Reagan Tied The Republican Party To White Christians, Now They Are Trapped

[Jets]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

So, he's not an Authority we should defer to, just some guy that happened to agree with you on one thing.


So, why you sharing this with us?

It was an apropos quote based on the OP. You don’t agree with it. :shrug:

Some guy agrees with hte op. So? I disagree with the op. I am also some guy. We are at an impasse.


oh no, what to do.


What is this thread about, other than your anti-Christian bigotry?

Nice Straw man, please point out where I supported anti-Christian bigotry?

In your posts where you act as though being supported by a Christian group is a bad thing.


That's anti-Christian bigotry.


If some white guy just talked about the dems being supported by blacks, as though it was inherently bad, you would be able to see that that was racist.


Such things work BOTH WAYS.


I know that is an alien concept to you, but it is true.

Got it, so you got nothing but a fallacious opinion with the intent of picking a fight.

Dismissed

My, that was a quick tail-tucked retreat, even for you. And your attempt to hide that you're running was really lame.

Correll answered the question, and you responded with what was clearly a pre-chosen dismissal that had nothing to do with his post, just to try to give yourself an excuse to stop talking to someone who punctured your little balloon.

Really?

I don’t cavil with people who use straw men to create a false narrative. Posting a quote that was germane to the OP topic doesn’t translate into someone espousing “anti Christian bigotry”. That poster had nothing but a puerile insult because we were at a “impasse” (His words)

So yes, I dismiss peevish displays of hyperbole that attempt to serve as an actual argument.

THE op topic is presenting the support of the gop by white Christians as though it is inherently bad, for reasons that are not clearly presented.


That is anti-Christian bigotry.

Oh, so now it’s the topic. This back and forth started when you accused me of “anti-christian bigotry”.

Which is it?

Both, Mensa Boy. That was the OP's topic, and that was also what you said in response to the OP's topic.

Did you somehow think you couldn't both be racist religious bigots?

More puerile insults. Another one who proves my sig correct.

Bless your heart.

Being dishonest and playing dumb, as you are doing, is very rude.


Civility is something you earn by being civil to people.


You stopped doing that, when you started trolling.

Irony....

Err, no, it's not. It is just the facts.


We were discussing the topic, and your posts on teh topic, and I crushed you, and you started playing troll games.

With a strawman fallacy. You fired off an insult and kept piling on. That’s not crushing anything but a decent discussion.

Reread Post 11.

By all means keep giving yourself props...

Nope. I explained what was wrong with your post, adn then pointed out that it was a form of bigotry in the slim hope that that would bother you, since libs are supposedly so anti-ism and phobes.


It is something I do. I have done it for several decades. I have yet to find a single lib that seemed at all bothered by the fact that their actions do not match their stated principles.


I have come to the conclusion that all liberals who talk about wacism or phobias, are just pretending to care about such things, only in so far as they can use them as weapons to smear and marginalize their enemies.

And here’s where you are incorrect.

First off, I’m not liberal. And if you said it to bother me it was meant as an insult. Let’s not play games of semantics here.

Secondly, I brought up the quote because Barry Goldwater foresaw what the OP was discussing. Speaking as a Catholic, I have no issue with anyone of faith. Note where I said I agreed with the prescience of his quote. Discussing how that was germane to the discussion was my intention, not to insult Christians.

How is it relevant to the discussion that someone agreed with you?

It was relevant that he saw this back then. It was an acknowledgment of something he saw happening in the future. It was posted as part of the discussion. The topic was the religious right and and it’s influence regarding the GOP.

So, Goldwater found it hard to compromise with religious right?


How open are you modern lefties to compromise? Or is everything a "holy war" to you where anyone that opposes you is a "wacist" or a "heretic"?

I cannot speak for “modern lefties”, considering my politics are more centrist. That being said, I happen to be open to compromise and finding common ground. People can disagree with one another to their hearts content. Why label someone with silly names because they do not see eye to eye?

