What is the future of the Republican Party?

[Enhance]

 

15 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

See my post to TG as to why I asked the question.  

Thanks for pointing me that way. A few thoughts based on the response:

• I think it's important to circle back to one reason I brought up the LGBTQ+ community in the first place which is that, by a large majority, they view the Republican party and many Republican policies as archaic and bigoted, a response to the question @commando posted
• I 100% agree that Republicans should make inroads and improve upon them, but that Trump made inroads with a portion of the community might just be indicative of how they felt about one man (as well as perhaps an ignorance to many of his administration's policies); only time will tell if that's the start of a trend
• The GOP encourages hate from the LGBTQ+ community moreso than the community is being "taught" to hate them. Far more so. Actions speak louder than words. @knapplc linked some of those policies previously, but there is an exhaustive list of policies and administrative decisions carried out during Trump's presidency that the majority of the LGBTQ+ community disagreed with

Additionally, keep in mind that homophobes (as well as anti-Semites, Confederates, ethno-nationalists, and religious bigots) felt like they found refuge inside the Trump administration these last four years. That many Republicans choose to put their eggs in the same basket suggests they either a) don't have a problem with the affiliation, or, b) just don't like it being pointed out. If they did have a problem with it, I would think they'd want to start addressing the problem there.

 

Your post suggests a willingness to allow LGBTQ+ community members to be treated like anyone else. IMO that's the correct mentality, but that's not the message being sent consistently in regards to GOP social policy. I've sat in legislative hearings and watched as Republican leaders and voters told LGBTQ+ workers that employers should be able to fire them for their sexual orientation. I've watched Republican leaders and voters fight against the ability for same sex couples to adopt a child. As a white hetero male, I don't have to worry about any of those things. But LGBTQ+ people still do.

 

Until the LGBTQ+ community feels and sees consistent proof that Republicans care about their social rights, they're largely not going to care about how well the GOP might line their pockets.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

There is a thread for that.   I noted it yesterday in the Political Hypocrisy thread

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Or that an entire Democrat Party could complain about Trump mean tweets for four years and then nominate someone for a Cabinet level position who just spent four years posting nasty tweets about Republicans.  Just bottomless hypocrisy. 

And there is a thread for this too in the Political Hypocrisy thread.      This one cuts both ways.

[Enhance]

14 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s my belief that in the simplest of terms we as a society have accepted some forms of deaths that happen and that we can actually have an impact on and have not accepted other types of deaths and we want to have more of an impact on. 
 

We can have a direct impact on health related deaths by banning or using draconian regulations on certain products.   Society chooses not to do that.  People using guns the wrong way account for a lesser portion of deaths and society considers those deaths unacceptable and wants to regulate the product involved even more so than it already is.  

I think you're right in the general sense, but I'm not sure I see the issue? There are countless examples of things society has chosen to ban or regulate in order to save American lives. Objective dangers to society that we believed needed to be regulated. Guns, to me, are a worthy public safety risk to further regulate, not only because of the volume of deaths and violent crimes they lead to, but because of the tangential impacts it has on society (damage to families, crime rates in low-income communities, illegal sales, etc.)

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

And there is a thread for this too in the Political Hypocrisy thread.      This one cuts both ways.

Good reason to not support either party.

[TGHusker]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Good reason to not support either party.

BINGO

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

BINGO

Interestingly, one person in this thread still does.

[Archy1221]

33 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I think you're right in the general sense, but I'm not sure I see the issue? There are countless examples of things society has chosen to ban or regulate in order to save American lives. Objective dangers to society that we believed needed to be regulated. Guns, to me, are a worthy public safety risk to further regulate, not only because of the volume of deaths and violent crimes they lead to, but because of the tangential impacts it has on society (damage to families, crime rates in low-income communities, illegal sales, etc.)

Thanks for the discussion.  I will conclude on my end by saying:

1) It would be nice to enforce the existing gun laws already on the books before deciding new laws need to be passed. 
2) new Gun laws are a hot topic because of how people perceive those laws to potentially impact society for the good.  My question to those people: when will they put the same amount of energy or more into passing new laws on things such as tobacco consumption or sugar consumption when it’s clear and without question laws like that would save many more lives than any new gun control law ever could.  If they won’t, then it’s not about tangential impact on society, but more their feelings about guns. 
 

