That's subjectivity, not morality.
Steven A Smith sees the light
- Thread starter AerchAngel
- Start date
That's subjectivity, not morality.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
They are? That is news to my huge family of 700.
They are religious so social liberalism is NOT allowed.
Union is not a social thing. It is a work thing.
Social building is not a union thing. It is about being about the church and family thing and to Democrats something they don't want.
Anti-gay is a social thing.
Get it right and then talk to me.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean I'm wrong. You're confusing what people say a liberal is with social liberalism, which is about balancing individual freedom and social justice. Unions are a big part of social liberalism. As is welfare, social security, etc. The republicans want a classical liberal or neoliberalism. Depending on how much government they want. Both of those are big proponents of scaling back government, busting up unions and being pro-big business essentially. I'm not gonna sit here and tech you things when you have the whole internet to do research.
More like 20K.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Telling people they can't get married cause you think it's wrong, legislating morality.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Disagree totally. Libertarian party is way more friendly to middle America than the republican party. Which only wants war and corporate welfare.
And ... thusly ... telling people they can get married because you think it's right is also ... legislating morality.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No, it's granting equal rights. You're taking the most liberal use of that phrase humanly possible. Granting rights or protecting rights, being legislating morality.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I hesitate to enter the fray, but getting back to the original point, I think the reason black voters remain firmly in the Democratic camp is that they are playing defense. If today's Republican party was of an Eisenhower mold, I think more blacks would be comfortable voting Republican. But when you see the composition of the Supreme Court and realize that things like the Voting Rights Act could be gutted further, my guess--and it is only a guess--is that black voters worry more than a little about what a government that was staunchly conservative (in modern parlance) might do to some hard won rights.
As per the gay marriage thing (and again this is all conjecture seeing I am white), I don't think it hits the black voter's radar to an overwhelming extent. I'm all for gay rights, but it is a middle class movement for the most part. If you are working and secure, you have the luxury to worry about and advocate for things beyond physiological needs. I use Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a rule-of-thumb. If you don't have a job, you tend to not worry about self-actualization. Certainly not saying that is the case for all African-Americans, but it's my guess there are a lot of other items on their agenda that certainly trump gay rights.
Inadvertently, I think Stephen A. has pointed out the box the Democrats face. Given the stark arguments coming forth from the more conservative wing of the Republican party, Democrats are forced to play defense instead of offense and voters like to see a positive agenda. On the other hand, much of what is suggested by conservatives scares the willies out of a large segment of voters and those voters cast what is, in effect, a "negative" vote at the ballot box "against," rather than "for" something. Doesn't make for a vibrant democracy.
Good discussion.
As per the gay marriage thing (and again this is all conjecture seeing I am white), I don't think it hits the black voter's radar to an overwhelming extent. I'm all for gay rights, but it is a middle class movement for the most part. If you are working and secure, you have the luxury to worry about and advocate for things beyond physiological needs. I use Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a rule-of-thumb. If you don't have a job, you tend to not worry about self-actualization. Certainly not saying that is the case for all African-Americans, but it's my guess there are a lot of other items on their agenda that certainly trump gay rights.
Inadvertently, I think Stephen A. has pointed out the box the Democrats face. Given the stark arguments coming forth from the more conservative wing of the Republican party, Democrats are forced to play defense instead of offense and voters like to see a positive agenda. On the other hand, much of what is suggested by conservatives scares the willies out of a large segment of voters and those voters cast what is, in effect, a "negative" vote at the ballot box "against," rather than "for" something. Doesn't make for a vibrant democracy.
Good discussion.
Take a look at the first time the phrase was used in a political context to get a better understanding of the appropriate usage.
Gary82
Called Up to the Major Leagues
Republicans are the White Anglo Saxon Protestant Jesus Freak Nationalistic Gun Party for the 1% that wants to take away social programs for the lower classes (plebes). They are an exclusive big club and don't want you in their party. They'll have their token leader for a weak ass diversity attempt, but they don't want you.
Why the **** would Black America vote for that?
At least the Democrats pretend to give a ****. (They don't.)
Why the **** would Black America vote for that?
At least the Democrats pretend to give a ****. (They don't.)
Always wondered how any small business owner or anyone who put themselves through school to earn a nice degree could ever vote democrat. Makes no sense.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
pretty much
they will take their vote if to advance their agenda but just don't forget that they really don't give a **** about them or their ideas.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Zeets. At least try to be less myopic.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Probably because they're anti-corporatist. Or pro-civil liberties. Or any number of things. I don't get how anyone can be pro-republican. The bulk of the party stands for lowering taxes on the rich and raising military spending.
What makes you think they aren't?
I see lower taxes and less entitlement and then I see more money for the lower-middle/middle class. That calculus, at least, is pretty basic.
Has anyone here watched House of Cards Season 3?