Right, because no one is born into a social situation that fosters racism,
And that makes Republican racism ok?
nor is there any racism on the Democrat side.
Heh. That is trying to change the subject with a strawman.
I've chosen to take your remark as constructively as possible, but frankly it's little better than a broad, insulting generalization.
When the Republican party won't try to pander to racists and homophobes, I'll shed a tear to them being unjustly categorized. Honestly, if there are so many Republicans who aren't racist, sexist, homophobes and science deniers, they should take back control of the party. Right now that silent majority isn't in control and it doesn't seem to mind much. It is hard now to find a presidential candidate that doesn't endorse a racist, homophobic or anti-science position.
By all accounts Paul and Carson are brilliant doctors, yet they refused to back vaccines unequivocally. Carson even said that evolution is satanic!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html
Jeb Bush wants to black people to feel welcomed in the Republican party. Cool. Black people, or any other minority for that matter, shouldn't back just one political party as they will be taken for granted and won't see their situation improve. In many ways, Democrates talk a lot about black people's condition, but do not do much about it. But then Bush goes into racial stereotypes about "free stuff".
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/jeb-bush-free-stuff-mitt-romney-black-voters
So, where is that candidate backed by pro-science Republicans who agree that there is institutional racism in the US and it needs to change because that is a drag on black people's "American Dream"? Where is that candidate who says that birth control pills help combat abortion and lets women get an education and good paying jobs? Where is that candidate that says that people not vaccinating their kids is a public health problem? Or that climate change is a economic and social problem that will only get worse?
Maybe that candidate isn't there this round because there aren't many Republicans who think that. Or care much about science, women and minority issues.
Here's the current Republican Party platform on "Reforming the Government":
Nothing in there about shrinking the size of government. This is easily available on the
Republican party website, so there's little excuse in asserting it says something that it doesn't actually say.
Who is against virtue? The thing is, you ignore
how they say they will achieve those goals. Cuts, deregulation and privatization are what is proposed, and those go against the stated goals. Judicial activism is funny, as the solution is to nominate more conservative activist judges.
ETA: also, you should really judge people and groups on what they do, not what they say. The Republicans may occasionally throw out a smaller government bone to appease some elements of the base, but their actions grow the government.
What they say is very important. It tells us who they want votes and money from. Do you think we should separate politicians from who they want to get votes and money from?