NationStates Jolt Archive

WARNING: This thread will most likely turn into an all-out flamefest. But don't worry. I'll probably be the one getting flamed.


I heard that the constitutional ban on gay marriage didn't pass through Congress( I can't recall which House at the moment) because some Dems voted against it. I'm a pretty fervent Democrat and you know what: I think it was just plain short-sighted on their part.

Think about it. I mean, the whole thing was essentially a piece of set-up legislation! The Republicans were using what I call the "bait-and-beat" technique, fairly common in legislatures from the state to national level.

You give the fellows on the other side of the aisle some "bait"( that is, a bill that will create for them a lose-lose situation; no matter how they vote, they will either lose the support of some of their constituents or they will be branded a spineless jellyfish, unable to stand up for their principles)

Then, once they vote whichever way, you beat them over the head with that splotch on their voting record come the next election.

The gay marriage vote is going to haunt Dems come midterms. And at this point, I am so desperate that the Dems win back Congress that I think( true to my 'machiavellian' NS name) that they should have voted FOR the constitutional ban.

At this point you've probably stopped reading and you are hurriedly scrolling to the bottom of the page so you can post something like " you sick homophobic SOB" But hear me out.

I know homophobia is a problem in our nation; I live in the rural south and you can't go to church or school or anywhere without hearing someone talking loudly about "faggots"

But I think, even for gays, the gay marriage issue is not life or . They can still hook up without marriage licenses( although it would be nice for them if they could get one) It's more of a "spitting into the face of bigots everywhere" thing. A matter of principle, like sit-ins during the Civil Rights Movement.

If it were a ban on gays voting, I would say " Don't you DARE let that pass!" But we have a White House full of Neocons threatening to tear our last vestiges of civil liberties and national security( isn't the latter so ironic) to teeny tiny little pieces.

So I think what matters now is getting Congress.

OK: Let the roast of Machiavellian Heaven begin!:D

Silly, the bill has nothing to do with gay marraige. It's about time travel. It'll send America back to the 1920's and keep it there.

Silly, the bill has nothing to do with gay marraige. It's about time travel. It'll send America back to the 1920's and keep it there.

That's not too far back, really. I mean, we're already in the 1950's, so it's just thirty years.

Lol! I dunno, some folks would say we're nearing the "end times"( see the Left Behind series by Time LaHaye) so all things considered, does it really matter how far back we are?

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats will control Congress after the next election. I predict a massive Libertarian upset! :D

GW Bush actually used to BE a libertarian. He just sheltered under the Republican name. He didn't spend money on ANY improvements when he was governor of Texas. Kind of funny how he jumped to the other pole huh?

But I'm getting off topic.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats will control Congress after the next election. I predict a massive Libertarian upset! :D

Nahh. All the Liberts I meet have zero people skills. You can't get elected if you are telling people they are stupid and or lazy. ;)

wow, democracy is such a joke.

GAAAHHH! :eek: This thread is spinning out of control. could we please address the topic. Doh! "slaps forehead"

" I knew I shouldn't have made that about GW Bush"

Democrats- they voted for the PATRIOT act, and they voted for Iraq. And they're supposed to save me from the Neocons? I think they'll collectively provide an inefectual complicit punching-bag for the neocons, and when they get in power, they'll just delay the rape for a few years. Vote Libertarian.

Vote Libertarian.

Nahhh. A politician is the same no matter the party.

Democrats- they voted for the PATRIOT act, and they voted for Iraq. And they're supposed to save me from the Neocons? I think they'll collectively provide an inefectual complicit punching-bag for the neocons, and when they get in power, they'll just delay the rape for a few years. Vote Libertarian.
I'd rather the Ba'ath Party, than the Libertarians

I dont like either party but the problem is politcs.

Gay marrage is a waste of time i think their is a comproimise dont call it marrage call it a civle union for both hetrosextual and homosexual couples leave marrage to the church.

But nither side is willing to comprimise on that.

My opinion is the Democrates should drop the issue beacuse the Republicans can call their base out and get a majority of the votes.

