"Well, what's wrong with slavery?"

[MechaPilot]

Well, since I've stated multiple times in this thread, that I only vote during the main elections, never during primaries. Therefore the electoral college's existence becomes an unnecessary step between my vote and a candidate's winning or loosing - it means everything. I otherwise only vote during local elections on local issues. I've never voted during legislator elections

That's an interesting voting philosophy. I don't see the logic in it, since legislators are the ones who enact the most significant changes outside of those resulting from Supreme Court decisions, but that's just me. I mean, the amount of power presidents have is sort of laughable without a legislative body that supports them. A president can't make law, a president can't approve budgets, a president can't prevent laws from being made if the legislator can override the veto, and a president can't amend the constitution, but a legislative body can. The president's power to appoint personnel (such as judges) can also be held up by legislators. The legislature could even add more justices to the Supreme Court to swing its political allegiances.

By contrast, a president can use the bully pulpit, can direct enforcement or non-enforcement of laws, and can use the power gained under the War Powers Act/War Powers Resolution to start unwanted conflicts (remember that only the legislature can actually declare war). Now don't get me wrong, the power of the office of the president has been expanding over time. However, when it comes to elected officials the legislators as a group can render a president largely impotent.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

However, when it comes to elected officials the legislators as a group can render a president largely impotent.

As we have seen.

 

[Kramodlog]

That may be true, I don't know, I don't have a pulse on the Republican party, that said, what a given majority of anything does or does not do shouldn't mean to apply to the party as a whole, that's been my only point in every post I've made in this thread. I am consciously not a member of that majority.

But why? If a majority of people in a party vote for politicians who propose to enact racist policies, an often do, why shouldn't the party be considered racist? What do you think should be required for a political party to be considered racist?

 

[gamerprinter]

You say its a majority, I say, not only isn't it the majority (rather a vocal minority, including the current Republican candidates), but you cannot prove it is the majority. I haven't met a Republican, including politicians, but mostly normal voters that even seem racist. While I don't attend politcal rallies, in all social functions politics is often discussed and racist views are never accidentally/purposefully exposed. You'd think if it were the majority, I would run into somebody that professed a racist view, yet I haven't. I cannot believe that I happen to live in a place where only the nonracist Republican minority exist, which makes me belief your assumption to be wrong. Where is this racist majority? They must be hiding, or the more likely situation is that they are actually a minority.

I don't hang around the Christian Right wing of the party, maybe its they who are racist? I do know that there is a large block of religious right in the US military that are openly against non-Christian faiths which I deem highly prejudicial, but I don't know about widespread acts of racism (not that they don't exist), yet I don't know if they are also Republicans or not. The only openly racist person I know is a rather committed Democrat, which makes me think that racism isn't necessarily politically motivated, nor attached to a particular American political party. I imagine the American Nazi party is racist, and whichever party, members of the KKK attach themselves. David Duke certainly is a racist Repubican and a politician, but he seems a rarity in the party. Most Republicans I know treat Duke as an insult to the party. And as stated, most Republican conversations I've been involved speaks negatively regarding Trump, but not necessarily only for his racist views, but rather the bulk of his agenda.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The vote speaks for itself, in a way. While the majority of members may not be bigoted/uninformed*, the GOP is increasingly electing bigoted/uninformed politicians. This happens only a couple of ways- either the majority of the party are bigoted/uninformed, or a large enough minority of the party is bigoted/uninformed and is being aided to ascendency by enough of the rest of the ACTUAL membership majority not voting.

The end result is the same: bigoted/uninformed GOP politicians are receiving a majority of GOP votes cast. The GOP's "brand identity" is becoming tarnished in the minds of those targeted by those politicians, and in the minds of those sympathetic to the issues the targeted people face.

And like the state of affairs that created the problem has few root causes, the solutions are equally few: the non-bigoted majority must exercise its political rhetoric and muscle within the party, or they must break away from what the GOP has become and create a new party free of such influences. Each path has its own benefits and hazards.

