What is the future of the Republican Party?

[Archy1221]

21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

W. Bush won 33% of the LGBTQ vote in 2000.

 

W. won 22% of the LGBTQ vote in 2004.

 

trump won 19% of the LGBTQ vote in 2020.

 

 

I stopped looking after seeing W. beat trump in both of his elections. 

 

The LGBTQ community despises trump. When even W. out-polls your boy, it's time to put that lie to bed. 

That’s not the data that NYT or Edison Research shows.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Why should we as a country move towards other countries policies instead of those countries move towards our policies?

When those other country's policies are better.

 

It's sort of how we started our government.

[BigRedBuster]

53 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Edison Research exit polling in Nov 2020 show Trump got 27-29% of that vote.  That’s as high or higher than any GOP candidate in recent history (Bush going forward) got that I saw in the data!  

And still.....Republicans are proud that they got so much of a minority's vote that the vast majority of the minority didn't vote for them.

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Is the gun debate about saving lives or something else?

This doesn't really address anything I said. The gun debate is about a number of things, some of which are irrelevant to other health risks. So unless you can show me how COPD is linked to violent crimes, gun deaths and suicide by gun...

 

Imagine if people researching seatbelts and implementing seatbelt safety laws were being challenged on the efficacy of their work because people also die from guns. Most people would consider that an inane line of thinking because the two have very little to do with one another.

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Edison Research exit polling in Nov 2020 show Trump got 27-29% of that vote.  That’s as high or higher than any GOP candidate in recent history (Bush going forward) got that I saw in the data!  

I don't follow your logic in this discussion.

• I said Republicans feel their beliefs are under threat, partially because a lot of non-Republicans see Republicans' views on hot button issues (like those relating to the LGBTQ+ community) as bigoted and archaic.
• You counter this by saying Trump was the most friendly LGBTQ+ republican president, even though he still didn't get the majority of their votes and the majority of the community dislikes him/Republican policies related to them? I'm sure Trump is eagerly awaiting his participation trophy.

 

Doesn't change any of the facts that a) by and large, the LGBTQ+ community supports liberal candidates and policies and b) the majority of the community did not vote for Trump. So, to this point, I haven't seen anything to refute my claim.

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, Enhance said:

This doesn't really address anything I said. The gun debate is about a number of things, some of which are irrelevant to other health risks. So unless you can show me how COPD is linked to violent crimes, gun deaths and suicide by gun...

 

Imagine if people researching seatbelts and implementing seatbelt safety laws were being challenged on the efficacy of their work because people also die from guns. Most people would consider that an inane line of thinking because the two have very little to do with one another.

The only reason to have a gun debate is based of loss of life concerns.  And I’m showing you how hypocritical that debate is given how much time and effort it consumes vs making sure existing law is enforced and if lives lost is the actual concern, time and energy spent ridding or more regulations on tobacco in society would save a great number more lives than advancing more gun control but few want to discuss that.  

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't follow your logic in this discussion.

• I said Republicans feel their beliefs are under threat, partially because a lot of non-Republicans see Republicans' views on hot button issues (like those relating to the LGBTQ+ community) as bigoted and archaic.
• You counter this by saying Trump was the most friendly LGBTQ+ republican president, even though he still didn't get the majority of their votes and the majority of the community dislikes him/Republican policies related to them? I'm sure Trump is eagerly awaiting his participation trophy.

 

Doesn't change any of the facts that a) by and large, the LGBTQ+ community supports liberal candidates and policies and b) the majority of the community did not vote for Trump. So, to this point, I haven't seen anything to refute my claim.

Because with all due respect, you are not looking at this the correct way IMO.  
 

I will first ask, do you believe that the majority of LBG community will just flip to Republican in one election cycle or even two or three?

[TGHusker]

15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Because with all due respect, you are not looking at this the correct way IMO.  
 

I will first ask, do you believe that the majority of LBG community will just flip to Republican in one election cycle or even two or three?

That seems to be an assumption that they will flip.  Nothing points that direction.

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

That seems to be an assumption that they will flip.  Nothing points that direction.

That’s half my point, the other half is that it takes time to win over a certain demographic and Trump doubles his support from that demographic in 4 years time.  He was unfairly demonized in 2016 and it showed with the 2016 support.  
 

It’s disingenuous when people on here say Trump (or really any candidate it can pertain to) was horrible for LGB community because he didn’t get the majority of the votes for that community.  It’s as though they don’t want to have an honest conversation about the subject and would prefer to throw out verbal narrative bombs.  When in reality the candidate made headwinds into that electorate and it should be looked at where the GOP can continue those headwinds and improve upon them.  Increase support each election cycle  
 

Right now, that electorate is taught to hate the GOP and any candidate that runs under the header.  It’s gonna take multiple election cycles for more Republican voters to get rid of bias they may have towards that electorate and for that electorate to realize the GOP is better for them economically and hopefully good for them socially too.  Treat them like any other member of society instead of labeled part of society should be the goal for any minority group IMO.  

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

The only reason to have a gun debate is based of loss of life concerns.  And I’m showing you how hypocritical that debate is given how much time and effort it consumes vs making sure existing law is enforced and if lives lost is the actual concern, time and energy spent ridding or more regulations on tobacco in society would save a great number more lives than advancing more gun control but few want to discuss that.  

In the broadest of terms, a huge part of the debate does have to do with death. But, gun violence, the impact it has in low-income communities, the irreparable damages it causes to families, suicides by gun, illegal weapon markets, weapon thefts, sales loopholes... some are linked directly to death and some are linked to the loose and wide approach this country takes to guns and gun laws. I'm in favor of heftier legislation to the likes of which we've seen in other countries (which is why I mentioned them, FWIW).

 

Two other thoughts:

1) Existing laws are, in many cases, poorly enforced. Seems like we agree to some measure there. Better enforcement of our current laws would help. But, even though I'm a gun owner, I'm a fan of heftier legislation in multiple areas. (Would probably be a better discussion for the gun control thread though, IMO.)

2) I don't think your opinion is without merit; I just think, as I mentioned earlier, it's too convenient and myopic. Plenty of hazards cause loss of life. As a society, we regularly and willingly approach these with open minds (i.e. seatbelt laws). We even spend federal dollars to research them. But, none of these things we're mentioning (seatbelts, heart disease, COPD, etc.) can be used in the act of committing a violent crime. In the simplest of terms, it's like comparing apples to potatoes that shoot deadly projectiles.

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Because with all due respect, you are not looking at this the correct way IMO.  
 

I will first ask, do you believe that the majority of LBG community will just flip to Republican in one election cycle or even two or three?

I don't think the majority of the LGBTQ+ community will ever flip towards being Republican (if that's what you're asking?) so long as significant portions of the party a) stand for what they stand for and b) use their views to discriminate and gate keep opportunities from the LGTBQ+ community.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Plenty of hazards cause loss of life. As a society, we regularly and willingly approach these with open minds (i.e. seatbelt laws). We even spend federal dollars to research them. But, none of these things we're mentioning (seatbelts, heart disease, COPD, etc.) can be used in the act of committing a violent crime. In the simplest of terms,

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.  

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

I don't think the majority of the LGBTQ+ community will ever flip towards being Republican (if that's what you're asking?) so long as significant portions of the party a) stand for what they stand for and b) use their views to discriminate and gate keep opportunities from the LGTBQ+ community.

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

[knapplc]

 

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, knapplc 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.