However the real republican agenda is to help big business.I am a hard line capitolist and i think the goverment shouldnt be messing in busienes.

Insted of focusing on real issues the partys focus on stupied issues that affect only a small % of the population abortion gaymarrige. even though i think abortion should be illeagle I think their are more improtant issues the buget we have a president who likes to borrow and spend brillent. Socil security,The ecnomey,Healthcare, and most important to me ending socil and corprite welfare surivivle of the fittest.

its just as likely to backfire against the republicans

does anyone besides rabid anti-gay-marriage fanatics believe it was anything but a sick attempt at pandering? why bother with an ammendment that cant get passed that is about an issue that in a few years will be firmly on the pro side?

My opinion is the Democrates should drop the issue beacuse the Republicans can call their base out and get a majority of the votes.


That only works for so long. It will backfire if it's used too much.

That's not too far back, really. I mean, we're already in the 1950's, so it's just thirty years.

We're way past the 50's that was back during the mid Reagan years. I would say that were somewhere between 1900-1912. The social devestation of Katrina is equal to the Titanic.

As far as FMA it's a stupid piece of legislation that has no possibilty of ever passing since 42 out of 50 states already have a law against gay marriages. Plus didn't we try this with Prohibition and fail??????

ok, heres a story i remembered that i think is appropriate for this topic. one upon a time there was this guy. his dick was gigantic. but anyways, he walks up to this chick and he like "hey baby howd you like to get with a real man". the girl says oohhh, and they go back to his place and fuck. for hours. he was not gay. the moral of the story is, shitt!!

ok, heres a story i remembered that i think is appropriate for this topic. one upon a time there was this guy. his dick was gigantic. but anyways, he walks up to this chick and he like "hey baby howd you like to get with a real man". the girl says oohhh, and they go back to his place and fuck. for hours. he was not gay. the moral of the story is, shitt!!
http://www.airwise.com/airports/europe/ORY/ORY_01.html

At this point you've probably stopped reading and you are hurriedly scrolling to the bottom of the page so you can post something like " you sick homophobic SOB" But hear me out.
More like "you sick, moronic, short-sighted SOB" but whatever...

But I think, even for gays, the gay marriage issue is not life or . They can still hook up without marriage licenses( although it would be nice for them if they could get one) It's more of a "spitting into the face of bigots everywhere" thing. A matter of principle, like sit-ins during the Civil Rights Movement.
That's like saying that we don't need the First Amendment because without it, government and religion can still exist. The issue is not that gays just want to 'hook up.' The issue is that they want the same rights, privileges, and respect as 'normal' people. You are totally missing the point and sounding idiotic and apathetic in the process.

If it were a ban on gays voting, I would say " Don't you DARE let that pass!" But we have a White House full of Neocons threatening to tear our last vestiges of civil liberties and national security( isn't the latter so ironic) to teeny tiny little pieces.
So, you don't support restricting gays' political rights, but you're fine and dandy with crushing their civil and personal rights? You're also completely fine with Democrats going along with the first majorly rights-restricting amendment to the Constitution, as long as they can take back Congress for a while? Where are your priorities?

I'm guessing you're waaay upper-left on the political compass (liberal, authoritarian)? Or maybe just off on the "Other compass," reserved for people who carry no particular moral convictions and are only interested in temporary political power and vote-wrangling...Machiavellian almost ;)

silly republicans...slashes are for throats

interpret that however you want

ok, heres a story i remembered that i think is appropriate for this topic. one upon a time there was this guy. his dick was gigantic. but anyways, he walks up to this chick and he like "hey baby howd you like to get with a real man". the girl says oohhh, and they go back to his place and fuck. for hours. he was not gay. the moral of the story is, shitt!!

