Can you support or vote for the GOP without doing harm to minorities and women?

[hobbsyoyo]

This is why they've turned to manipulating the system and trying things like voter ID laws and throwing roadblocks in front of Florida returning voting rights to felons who've served their sentence. They see the writing on the wall as clearly as anyone.

And it's working. Which is why I think it's going to be 10 years off for decades longer. I do not see how this damage can be undone anytime soon.

 

[Tristan_C]

Is it really possible to vote for the GOP in any context and not inflict material harm on the above mentioned groups?

yes

 

[EgonSpengler]

And it's working. Which is why I think it's going to be 10 years off for decades longer. I do not see how this damage can be undone anytime soon.

I agree. It remains to be seen what all of these federal court appointments do in the next 20-30 years, but I'm not hopeful that it will lead us towards a more humane, tolerant and open-minded society. I'd like to be proven to be overly cynical.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

yes

Only if you're insistent on ignoring the GOP's stance on women and minorities, both presently and historically, which it seems to me you are doing.

Even now the GOP is doing their best to attack transpeople, specifically the younger ones and it's disgusting.

 

[luiz]

The voting popultion is actually a minority, iirc. And what is a choice when the answers are pre-determined? (Guaranteed red or blue state making your vote worthless thanks to FPTP, disenfranchisement via more localized gerrymandering with voter districts, Florida 2000, etc.). The inputs are somewhat predetermined too, by media coverage, by advertising dollars (money spent is extremely well correlated with elections won) etc.

I maintain that most people have not made a significant political choice, outside of local elections for city and county.

You know, regarding the correlation between money spent and elections won: this is by and large the result of reverse casuality, with people donating more to competitive candidates. I think it was in Freakanomics where they analyzed this and found that when you look at how much the same candidates spent on different campaigns, money actually has a pretty low impact on results (as in a 50% drop in campaign spending only drives a 1% reduction in vote share).

 

[luiz]

Seeing the change over the last 40 years in California has been real.
It will be real in Texas soon also. If Texas turns, the Republicans are finished as a viable party.

This is why they've turned to manipulating the system and trying things like voter ID laws and throwing roadblocks in front of Florida returning voting rights to felons who've served their sentence. They see the writing on the wall as clearly as anyone.

Well the US won't become a single-party state at the federal level even when it becomes 50% Hispanic. The republican party will change, or the democratic party will split. If you look at Latin American countries, voters are as likely to vote for right-wing parties (or even far-right) as Americans or Europeans. There is nothing inherently left-wing about Latinos.

 

[rah]

If you use California as an example, more Latinos results in less Republicans being elected. While the same result is not guaranteed in Texas, that's the way I would bet.

 

[luiz]

If you use California as an example, more Latinos results in less Republicans being elected. While the same result is not guaranteed in Texas, that's the way I would bet.

I bet so too. But it's inconceivable that the US will become a single-party state at the federal level.

 

[Socrates99]

The majority of GoP voters do not intend harm. It was pointed out way back on page 1 that a lot of them vote GoP for one or two issues. Then they warp the rest of their views to match the GoP platform. Pro life voters have to struggle with the idea that GoP policies contribute to the desperation experienced by young mothers to be. Gun rights advocates really had to do mental gymnastics to stay anti-BLM when Philando Castile was murdered for...having a gun...legally.

GoP voters need to start supporting insurgent candidates that take the party back to its oldschool compassionate conservative roots. People who emulate guys like Jack Kemp. Supporting supply side economics while still being socially progressive. At least that might help racial minorities. I'm not sure a compassionate conservative would help build a case for reproductive rights but someone who takes poverty into account might help those babies they force into being live a more fruitful life.

The LGBTQ thing is a sticker though. Christians thoroughly believe that it's a sin and LGBTQ people need rehabilitation. They literally believe they're helping people by demonizing it as a sin. They honestly believe normalizing the LGBTQ community is harmful. Outside of some pretty intense religious reform I dont see a way to change the harm those voters do.

 

[civvver]

The LGBTQ thing is a sticker though. Christians thoroughly believe that it's a sin and LGBTQ people need rehabilitation. They literally believe they're helping people by demonizing it as a sin. They honestly believe normalizing the LGBTQ community is harmful. Outside of some pretty intense religious reform I dont see a way to change the harm those voters do.