You have no problem speaking on Goldwater or the religious right, but suddenly you can't speak about modern lefties?


How wonderfully convenient for you.

My politics would be closer to Goldwater than a leftist, so yes.

 

[Correll]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

So, he's not an Authority we should defer to, just some guy that happened to agree with you on one thing.


So, why you sharing this with us?

It was an apropos quote based on the OP. You don’t agree with it. :shrug:

Some guy agrees with hte op. So? I disagree with the op. I am also some guy. We are at an impasse.


oh no, what to do.


What is this thread about, other than your anti-Christian bigotry?

Nice Straw man, please point out where I supported anti-Christian bigotry?

In your posts where you act as though being supported by a Christian group is a bad thing.


That's anti-Christian bigotry.


If some white guy just talked about the dems being supported by blacks, as though it was inherently bad, you would be able to see that that was racist.


Such things work BOTH WAYS.


I know that is an alien concept to you, but it is true.

Got it, so you got nothing but a fallacious opinion with the intent of picking a fight.

Dismissed

My, that was a quick tail-tucked retreat, even for you. And your attempt to hide that you're running was really lame.

Correll answered the question, and you responded with what was clearly a pre-chosen dismissal that had nothing to do with his post, just to try to give yourself an excuse to stop talking to someone who punctured your little balloon.

Really?

I don’t cavil with people who use straw men to create a false narrative. Posting a quote that was germane to the OP topic doesn’t translate into someone espousing “anti Christian bigotry”. That poster had nothing but a puerile insult because we were at a “impasse” (His words)

So yes, I dismiss peevish displays of hyperbole that attempt to serve as an actual argument.

THE op topic is presenting the support of the gop by white Christians as though it is inherently bad, for reasons that are not clearly presented.


That is anti-Christian bigotry.

Oh, so now it’s the topic. This back and forth started when you accused me of “anti-christian bigotry”.

Which is it?

Both, Mensa Boy. That was the OP's topic, and that was also what you said in response to the OP's topic.

Did you somehow think you couldn't both be racist religious bigots?

More puerile insults. Another one who proves my sig correct.

Bless your heart.

Being dishonest and playing dumb, as you are doing, is very rude.


Civility is something you earn by being civil to people.


You stopped doing that, when you started trolling.

Irony....

Err, no, it's not. It is just the facts.


We were discussing the topic, and your posts on teh topic, and I crushed you, and you started playing troll games.

With a strawman fallacy. You fired off an insult and kept piling on. That’s not crushing anything but a decent discussion.

Reread Post 11.

By all means keep giving yourself props...

Nope. I explained what was wrong with your post, adn then pointed out that it was a form of bigotry in the slim hope that that would bother you, since libs are supposedly so anti-ism and phobes.


It is something I do. I have done it for several decades. I have yet to find a single lib that seemed at all bothered by the fact that their actions do not match their stated principles.


I have come to the conclusion that all liberals who talk about wacism or phobias, are just pretending to care about such things, only in so far as they can use them as weapons to smear and marginalize their enemies.

And here’s where you are incorrect.

First off, I’m not liberal. And if you said it to bother me it was meant as an insult. Let’s not play games of semantics here.

Secondly, I brought up the quote because Barry Goldwater foresaw what the OP was discussing. Speaking as a Catholic, I have no issue with anyone of faith. Note where I said I agreed with the prescience of his quote. Discussing how that was germane to the discussion was my intention, not to insult Christians.

How is it relevant to the discussion that someone agreed with you?

It was relevant that he saw this back then. It was an acknowledgment of something he saw happening in the future. It was posted as part of the discussion. The topic was the religious right and and it’s influence regarding the GOP.

So, Goldwater found it hard to compromise with religious right?


How open are you modern lefties to compromise? Or is everything a "holy war" to you where anyone that opposes you is a "wacist" or a "heretic"?