Ummm.......ok???? :confused

BTW. I dislike the Dems as much as the Repugs. This would be a better political make-up system:

Progressive-Democratic Party (http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Socialist&score=3030): Moderate Centrist.
Social Democratic Party (http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Socialist&score=2040): Social Democratic.
Green Party (http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Socialist&score=1050): Green & Socialist alliance.
Liberty Party/Libertarian (http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Socialist&score=4035): Libertarian

Personally, I think it'll be more fun in a generation when a bunch of old Republican farts have to apoligize for their stances on homosexuality in their youth the same way today's old republican farts apologize for their stances on blacks in the 50s nd 60s. :)

when that day comes, ill change my name to hitler. ( i dont know why, i just will)

Personally, I think it'll be more fun in a generation when a bunch of old Republican farts have to apoligize for their stances on homosexuality in their youth the same way today's old republican farts apologize for their stances on blacks in the 50s nd 60s. :)

Those weren't/aren't Republicans. Those were Southern Democrats. While some jumped over to the Republican ship in the Nixon years (when segregation no longer existed), others remained (George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Lester Maddox, etc.)

So what youre saying is the dems should have just not even showed up or something?

Those weren't/aren't Republicans. Those were Southern Democrats. While some jumped over to the Republican ship in the Nixon years (when segregation no longer existed), others remained (George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Lester Maddox, etc.)

I am at least glad to see the conservative coalition no longer exists. It was the most fucked up thing to ever exist in congress.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats will control Congress after the next election. I predict a massive Libertarian upset! :D
YES!

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats will control Congress after the next election. I predict a massive Libertarian upset! :D

Libertarian!? Are you crazy ? Everyone knows the Communists are going to win! All hail our new Soviet overlords! :)

But in all seriousness, of course the Republicans are going to make this an election issue, it's a no brainer seeing as how every politician is nothing more then a power hungry opportunist, more so when their grip on power is threatened.
As for why the Democrats walked into the, it reminds me of a quote I once heard that went something to the effect that in politics "most of the time you do what is necessary to get elected, the rest of the time you do what is right." I can't remember where I heard that but it's possible this is something along the lines of what the Dem's were thinking.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats will control Congress after the next election. I predict a massive Libertarian upset! :D


Unfortunatly the Libertarian party is full Neocon Republicans who use it as their puppet. You will never hear a person from the libertarian party ever criticize a Republic mistake even when it's against personal liberties. Their are some independent libertarians who do criticize the neocons and say that what they are doing is definatly moving towards dictatorial. Until you have an independent party I think the libertarians will remain a small party.

More like "you sick, moronic, short-sighted SOB" but whatever...


That's like saying that we don't need the First Amendment because without it, government and religion can still exist. The issue is not that gays just want to 'hook up.' The issue is that they want the same rights, privileges, and respect as 'normal' people. You are totally missing the point and sounding idiotic and apathetic in the process.


So, you don't support restricting gays' political rights, but you're fine and dandy with crushing their civil and personal rights? You're also completely fine with Democrats going along with the first majorly rights-restricting amendment to the Constitution, as long as they can take back Congress for a while? Where are your priorities?

I'm guessing you're waaay upper-left on the political compass (liberal, authoritarian)? Or maybe just off on the "Other compass," reserved for people who carry no particular moral convictions and are only interested in temporary political power and vote-wrangling...Machiavellian almost ;)


Honestly, yes to both questions. I would LOVE to steal Congress( and possibly the White House) from the Neocons. And I honestly don't think Dems ought to be so hung up on a social issue, instead of on national security. A government purged of imperialists and vultures, or a right for gays that they can technically function without? Hmmm... yep, I AM machiavellian. I'll take the first one any day of the week.

Politics is all about prioritizing.

its just as likely to backfire against the republicans

does anyone besides rabid anti-gay-marriage fanatics believe it was anything but a sick attempt at pandering? why bother with an ammendment that cant get passed that is about an issue that in a few years will be firmly on the pro side?


Trust me... there is NO chance of it backfiring on the Republicans. A lot of states where folks are tolerant of gays vote blue anyway. And as for the South... nah, not a snowball's chance in hell it'll harm them in Southern states.