Most Republicans I know treat Duke as an insult to the party. 

Then, as pointed out in articles like this one, it is time for you and those you know to become more vocal and/or active.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-gop-really-is-becoming-the-racist-party.html

While The Donald has been critical of Duke in the past, his CURRENT response to obvious reported support from Duke and his ilk has been mild. For whatever reason, instead of forceful repudiation, support of the racist element within the GOP is welcomed with the promise to do so "if it will make (people) feel better."

At the very least, it is having your cake and eating it. He can claim he is still against Duke's philosophies while still receiving his support.

And he isn't the only GOP candidate playing that game.

Look at John McCain for an example of why this matters. For DECADES, he vocally opposed and warmed against the GOP becoming too entangled with the religious right. He even got in verbal sparring matches with several of the big name religious leaders, like Pat Robertson. But his words had little effect- the GOP liked the political victories close relationships with that branch of conservatism brought and cultivated a closer relationship.

But when McCain's final presidential run was floundering and he was last in the polls and fundraising, how did he right his sinking ship? He groveled at the feet of the religious right, and even did appearances on shows like the 700 Club to boost his fundraising.

And that worked- money rolled in and he got the nomination.

Back to 2015: GOP presidential hopefuls are being soft with their responses to the racist element within the party. Are there enough white supremacists to give a candidate a McCain-esque boost? I don't think so; I hope not.

But unless the party gets serious about responding to those among them who are bigoted, that number is likely to grow. At the very least, it will increase the "brown flight" away from the GOP at a time when America's demographics are becoming less Caucasian every year.






* I say bigoted/uninformed to allow for the possibility that the person in question may not realize the bigotry inherent in particular language or legislation

 

[gamerprinter]

I would believe that a large enough minority of racist Republicans may exist that is getting these racist politicians into office, and that consequently the Republican majority is getting disillusioned by this loud minority, I know that I'm disillusioned regarding the party (or rather politics in general).

Edit: additionally a lot of racist Republican sentiment points to Trump, and he hasn't been elected to anything. Though he may have supporters, nobody has voted for Trump (yet) regarding anything.

 

[billd91]

I would believe that a large enough minority of racist Republicans may exist that is getting these racist politicians into office, and that consequently the Republican majority is getting disillusioned by this loud minority, I know that I'm disillusioned regarding the party (or rather politics in general).

Some disillusionment is understandable. But disengagement is no remedy, it is surrender. Engagement is the process that has the potential to effect changes, though the process may be long and slow. If there is a Nixonian "silent majority" lurking out there, it needs to speak up or have to accept the opprobrium heaped in it.

 

[nightwind1]

I would believe that a large enough minority of racist Republicans may exist that is getting these racist politicians into office, and that consequently the Republican majority is getting disillusioned by this loud minority, I know that I'm disillusioned regarding the party (or rather politics in general).

Edit: additionally a lot of racist Republican sentiment points to Trump, and he hasn't been elected to anything. Though he may have supporters, nobody has voted for Trump (yet) regarding anything.

The latest Quinnipiac Poll has Trump at 28% among registered Republicans. The next highest is Ben Carson at 12%.

I think that says a LOT about the Republican party in general.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think it says a lot about that 28%, indeed a large minority. Still a minority.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think it says a lot about that 28%, indeed a large minority. Still a minority.

Here is a site that is averaging together the Quinnapac, Fox & CNN polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

If you look, 4 of the top 5 GOP candidates are considered "fringe" or anti-establishment as compared to the mainstream of the GOP, and they are currently commanding 50.7% of the vote.

A small majority, but a majority.

Add in Paul and Huckabee, and the "outsiders" command 58% of the GOP electorate.

IOW, the mainstream Republicans are currently lagging behind their- I'll say it- less electable opponents. It IS early yet, but in think it is cause for concern.