 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Thanks for the discussion.  I will conclude on my end by saying:

1) It would be nice to enforce the existing gun laws already on the books before deciding new laws need to be passed. 
2) new Gun laws are a hot topic because of how people perceive those laws to potentially impact society for the good.  My question to those people: when will they put the same amount of energy or more into passing new laws on things such as tobacco consumption or sugar consumption when it’s clear and without question laws like that would save many more lives than any new gun control law ever could.  If they won’t, then it’s not about tangential impact on society, but more their feelings about guns. 
 

 

 

1 - it would be nice if the GOP would stop trying to block or pull the teeth of existing gun laws. 

 

2 - this is whataboutism. We can work on the gun issue while we work on other issues. Either/Or is not the choice.

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

1 - it would be nice if the GOP would stop trying to block or pull the teeth of existing gun laws. 

 

2 - this is whataboutism. We can work on the gun issue while we work on other issues. Either/Or is not the choice.

2) whataboutism is your label you put on things you don’t want to talk about. 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

2) whataboutism is your label you put on things you don’t want to talk about. 

 

 

 

No, it's literally what you did. We're talking about guns. You counter with, LITERALLY, "What about tobacco or sugar?"

 

 

[Archy1221]

26 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

No, it's literally what you did. We're talking about guns. You counter with, LITERALLY, "What about tobacco or sugar?"

 

 

LITERALLY, I questioned why so much energy on guns when current laws aren’t being enforced and  potential laws on other products would have a bigger impact on societal deaths.  So I question why Guns seems to be the priority.  A greater good would be served by other priorities. 
 

The post is a good deflection you employ.  And the large smiley faces neither advance your argument or serve a purpose to advance the discussion.

[knapplc]

22 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

And the large smiley faces neither advance your argument or serve a purpose to advance the discussion.

 

They're copy/pasted from this here site, and serve the same purpose as any other use of the smiley face.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Enhance]

33 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

LITERALLY, I questioned why so much energy on guns when current laws aren’t being enforced and  potential laws on other products would have a bigger impact on societal deaths.  So I question why Guns seems to be the priority.  A greater good would be served by other priorities. 

I think the issue here is you're marginalizing the gun debate and labeling it down to a "health risk," putting it on the same playing field as sugar consumption, COPD, heart disease, smoking, etc. The only real commonality any of them share is that they're a risk to human life.

 

By the logic of this argument, would you question the efficacy of seatbelt laws? Before seatbelts became mandatory, more people still died from diseases and illnesses brought on by other factors. Therefore, by again following the logic, seatbelt legislation and the energy spent on it was questionable.

 

I think we would all agree that seatbelt legislation was not questionable. That doesn't mean it was the most important issue to address at the time.

[Archy1221]

15 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I think the issue here is you're marginalizing the gun debate and labeling it down to a "health risk," putting it on the same playing field as sugar consumption, COPD, heart disease, smoking, etc. The only real commonality any of them share is that they're a risk to human life.

 

By the logic of this argument, would you question the efficacy of seatbelt laws? Before seatbelts became mandatory, more people still died from diseases and illnesses brought on by other factors. Therefore, by again following the logic, seatbelt legislation and the energy spent on it was questionable.

 

I think we would all agree that seatbelt legislation was not questionable. That doesn't mean it was the most important issue to address at the time.

I’m not marginalizing the gun debate.  You all are just upset that I am putting it into proper context compared to other risks that could be more regulated that cause much more loss of life and increase health if that’s the goal. 
 

Just to show another reason that the gun control lobby is hypocritical Regarding more gun control laws, the suggested laws being thrown out don’t even deal with the types of guns that are responsible for the majority of crime and lives lost.
 

Your comment on seatbelt laws is disingenuous at best.   When did I ever question the efficacy of seatbelt laws?  
 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Wow...he sure tried pushing every button of the MAGA crowd.