Libertarian!? Are you crazy ? Everyone knows the Communists are going to win! All hail our new Soviet overlords! :)

But in all seriousness, of course the Republicans are going to make this an election issue, it's a no brainer seeing as how every politician is nothing more then a power hungry opportunist, more so when their grip on power is threatened.
As for why the Democrats walked into the, it reminds me of a quote I once heard that went something to the effect that in politics "most of the time you do what is necessary to get elected, the rest of the time you do what is right." I can't remember where I heard that but it's possible this is something along the lines of what the Dem's were thinking.

No doubt. In politics, there is no way you can help out everybody and manage to keep your position. Just one of the screwy things about the game, one of those things you wish you could change but can't.

Though I am pro-gay marriage (though straight) I get his point (wether or not I agree is another matter).

His point is simple: "If the Republicans stay too long there, they'll make being gay into a felony. If the Democrats get congress, they can undo the ban."

Though we don't quite see eye to eye, I applaud you.

Though we don't quite see eye to eye, I applaud you.

Why is one of you smaller?

--snip--
Shorter version--"if Democrats act just like Republicans when it comes to gay people, then all those people who hate Democrats will suddenly decide to change their affiiations and come vote for us!"

And shit will smell like roses and Bush will be competent at the same time. Nothing personal, but your post was about the dumbest piece of political strategy I've read around here.

Shorter version--"if Democrats act just like Republicans when it comes to gay people, then all those people who hate Democrats will suddenly decide to change their affiiations and come vote for us!"

And shit will smell like roses and Bush will be competent at the same time. Nothing personal, but your post was about the dumbest piece of political strategy I've read around here.

And why not since the Democrats vote 80-90% with the Republicans. On a political compass their isn't more than a 1 to 2.5 point diffreence between both parties so our choice is betwen a center-right party of whiners or a far-right party of white hetero males only.

2004 elections (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/uselection.php)

And why not since the Democrats vote 80-90% with the Republicans. On a political compass their isn't more than a 1 to 2.5 point diffreence between both parties so our choice is betwen a center-right party of whiners or a far-right party of white hetero males only.

2004 elections (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/uselection.php)From your position on the political spectrum, that comment makes sense, but if you're closer to even just a progressive position, it doesn't. There are significant differences between the two parties--what Nader said in 2000 is no truer today than it was then, unless you actually believe we'd be in the same world of shit we are now under a President Gore.

The Repugnicans arn't taking votes from the Dimocrats with this move.

They are merely motivating their bigot base to get out to the poles. These fuckers would never vote for no damned heathen liberal anyway.

If the Democratic Party embraces homophobia, one of its few remaining virtues will be eliminated.

Your argument is matched, by the way, among those you seek to betray:

To the Editors:

Re “Howard Dean’s gay lapdogs” (editorial by Chris Crain, May 19):

We are alone in this world. We have no voice on Capitol Hill. We are a people without a champion.

We have dedicated countless hours, money and passion getting Democrats elected. We spend our lives working for Democrats in state and federal governments.

It needs to stop. Are we hoping that a Democrat gets elected president in 2008? Do we seriously think that they will pass gay rights legislation?

We have to cut them off now before 2008 comes. The actions of Howard Dean are finally removing the false pretense of support.

I call for a complete moratorium on campaign support (volunteer and financial) until the Democrats establish a national position that promotes equal rights.

Venomous Democrats may chide me for not helping to remove a Republican administration. Well, Dems, while this administration talks a dirty game, they aren’t the ones that signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. Actually, they haven’t followed through on any of their threats.

If the past 20 years are any indication of the future, we are better off with Republicans in power.

BRIAN FUCHEY

Washington

http://washblade.com/2006/6-9/view/letters/ltrs.cfm

From your position on the political spectrum, that comment makes sense, but if you're closer to even just a progressive position, it doesn't. There are significant differences between the two parties--what Nader said in 2000 is no truer today than it was then, unless you actually believe we'd be in the same world of shit we are now under a President Gore.

I consider myself a progressive/left. I hate to tell u but Gore was homophobic before the 1992 election when he was governor of Tennessee. Also you have to remeber(or forget) the Zell Miller wing of the Democratic Party. I'm from GA and I am ashamed.

