Obama win signals new Democratic coalition

Nov 8, 2012 Full story: Clover Herald 11

President Barack Obama is remaking the Democratic Party, forging a new political coalition that is steadily replacing the old party alignment first built by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Full Story

Since: May 12

Livonia, MI

#1 Nov 8, 2012
Too bad that he can't continue running for President after this term.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#2 Nov 8, 2012
If the Republicans don't do some real soul-searching, this coalition will be around for some time. The party has enough good minds to realize this, and to come up with a way to re-build, but I don't know if they have the determination or the numbers to overcome the small minds of the Tea Party and their ilk. Only time will tell. And as the economy heals, they will have an even more difficult task, because the guy in the White House gets all the credit.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Nov 8, 2012
RalphB wrote:
If the Republicans don't do some real soul-searching, this coalition will be around for some time. The party has enough good minds to realize this, and to come up with a way to re-build, but I don't know if they have the determination or the numbers to overcome the small minds of the Tea Party and their ilk. Only time will tell. And as the economy heals, they will have an even more difficult task, because the guy in the White House gets all the credit.
I've talked to some republicans who are quite stubborn and unbudging; this is what they stand for, so I'm hearing, and they're not going to change. I'm shrugging it off already; it's not interesting, to me, to talk to obtuse people who can't for the life of them look out for their own self-interest. It's almost frightening.

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#4 Nov 8, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I've talked to some republicans who are quite stubborn and unbudging; this is what they stand for, so I'm hearing, and they're not going to change. I'm shrugging it off already; it's not interesting, to me, to talk to obtuse people who can't for the life of them look out for their own self-interest. It's almost frightening.
Pat Buchanan has said that if the GOP changes, is it still the GOP?

There is something to be said for that .

In NY there is a do nothing, inefficient, self serving pile of crap ,Bronx state Senator Ruben Diaz who is not pro-choice for women and against equality for the GLBT community.

I rather lose every damn election than elect a "Dem" like that or lower the standards to win his ignorant "Dem" supporters.

It is a slippery slop when a party changes to accommodate.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#5 Nov 8, 2012
Jose - in Miami wrote:
<quoted text>
Pat Buchanan has said that if the GOP changes, is it still the GOP?
There is something to be said for that .
.
Interesting question. Let me give you my thoughts as a person who has voted Republican and Democratic in past elections. I felt that the Republicans were gradually moving away from their original stand of Less Government, inasmuch as they began to make laws governing social issues. Rather than expanding on personal liberty, they steadfastly were determined to legislate their morality onto others, gays and women in particular. So as they moved further and further from their original beliefs of government not intruding into our personal lives, I have moved more and more towards Democrats. So much so, that this year I voted a straight Democratic ticket. Something I have never done before in my life. So, I would argue that the GOP is not now the GOP I knew growing up. If they do, indeed, begin to change, I would say they can only be moving back more toward their original goals.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#6 Nov 9, 2012
Jose - in Miami wrote:
<quoted text>
Pat Buchanan has said that if the GOP changes, is it still the GOP?
There is something to be said for that .
In NY there is a do nothing, inefficient, self serving pile of crap ,Bronx state Senator Ruben Diaz who is not pro-choice for women and against equality for the GLBT community.
I rather lose every damn election than elect a "Dem" like that or lower the standards to win his ignorant "Dem" supporters.
It is a slippery slop when a party changes to accommodate.
I have had this conversation and a number of you are unbudging. You may have to become the party of "lawsuits" for your own rights, in that case. I do not know. Already in Maine, the antigay are claiming they want to put gay marriage on the ballot AGAIN; I know you *KNOW* that if they do this, it will prompt lawsuits that the pro-gay will almost certainly win. The antigay are exceptionally stupid even to say that; they should simply be protecting their own rights, at this point. They should be looking out for their own intrinsic "religious" rights, not trying to commence another ballot initiative which the law, historically, won't uphold NO MATTER the results (like in California).
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#7 Nov 9, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting question. Let me give you my thoughts as a person who has voted Republican and Democratic in past elections. I felt that the Republicans were gradually moving away from their original stand of Less Government, inasmuch as they began to make laws governing social issues. Rather than expanding on personal liberty, they steadfastly were determined to legislate their morality onto others, gays and women in particular. So as they moved further and further from their original beliefs of government not intruding into our personal lives, I have moved more and more towards Democrats. So much so, that this year I voted a straight Democratic ticket. Something I have never done before in my life. So, I would argue that the GOP is not now the GOP I knew growing up. If they do, indeed, begin to change, I would say they can only be moving back more toward their original goals.
Excellent response. The antigay in Maine are talking about attempts to put gay marriage on the ballot AGAIN. Surely someone smarter than they will talk them out of this. That will only lead to California-style lawsuits which they are almost certain to lose.

These people are fanatically stubborn; but if, in addition to that, they're actually so goddamn stupid they want to throw money down the toilet, they're welcome to do so. As I said to the previous poster, they'd be far smarter to look into protecting their own "religious" rights at this point,*NOT* attempting to force them on others who are plainly, plainly not cooperating and will not.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#9 Nov 9, 2012
your time will come wrote:
<quoted text>
Wish you queers would stay away from the children.
This is trolling, pure and simple.

But I do wish you antigay monsters had the courage to say this in open court.

Because you never, never do.

Ever.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#10 Nov 9, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
This is trolling, pure and simple.
But I do wish you antigay monsters had the courage to say this in open court.
Because you never, never do.
Ever.
They don't because they know reason and statistics do not back up that argument.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Nov 10, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't because they know reason and statistics do not back up that argument.
They repeatedly and very deliberately slander everyone pro-gay; as you point out, there is a reason they themselves (!) know they're lying. They wouldn't dare say anything about pedophilia and gays in courts because they would be castigated, at best, booted out of court, or -- at worst -- held in contempt.

Their lies are meant to sow further discord or to agitate those who don't have an effective response. My logic now remains unchanging, and will remain unchanging forever, very, very stubbornly so: I repeatedly cite the failure of the antigay to mention such "truths" in court, meaning that they are knowing, deliberate lies. And you don't lie about other people like that; that's what scumbags do.

(Gay rights cases are just about to go before the Supreme Court. If the antigay had a case re: pedophilia, they would present it to the Supreme Court. Everyone knows that's not going to happen.)

What I actually tire of is the mechanical back-and-forth with these babies and children who cannot handle living in a fair soceity; thus my "court" response. We're dealing with people who have psychological problems, seriously. Their *refusal to back down* is one indication of severe psychological issues; they're obsessed like neurotics and the institutionalized. But hey, we could all settle this, once and for all, if the antigay *had a backbone to speak of* and would present their "pedophilia" arguments in court.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#14 Nov 12, 2012
I saw that the previous response was from an antigay individual, and skipped it.

If it was anything like the person's previous "responses" here, every word of all of my previous responses and sentiments stands unbudging and forever.

Not gonna change a micron.

Simple as that.*shrug*

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Elton John, David Furnish to tie knot in privat... 7 min Belle Sexton 2
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 24 min Selecia Jones- JA... 26,612
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 25 min dee lightful 162
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 51 min Inquiring Minds 31,501
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 1 hr KiMare 31
Alaska's 1st known gay marriage in Arctic town 2 hr Sneaky Pete 19
Zen Buddhist Temple in Japan Offers Symbolic Sa... 6 hr Switches 30
More from around the web