those here illegally.

But in responding to Trump, the 2016 Republicans have wavered far more than Dole did. About half of the GOP field (including Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Ben Carson) has also endorsed ending birthright citizenship, at least prospectively. Scott Walker quickly embraced the idea before backpedaling to reject it. Even the two candidates who most forthrightly rejected Trump's call could not completely escape his gravitational pull.

Marco Rubio said he would not seek to change the Constitution, but would take unspecified steps to combat those "taking advantage of the 14th Amendment." Jeb Bush, while also rejecting constitutional change and praising America's "diversity," courted Trump's constituency by adopting his incendiary "anchor babies" language.

This rightward lurch—behind an almost certainly hopeless cause of constitutional change—captures the core GOP dilemma now unfolding in the party's nomination contest.

The Republican electoral coalition now relies on preponderant majorities from the groups most unsettled by demographic and cultural change: older, noncollege, and rural whites. There are no longer enough of those voters to guarantee Republicans a national majority; that's why Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections. Yet, as Trump's rise shows, many of those voters militantly oppose the policies (like immigration reform) that might help the party expand its coalition.

By demonstrating that dynamic so viscerally, Trump's ascent has further weakened the Republicans who contend the party must bend to, rather than resist, demographic change.

After Mitt Romney lost decisively in 2012 despite winning a greater share of white voters than Ronald Reagan did in 1980, the Republican National Committee's official postelection review concluded that the party "will lose future elections" without attracting a larger share of the growing minority vote. That impulse peaked in June 2013, when 14 Senate Republicans (led by Rubio and 2008 nominee John McCain) helped pass sweeping immigration reform that included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

But with conservatives in revolt, the GOP current has since reversed. The House refused to consider the Senate bill, and instead repeatedly passed legislation to block President Obama's executive orders providing legal status for some of the undocumented. Most Republican-led states sued to stop Obama's executive action as well. Rubio repudiated his own bill. Now the 2016 Republican contenders are collectively offering an even harsher approach on immigration than Romney did when he embraced the "self-deportation" policy that discredited him with many Latinos and Asian Americans.

In summer 2013, conservative electoral analyst Sean Trende provided the rickety political theory that underpinned this reversal when he wrote that Romney lost not because he ran poorly with people of color but because he failed to motivate enough right-leaning whites to vote. Though Trende didn't endorse a specific policy agenda, conservatives embraced his theory as the justification for reviving a hard-line immigration approach meant to excite the GOP's nearly all-white base. Trump himself recently declared that Romney lost because "he didn't do well with the Republicans—they didn't go out and vote."

Trump's rise behind his belligerent immigration agenda has horrified many conservative thinkers. Perceptive conservative essayist Ben Domenech recently warned that Trump is leading the GOP "toward a coalition that is reduced to the narrow interests of identity politics for white people."

Yet on immigration and other issues, the GOP has already conceded much to the angry and often economically squeezed voters demanding exactly such a politics. Pacifying them won't be easy now that Trump is promising even greater exertions (mass deportation, ending birthright citizenship) against the ethnic diversity recasting America.

In practice, no policy agenda can stop that demographic transformation. But Republican leaders may prove equally ineffectual at containing the white racial anxieties swelling Trump's support.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/trump-preaching-to-white-electorate-creates-gop-problems-20150826

Links are embedded in the text at the link that support the articles conclusions.

[Athos_131]

Huckabee Aide Said to Have Physically Blocked Ted Cruz from Speaking at Kim Davis Rally

[Athos_131]

Huckabee: Blacks Still Aren't Legally Human, But We No Longer Uphold That Law

[Elizabeth]

"Blacks Aren't Human"....??
I have no idea where to start with this....Why would Huckabee even think about saying something like this, let alone say it.?

Love,
Liz

[DrKeith]

both parties have people full of hate and stupidity

[thetaxmancometh]

Correct, but this is a mainly far left board and it is easier to cast stones at those you disagree with then those you agree with

[Elizabeth]

Correct, but this is a mainly far left board and it is easier to cast stones at those you disagree with then those you agree with

So??....you agree with Huckabee, is that what you are saying.??
Are by chance wearing a white sheet..??
 
Love,
Liz

[thetaxmancometh]

My family actually had a cross burned in their yard... you know, you were there I believe!  


So Lizz??....you agree with Huckabee, is that what you are saying.??
Are by chance wearing a white sheet..??