I sure Machiavellian Heaven (http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Socialist&score=20) has alot in common with old right-wing socialists. Maybe he should go down to Cuba.

Personally, I think it'll be more fun in a generation when a bunch of old Republican farts have to apoligize for their stances on homosexuality in their youth the same way today's old republican farts apologize for their stances on blacks in the 50s nd 60s. :)

You are displaying a rather typical lack of historical knowledge about the civil rights movement. It was Southern Democrats who opposed equal treatment for black folks. The Republican party has always been the party which supported rights for black folks, beginning with Lincoln and continuing through today. The only reason Kennedy and Johnson had to sign the various civil rights amendments was because the Republican Congress at the time passed them. Never once has the Republican party tried to restrict the rights of black folks. Maybe Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) should apologize for his "stance" on blacks, as he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

I consider myself a progressive/left. I hate to tell u but Gore was homophobic before the 1992 election when he was governor of Tennessee. Also you have to remeber(or forget) the Zell Miller wing of the Democratic Party. I'm from GA and I am ashamed.

I sure Machiavellian Heaven (http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Socialist&score=20) has alot in common with old right-wing socialists. Maybe he should go down to Cuba.If you're going to make claims, at least make legitimate ones--Gore was never governor of Tennessee. And while he may have held those views at one time, he has since changed his mind, as have many Democrats.

You are displaying a rather typical lack of historical knowledge about the civil rights movement. It was Southern Democrats who opposed equal treatment for black folks. The Republican party has always been the party which supported rights for black folks, beginning with Lincoln and continuing through today. The only reason Kennedy and Johnson had to sign the various civil rights amendments was because the Republican Congress at the time passed them. Never once has the Republican party tried to restrict the rights of black folks. Maybe Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) should apologize for his "stance" on blacks, as he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ever heard of a person named Barry Goldwater?

The liberal Democrats supported civil rights from the start. The conservative Southern Democrats did not. The effect of Johnson's support for civil rights and Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was the conversion of those conservative Southern Democrats into conservative Southern Republicans.

You are displaying a rather typical lack of historical knowledge about the civil rights movement. It was Southern Democrats who opposed equal treatment for black folks. The Republican party has always been the party which supported rights for black folks, beginning with Lincoln and continuing through today. The only reason Kennedy and Johnson had to sign the various civil rights amendments was because the Republican Congress at the time passed them. Never once has the Republican party tried to restrict the rights of black folks. Maybe Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) should apologize for his "stance" on blacks, as he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
You're half right--there was a period where the Republican party was at least not hostile to civil rights. That ended right about 1968 when Nixon instituted the southern strategy and it has continued until this day.

And for the record, Byrd has apologized repeatedly for his short stint as a Klansman.

Anybody who thinks we're back in the 1950's or 1920's needs to take a long hard look at their life. Other than on TV Land, there is nothing 50's about the present. "Oh, those evil republicans are going to take away all our personal freedoms. They want to put black folks back into slavery, they want to keep children alive needlessly when we could just abort them, they want to keep illegal folks out of the country, they want to make the country moral again. Man, they're bad." Come on.

And for the record, Byrd has apologized repeatedly for his short stint as a Klansman.

Yet he has continued to act in the same spirit by opposing equal rights for gays.

Anybody who thinks we're back in the 1950's or 1920's needs to take a long hard look at their life. Other than on TV Land, there is nothing 50's about the present. "Oh, those evil republicans are going to take away all our personal freedoms. They want to put black folks back into slavery, they want to keep children alive needlessly when we could just abort them, they want to keep illegal folks out of the country, they want to make the country moral again. Man, they're bad." Come on.

What exactly constitutes "making the country moral again"?

What exactly constitutes "making the country moral again"?

You missed the memo? "Making the country moral again" means "Making it so MY vision of morality is enforced upon EVERYONE in the country."

If you're going to make claims, at least make legitimate ones--Gore was never governor of Tennessee. And while he may have held those views at one time, he has since changed his mind, as have many Democrats.
Sorry ure right he was a Representative and Senator from Tennessee but like I said above even if Gore moved to left he still would only be a moderate.