I cannot speak for “modern lefties”, considering my politics are more centrist. That being said, I happen to be open to compromise and finding common ground. People can disagree with one another to their hearts content. Why label someone with silly names because they do not see eye to eye?

You have no problem speaking on Goldwater or the religious right, but suddenly you can't speak about modern lefties?


How wonderfully convenient for you.

My politics would be closer to Goldwater than a leftist, so yes.

Do you oppose the 1964 civil rights bill?

 

[DBA]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

Most Democrats see their party as their God and the vast majority are so devoted to their cause they could be likened to Christian monks. They are infinitely less willing to compromise.

 

[Jets]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

So, he's not an Authority we should defer to, just some guy that happened to agree with you on one thing.


So, why you sharing this with us?

It was an apropos quote based on the OP. You don’t agree with it. :shrug:

Some guy agrees with hte op. So? I disagree with the op. I am also some guy. We are at an impasse.


oh no, what to do.


What is this thread about, other than your anti-Christian bigotry?

Nice Straw man, please point out where I supported anti-Christian bigotry?

In your posts where you act as though being supported by a Christian group is a bad thing.


That's anti-Christian bigotry.


If some white guy just talked about the dems being supported by blacks, as though it was inherently bad, you would be able to see that that was racist.


Such things work BOTH WAYS.


I know that is an alien concept to you, but it is true.

Got it, so you got nothing but a fallacious opinion with the intent of picking a fight.

Dismissed

My, that was a quick tail-tucked retreat, even for you. And your attempt to hide that you're running was really lame.

Correll answered the question, and you responded with what was clearly a pre-chosen dismissal that had nothing to do with his post, just to try to give yourself an excuse to stop talking to someone who punctured your little balloon.

Really?

I don’t cavil with people who use straw men to create a false narrative. Posting a quote that was germane to the OP topic doesn’t translate into someone espousing “anti Christian bigotry”. That poster had nothing but a puerile insult because we were at a “impasse” (His words)

So yes, I dismiss peevish displays of hyperbole that attempt to serve as an actual argument.

THE op topic is presenting the support of the gop by white Christians as though it is inherently bad, for reasons that are not clearly presented.


That is anti-Christian bigotry.

Oh, so now it’s the topic. This back and forth started when you accused me of “anti-christian bigotry”.

Which is it?

Both, Mensa Boy. That was the OP's topic, and that was also what you said in response to the OP's topic.

Did you somehow think you couldn't both be racist religious bigots?

More puerile insults. Another one who proves my sig correct.

Bless your heart.

Being dishonest and playing dumb, as you are doing, is very rude.


Civility is something you earn by being civil to people.


You stopped doing that, when you started trolling.

Irony....

Err, no, it's not. It is just the facts.


We were discussing the topic, and your posts on teh topic, and I crushed you, and you started playing troll games.

With a strawman fallacy. You fired off an insult and kept piling on. That’s not crushing anything but a decent discussion.

Reread Post 11.

By all means keep giving yourself props...

Nope. I explained what was wrong with your post, adn then pointed out that it was a form of bigotry in the slim hope that that would bother you, since libs are supposedly so anti-ism and phobes.


It is something I do. I have done it for several decades. I have yet to find a single lib that seemed at all bothered by the fact that their actions do not match their stated principles.


I have come to the conclusion that all liberals who talk about wacism or phobias, are just pretending to care about such things, only in so far as they can use them as weapons to smear and marginalize their enemies.

And here’s where you are incorrect.

First off, I’m not liberal. And if you said it to bother me it was meant as an insult. Let’s not play games of semantics here.

Secondly, I brought up the quote because Barry Goldwater foresaw what the OP was discussing. Speaking as a Catholic, I have no issue with anyone of faith. Note where I said I agreed with the prescience of his quote. Discussing how that was germane to the discussion was my intention, not to insult Christians.