That is a truly broad brush you have got there. And I'm sure all Muslims believe in killing infidels and suppressing women.

 

[Senethro]

That is a truly broad brush you have got there. And I'm sure all Muslims believe in killing infidels and suppressing women.

And conversely it is a whitewash to refuse to acknowledge that Socrates statement was mostly true of most US christians (loosely defined) until very recently. Could Socrates statement in reference to the present be made more acceptable to you if he substituted "Evangelical Christian" for "Christian"?

 

[Socrates99]

That is a truly broad brush you have got there. And I'm sure all Muslims believe in killing infidels and suppressing women.

It is, isnt it? If I saw evidence otherwise maybe I'd change my tone. Honestly I'd expand that brush to include all abrahamic religions if Muslims had a bigger voice in us politics or if secular Jews weren't some of the most accepting and progressive people around.

Even the ones who seemingly accept members of the LGBTQ community still hope through their example they can rehabilitate and thus save the "sinner."

Sure, there are probably exceptions from my broad brush statement but unfortunately they're the minority and dont seem to carry much weight in the religious community.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, there appears to be a partisan divide. The variants of Christianity that have a harder time understanding LGBTQ issues seem to have a more natural home in the GOP.

 

[GenMarshall]

The LGBTQ thing is a sticker though. Christians thoroughly believe that it's a sin and LGBTQ people need rehabilitation. They literally believe they're helping people by demonizing it as a sin. They honestly believe normalizing the LGBTQ community is harmful. Outside of some pretty intense religious reform I dont see a way to change the harm those voters do.

Questionable, it depends on the denomination and/or the individual. It’s also unfair to lump an Anglican/Episcopalian, a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox practitioner (just to name a few) with an Evangelical Protestant sect. Because not every Christian agrees with one another.

 

[civvver]

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Catholics support gay marriage at the same rate as the overall US population at 61%. Catholics are more likely to support gay marriage than a republican (37%) or a black person (51%). Catholics make up about 23% of the christian population in the US.

That's even with the church's official stance being still anti gay marriage. And the entire reason is simple, it's not to discriminate against homosexuals but because the church's official stance on marriage is that the only reason to be married is to produce children. Since a same sex couple cannot naturally produce children it's not allowed. In that thinking it's the same as a couple who uses birth control or has sterilization procedures, although a huge number of Catholics do these things. In other words, it's like a rigid out date stance that most practicing Catholics don't pay that much heed to.

 

[Gorbles]

psst

The Church's stance on marriage as a route is children is historically and institutionally homophobic.

 

[Zardnaar]

psst

The Church's stance on marriage as a route is children is historically and institutionally homophobic.

LBGTQ community makes up 4% of the electorate.

I don't expect liberal monotheistic Faith's to go full pro LGBTQ. I'm not religious but can read and yeah being gay is verboten in the Bible and Koran.

But you don't need to be an asshat about it. The sin is on the sinner if God exists it's his business to judge if he doesn't it doesn't matter.

Islam is a bit more strict on it.

US Christianity has been hijacked though by economic right wingers. Bibles also big on charity and helping the poor so you think welfare state would be appealing.

It's not really a problem until one side enshrined the Bible in law or they require churches to perform gay marriages.

 

[amadeus]

To answer the original question:

Sure, if you don’t believe that liberal policies would help these groups. Lots of liberal mayors in big cities, and how much have the livelihoods of these groups improved?

Not every Democrat is like that and not every Republican is a Bible-pounder. It really breaks down to individuals and policy, not one party over the other.

 

[stinkubus]

Upper class minorities and women aren't materially harmed by GOP policies. Most will benefit.

Per usual the real issues are class issues. That's why the media hates Bernie so much. He's always on message and he's always speaking about class issues which effect people of all demographics. Even if Sen. Sanders doesn't turn out to be the winning candidate he's got the winning message which can break big money's stranglehold on the American government.

 

[Arwon]

I bet so too. But it's inconceivable that the US will become a single-party state at the federal level.

If nothing else, there's two (precisely two) state-sanctioned and supported vehicles for political candidacy in the form of each major party's primaries and laws providing easy or preferential access to ballots for those two major parties, a system that will always be open to entryism. No matter how tepid a loyal opposition might get at points, the vehicle for it will remain in a way that isn't necessarily the case in more parliamentary systems with less rigidly structured party and electoral administrations.