And what about Zell Miller section? Conservative Dems make up at least 25% of the party. Center-Right(DLC) is about 50%. Like I said we need a real Social Democratic party.

Sorry ure right he was a Representative and Senator from Tennessee but like I said above even if Gore moved to left he still would only be a moderate.

And what about Zell Miller section? Conservative Dems make up at least 25% of the party. Center Right is about 50%. Like I said we need a real social Democratic party.
I wish we had one, and there are a lot of people working hard to make the Democrats more progressive, but even as they stand right now, the party as a whole is far more progressive than even the most moderate section of the current Republican party.

Yet he has continued to act in the same spirit by opposing equal rights for gays.
If you're talking about his recent vote against cloture on the Federal Marriage Amendment, then that's explained easily--Byrd was looking for a vote. He's opposed to the Marriage Amendment and wants an up or down to make people state their positions.

You're probably right--Byrd isn't going to be the best friend gays have in DC--but he's no Rick Santorum either, and he's a damn sight better on the issue than any Republican that would come out of West Virginia.

You missed the memo? "Making the country moral again" means "Making it so MY vision of morality is enforced upon EVERYONE in the country."

And "my vision of morality" happens to involve denying the human dignity of anyone arbitrarily designated as "evil."

I wish we had one, and there are a lot of people working hard to make the Democrats more progressive, but even as they stand right now, the party as a whole is far more progressive than even the most moderate section of the current Republican party.

I have pretty much given up on the Dems. I have a hard time listening to Air America cause the fact is that they are so pro-dem but I still like to listen to it. As far as election in 2004 I would of perfered Kucinich then Kerry. Kerry was a wuss and to much like a republican. I wish the Dems would quit trying to kiss ass to the mushy center-right crowd. I probaly have more in common with Soheran although I think (s)he is more towards anarcho-communism.

If you're talking about his recent vote against cloture on the Federal Marriage Amendment, then that's explained easily--Byrd was looking for a vote. He's opposed to the Marriage Amendment and wants an up or down to make people state their positions.

No, I'm not, I'm talking about his longstanding record.

He voted for DOMA, against hate crime protections (a position he seems to have changed), and against protections against job discrimination. He also opposed allowing gays into the military.

I have pretty much given up on the Dems.

Given up on them doing what? They are far to my right, I disagree with most of their positions, I think they're for the most part an incompetent bunch of cowards, but as far as the very limited means of direct political participation in this country go, when one's vote matters one might as well vote Democrat. When it does not, my preference is to vote Green or for another leftist party.

I probaly have more in common with Soheran although I think (s)he is more towards anarcho-communism.

He. Yes, I do prefer something along the lines of anarcho-communism, though my interpretation differs somewhat from some of the traditional models.

Edit: And I've never bought the doctrine that anarchists should abstain from political participation. If there are going to be states and capitalism, one might as well try to make the best of it, as long as the ultimate objective of eliminating both is not compromised (and how does punching a hole on a ballot do so?)

And "my vision of morality" happens to involve denying the human dignity of anyone arbitrarily designated as "evil."

Quick learner, you! :p

Given up on them doing what? They are far to my right, I disagree with most of their positions, I think they're for the most part an incompetent bunch of cowards, but as far as the very limited means of direct political participation in this country go, when one's vote matters one might as well vote Democrat. When it does not, my preference is to vote Green or for another leftist party.



He. Yes, I do prefer something along the lines of anarcho-communism, though my interpretation differs somewhat from some of the traditional models.

They're more far right than my political beliefs. I describe myself as a Green/Socialist. Until we stop voting for people who don't give a shit about us we will never get anywhere but ure right they are better than the Rethugs.

Until we stop voting for people who don't give a shit about us we will never get anywhere

Changing our voting patterns won't make them give a shit about us unless we have a viable alternative, which we don't.

There are other ways to influence policy beyond voting, and those are the ones on which we should focus.