How is it relevant to the discussion that someone agreed with you?

It was relevant that he saw this back then. It was an acknowledgment of something he saw happening in the future. It was posted as part of the discussion. The topic was the religious right and and it’s influence regarding the GOP.

So, Goldwater found it hard to compromise with religious right?


How open are you modern lefties to compromise? Or is everything a "holy war" to you where anyone that opposes you is a "wacist" or a "heretic"?

I cannot speak for “modern lefties”, considering my politics are more centrist. That being said, I happen to be open to compromise and finding common ground. People can disagree with one another to their hearts content. Why label someone with silly names because they do not see eye to eye?

You have no problem speaking on Goldwater or the religious right, but suddenly you can't speak about modern lefties?


How wonderfully convenient for you.

My politics would be closer to Goldwater than a leftist, so yes.

Do you oppose the 1964 civil rights bill?

No, I support it.

Let’s be clear here. “Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.

 

[Mac1958]

“Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.

Unfortunately, in today's simplistic and binary world, that's usually how "closer to" is perceived. To many, it means that you will spin for, lie for, distort for, and attack for that person as often as you can, because you don't want to give a damn inch and just be honest.

 

[Jets]

“Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.

Unfortunately, in today's simplistic and binary world, that's usually how "closer to" is perceived. To many, it means that you will spin for, lie for, distort for, and attack for that person as often as you can, because you don't want to give a damn inch and just be honest.

That’s the problem with the US vs THEM mindset.

 

[DBA]

“Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.

Unfortunately, in today's simplistic and binary world, that's usually how "closer to" is perceived. To many, it means that you will spin for, lie for, distort for, and attack for that person as often as you can, because you don't want to give a damn inch and just be honest.

That’s the problem with the US vs THEM mindset.

There are many things that are either black or white, right or wrong, depending on your perspective. Not many people are willing to budge from what they consider a black and white issue. In general, Democrats have a different view of what is right and what is wrong than Republicans.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Transocrats are as bad as the Alt right. They don’t want to compromise either.

 

[Jets]

“Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.

Unfortunately, in today's simplistic and binary world, that's usually how "closer to" is perceived. To many, it means that you will spin for, lie for, distort for, and attack for that person as often as you can, because you don't want to give a damn inch and just be honest.

That’s the problem with the US vs THEM mindset.

There are many things that are either black or white, right or wrong, depending on your perspective. Not many people are willing to budge from what they consider a black and white issue. In general, Democrats have a different view of what is right and what is wrong than Republicans.

No argument from me.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

“Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.

Unfortunately, in today's simplistic and binary world, that's usually how "closer to" is perceived. To many, it means that you will spin for, lie for, distort for, and attack for that person as often as you can, because you don't want to give a damn inch and just be honest.

That’s the problem with the US vs THEM mindset.

With people like Mac around that is all it can be. Us vs. them. I will never agree with a sycophant and a liar like Mac. Such is life.

 

[Jets]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Transocrats are as bad as the Alt right. They don’t want to compromise either.

Thats a given. Compromise is antithetical to any extremism.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Transocrats are as bad as the Alt right. They don’t want to compromise either.

Thats a given. Compromise is antithetical to any extremism.

The real way to unite is for moderates to drive the Alt Right and the Woke Left out but neither side budges for fear of losing votes as these days every vote counts.

 

[LeftofLeft]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

Goldwater disagreed with the ‘64 Civil Rights Legislation just like JFK disagreed with the proposed Civil Rights Legislation in 1957. Both men backed Civil Rights.

 

[Jets]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

Goldwater disagreed with the ‘64 Civil Rights Legislation just like JFK disagreed with the proposed Civil Rights Legislation in 1957. Both men backed Civil Rights.

HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

In the end, JFK supported the 1957 bill.

 

[busybee01]

Christians gravitated to the GOP long before Reagan came around...look at the democrat party today...they are God hating scum....anything sick perverted and twisted is fine with dems....and that's why Christians leaped into the republican party....and will never leave...dems are sick people....

Just look at cable TV and the movie industry....look at what they believe....men are women...women are men...anything goes....all you have to do is watch the Grammy's to learn that liberals are not on a righteous path in life....

Look st Christians today. They ignore the teachings of God and want to create the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran. Radical Christianity we do not need.

 

[Correll]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

So, he's not an Authority we should defer to, just some guy that happened to agree with you on one thing.


So, why you sharing this with us?

It was an apropos quote based on the OP. You don’t agree with it. :shrug:

Some guy agrees with hte op. So? I disagree with the op. I am also some guy. We are at an impasse.


oh no, what to do.


What is this thread about, other than your anti-Christian bigotry?

Nice Straw man, please point out where I supported anti-Christian bigotry?

In your posts where you act as though being supported by a Christian group is a bad thing.


That's anti-Christian bigotry.


If some white guy just talked about the dems being supported by blacks, as though it was inherently bad, you would be able to see that that was racist.


Such things work BOTH WAYS.


I know that is an alien concept to you, but it is true.

Got it, so you got nothing but a fallacious opinion with the intent of picking a fight.

Dismissed

My, that was a quick tail-tucked retreat, even for you. And your attempt to hide that you're running was really lame.

Correll answered the question, and you responded with what was clearly a pre-chosen dismissal that had nothing to do with his post, just to try to give yourself an excuse to stop talking to someone who punctured your little balloon.

Really?

I don’t cavil with people who use straw men to create a false narrative. Posting a quote that was germane to the OP topic doesn’t translate into someone espousing “anti Christian bigotry”. That poster had nothing but a puerile insult because we were at a “impasse” (His words)

So yes, I dismiss peevish displays of hyperbole that attempt to serve as an actual argument.

THE op topic is presenting the support of the gop by white Christians as though it is inherently bad, for reasons that are not clearly presented.


That is anti-Christian bigotry.

Oh, so now it’s the topic. This back and forth started when you accused me of “anti-christian bigotry”.

Which is it?

Both, Mensa Boy. That was the OP's topic, and that was also what you said in response to the OP's topic.

Did you somehow think you couldn't both be racist religious bigots?

More puerile insults. Another one who proves my sig correct.

Bless your heart.

Being dishonest and playing dumb, as you are doing, is very rude.


Civility is something you earn by being civil to people.


You stopped doing that, when you started trolling.

Irony....

Err, no, it's not. It is just the facts.


We were discussing the topic, and your posts on teh topic, and I crushed you, and you started playing troll games.

With a strawman fallacy. You fired off an insult and kept piling on. That’s not crushing anything but a decent discussion.

Reread Post 11.

By all means keep giving yourself props...

Nope. I explained what was wrong with your post, adn then pointed out that it was a form of bigotry in the slim hope that that would bother you, since libs are supposedly so anti-ism and phobes.


It is something I do. I have done it for several decades. I have yet to find a single lib that seemed at all bothered by the fact that their actions do not match their stated principles.


I have come to the conclusion that all liberals who talk about wacism or phobias, are just pretending to care about such things, only in so far as they can use them as weapons to smear and marginalize their enemies.

And here’s where you are incorrect.

First off, I’m not liberal. And if you said it to bother me it was meant as an insult. Let’s not play games of semantics here.

Secondly, I brought up the quote because Barry Goldwater foresaw what the OP was discussing. Speaking as a Catholic, I have no issue with anyone of faith. Note where I said I agreed with the prescience of his quote. Discussing how that was germane to the discussion was my intention, not to insult Christians.

How is it relevant to the discussion that someone agreed with you?

It was relevant that he saw this back then. It was an acknowledgment of something he saw happening in the future. It was posted as part of the discussion. The topic was the religious right and and it’s influence regarding the GOP.