Changing our voting patterns won't make them give a shit about us unless we have a viable alternative, which we don't.

There are other ways to influence policy beyond voting, and those are the ones on which we should focus.
Very wise words. Political disengagement by no means changes the world. To the contrary. It just gives the existing political parties that much more room to brand you a raving lunatic who rests on the fringes of society. Like you said, the best thing is to profit in whatever way you can from the status quo, so long as it doesn't undermine your long-term goals. It would, of course, be lovely for the US to have viable alternatives to the two parties, but I don't see that happening right now.

Very wise words. Political disengagement by no means changes the world. To the contrary. It just gives the existing political parties that much more room to brand you a raving lunatic who rests on the fringes of society.

And involves making concessions on issues like gay rights that don't have to be made. The recent record of the Democrats on the issue may be horrendous, thanks to attitudes like that of the poster who started this thread, but as the recent vote illustrated, they are still preferable to the alternative.

Progress towards equality shouldn't be abandoned for the sake of political puritanism.

It would, of course, be lovely for the US to have viable alternatives to the two parties, but I don't see that happening right now.

We need to get rid of the idiotic first-past-the-post system; perhaps then we can begin making some progress. Of course, neither beneficiary of that system is likely to advocate its removal, which makes it rather difficult. Perhaps eventually the significant popular dislike of the two-party monopoly will erupt into a movement for change.

You're half right--there was a period where the Republican party was at least not hostile to civil rights. That ended right about 1968 when Nixon instituted the southern strategy and it has continued until this day.


The Southern Strategy didn't make the Republican Party hostile to civil rights (for black Americans). Since the 1968 southern strategy, Republicans have held the White House for 26 of the 38 years since and have won governorships and state legislatures across the South. Yet no Southern Republican governor or state house or state senate has re-instated segregation or even tried. Nor has any Republican president.

And involves making concessions on issues like gay rights that don't have to be made. The recent record of the Democrats on the issue may be horrendous, thanks to attitudes like that of the poster who started this thread, but as the recent vote illustrated, they are still preferable to the alternative.

Progress towards equality shouldn't be abandoned for the sake of political puritanism.
Indeed. Especially given that such puritanism is self-defeating in the long-run.

We need to get rid of the idiotic first-past-the-post system; perhaps then we can begin making some progress. Of course, neither beneficiary of that system is likely to advocate its removal, which makes it rather difficult. Perhaps eventually the significant popular dislike of the two-party monopoly will erupt into a movement for change.
One can hope. The same problem exactly exists in the UK, where Constitutional and electoral reform is nigh impossible. The Liberal Democrats had an excellent idea to replace the entire system, but due to their minority party status, it was sidetracked.

The Southern Strategy didn't make the Republican Party hostile to civil rights (for black Americans). Since the 1968 southern strategy, Republicans have held the White House for 26 of the 38 years since and have won governorships and state legislatures across the South. Yet no Southern Republican governor or state house or state senate has re-instated segregation or even tried. Nor has any Republican president.

Neither presidents nor governors have the capability to overturn Brown v. Board of Education. Nor do they have the power to crush the popular resistance that ended segregation in the first place and would be mobilized against any attempt at reinstatement.

Neither presidents nor governors have the capability to overturn Brown v. Board of Education. Nor do they have the power to crush the popular resistance that ended segregation in the first place and would be mobilized against any attempt at reinstatement.

Popular resistance? Desegregation was forced onto an unwilling majority (although I think it is great that the courts had the guts to force America to live up to its ideals). Even as late as 1972, White Boston residents rioted when the city tried to enforce court-ordered busing.

Popular resistance? Desegregation was forced onto an unwilling majority (although I think it is great that the courts had the guts to force America to live up to its ideals). Even as late as 1972, White Boston residents rioted when the city tried to enforce court-ordered busing.

"Popular resistance" does not have to constitute a majority, and in this case it did not.

At first I read this headline as "Silky Democrats" so I thought to myself, "Did someone pimp our Minority Party?"

There just aren't a lot of legislators who have style.

I believe it should be the other way around... Silly Republicans!