So, Goldwater found it hard to compromise with religious right?


How open are you modern lefties to compromise? Or is everything a "holy war" to you where anyone that opposes you is a "wacist" or a "heretic"?

I cannot speak for “modern lefties”, considering my politics are more centrist. That being said, I happen to be open to compromise and finding common ground. People can disagree with one another to their hearts content. Why label someone with silly names because they do not see eye to eye?

You have no problem speaking on Goldwater or the religious right, but suddenly you can't speak about modern lefties?


How wonderfully convenient for you.

My politics would be closer to Goldwater than a leftist, so yes.

Do you oppose the 1964 civil rights bill?

No, I support it.

Let’s be clear here. “Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.

Give your best example on policy, of being "closer" to Goldwater.

 

[busybee01]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

Most Democrats see their party as their God and the vast majority are so devoted to their cause they could be likened to Christian monks. They are infinitely less willing to compromise.

Most Republicans see Trump as their God. Republicans are refusing any compromise.

 

[busybee01]

GOP leaders and the conservative media ecosystem have spent the last few weeks focused on inflaming the culture wars. They’ve railed against the decision to stop publishing six Dr. Seuss books, falsely claiming that the childhood classics have fallen victim to liberal cancel culture, and complained about changes to the Potato Head line of toys.

Simultaneously, Republican state lawmakers have continued waging a war on democracy, passing new laws that would eliminate vote-by-mail and early voting programs that were popular with Democrats in 2020, especially among minority communities. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Republican lawmakers have introduced more than 165 bills in 33 states to limit ballot access.

On the surface, these topics seem disconnected, but in reality, they share a crucial commonality that shapes today’s Republican Party — one that dates back to the 1984 Republican National Convention held in Dallas. It was there that Republicans cemented an alliance with evangelical White Protestants, in the process creating a demographic and generational time bomb that is now exploding in their face.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/reagan-tied-republicans-white-christians-now-party-is-trapped/

A dangerous cancel culture to the country, and themselves.

GOP leaders and the conservative media ecosystem have spent the last few weeks focused on inflaming the culture wars. They’ve railed against the decision to stop publishing six Dr. Seuss books, falsely claiming that the childhood classics have fallen victim to liberal cancel culture, and complained about changes to the Potato Head line of toys.

Simultaneously, Republican state lawmakers have continued waging a war on democracy, passing new laws that would eliminate vote-by-mail and early voting programs that were popular with Democrats in 2020, especially among minority communities. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Republican lawmakers have introduced more than 165 bills in 33 states to limit ballot access.

On the surface, these topics seem disconnected, but in reality, they share a crucial commonality that shapes today’s Republican Party — one that dates back to the 1984 Republican National Convention held in Dallas. It was there that Republicans cemented an alliance with evangelical White Protestants, in the process creating a demographic and generational time bomb that is now exploding in their face.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/reagan-tied-republicans-white-christians-now-party-is-trapped/

A dangerous cancel culture to the country, and themselves.

I would disagree. I have been a social and economic conservative all my life. Today I don't even recognize what the social conservative movement has become. I would do everything I could to persuade a woman not to have a abortion but I will not jail them for it. I support Roe vs Wade because I have seen the extreme legislation that they are backing. The entire movement has been corrupted by Trump. There is no way you can say that you believe in the word of God and support Donald Trump. You are a fake Christian or fake whatever denomination you are with. Trump has corrupted every part of the conservative monement so they are more akin to the Nazis than they are Ronald Reagan.

You're a "social and economic conservative" in exactly the same way I'm a Democrat from the Bronx.

If you must lie to yourself, at least don't tell the rest of us about it.

You know nothing about me. Take your shit and shove it up your ass. I am one of many Republicans who hsve left the party. For example, in Gwinnett County in Georgia, it voted for every Republican from 1984-2014. In 2016, it went for Clinton by 5 points and around 20 points for Biden. If I was to make a movie about how Trump has shrunk the Republican Party, I would call it "Honey I Shrunk the Party".

 

[Correll]

GOP leaders and the conservative media ecosystem have spent the last few weeks focused on inflaming the culture wars. They’ve railed against the decision to stop publishing six Dr. Seuss books, falsely claiming that the childhood classics have fallen victim to liberal cancel culture, and complained about changes to the Potato Head line of toys.

Simultaneously, Republican state lawmakers have continued waging a war on democracy, passing new laws that would eliminate vote-by-mail and early voting programs that were popular with Democrats in 2020, especially among minority communities. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Republican lawmakers have introduced more than 165 bills in 33 states to limit ballot access.

On the surface, these topics seem disconnected, but in reality, they share a crucial commonality that shapes today’s Republican Party — one that dates back to the 1984 Republican National Convention held in Dallas. It was there that Republicans cemented an alliance with evangelical White Protestants, in the process creating a demographic and generational time bomb that is now exploding in their face.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/reagan-tied-republicans-white-christians-now-party-is-trapped/

A dangerous cancel culture to the country, and themselves.

GOP leaders and the conservative media ecosystem have spent the last few weeks focused on inflaming the culture wars. They’ve railed against the decision to stop publishing six Dr. Seuss books, falsely claiming that the childhood classics have fallen victim to liberal cancel culture, and complained about changes to the Potato Head line of toys.

Simultaneously, Republican state lawmakers have continued waging a war on democracy, passing new laws that would eliminate vote-by-mail and early voting programs that were popular with Democrats in 2020, especially among minority communities. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Republican lawmakers have introduced more than 165 bills in 33 states to limit ballot access.

On the surface, these topics seem disconnected, but in reality, they share a crucial commonality that shapes today’s Republican Party — one that dates back to the 1984 Republican National Convention held in Dallas. It was there that Republicans cemented an alliance with evangelical White Protestants, in the process creating a demographic and generational time bomb that is now exploding in their face.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/22/reagan-tied-republicans-white-christians-now-party-is-trapped/

A dangerous cancel culture to the country, and themselves.

I would disagree. I have been a social and economic conservative all my life. Today I don't even recognize what the social conservative movement has become. I would do everything I could to persuade a woman not to have a abortion but I will not jail them for it. I support Roe vs Wade because I have seen the extreme legislation that they are backing. The entire movement has been corrupted by Trump. There is no way you can say that you believe in the word of God and support Donald Trump. You are a fake Christian or fake whatever denomination you are with. Trump has corrupted every part of the conservative monement so they are more akin to the Nazis than they are Ronald Reagan.

You're a "social and economic conservative" in exactly the same way I'm a Democrat from the Bronx.

If you must lie to yourself, at least don't tell the rest of us about it.

You know nothing about me. Take your shit and shove it up your ass. I am one of many Republicans who hsve left the party. For example, in Gwinnett County in Georgia, it voted for every Republican from 1984-2014. In 2016, it went for Clinton by 5 points and around 20 points for Biden. If I was to make a movie about how Trump has shrunk the Republican Party, I would call it "Honey I Shrunk the Party".

What was teh demographic change?

 

[struth]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

― Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?

Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.

Goldwater disagreed with the ‘64 Civil Rights Legislation just like JFK disagreed with the proposed Civil Rights Legislation in 1957. Both men backed Civil Rights.

HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

In the end, JFK supported the 1957 bill.

yep..and Goldwater couldn't get to a compromise on the 64 bill that he wanted...he objected to the laws requirments on private enterprise. He was however a huge supported of Civil Rights...he voted for the 57 bill, 60 bill the 24th amendment,

Was the key voice to get desegratation in the US Capitol....believe it or not, the Dems forced african-americans in the US Capitol to eat in segragated lunches etc.

He was a member of the NAACP, since the 50s...and was helping desegrate his home city and state long before Brown.