Democrats Thrice Deny 'God' A Place In The Platform - Then 'Boo'

Jeffwhosoever said:

The electorate who voted for Obama.

Click to expand...

Well, given the alternative, I mean really...

The election was Romney's to lose, and he lost it.

Although I did find this article interesting:

Analysis: Why Romney lost - CNN.com

What it boils down to, at least according to CNN:

1. Little support from young, minorities
2. Sandy upsets campaign 'momentum'
3. Social conservatives blame squishy positions
4. Democrats' strong ground game

No doubt we could add many other reasons to the list. But hey, feel free to blame it on the electorate's "sickness" -- I'm sure that'll go over well when the next Conservative tries -- and fails -- to win them over.

My fellow lefties, argue not against this rhetoric. It guarantees 40 more years, not just 4.

Jeffwhosoever said:

LOL, No.

I'd bet many who voted for Obama paid no attention his social positions.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'll change it slightly: People paid attention to Republican social positions and decided to vote Obama. Obama's position on social issues is far more advanced and more relevant to this generation of voters than the Republican's.

The fact that Obama got voted back in with the economy in such a bad position with government seized up by gridlock says it all.

Skavau said:

I'm not an American, but as an atheist the Republican Party would do nothing for me. They barely acknowledge the existence of atheists and isolate them constantly through exclusion.

Surely you must see how that's a problem long term for the Republican Party.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting there are atheist who want to be apart of the Republican party?

diychristian said:

Are you suggesting there are atheist who want to be apart of the Republican party?

Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting that there aren't and given how the demographics of atheism in the USA are increasing this will be a problem for the Republicans if they don't change their platform.

HerbieHeadley said:

How is the DNC thrice denying God, a Republican social position?

Click to expand...

It isn't. I didn't say that. I said that the Republican stand on social issues is archaic and foreign to the current generation who are having a bigger and bigger impact on elections.

Blayz said:

My fellow lefties, argue not against this rhetoric. It guarantees 40 more years, not just 4.

Click to expand...

That is so true. Past RNC Micheal Steel warned them, a past GOP official warned them, you cant depend on one race and faith demographic and think your going to win.

Let them ignore the elephant in the room, and it will be 40 more years.

Skavau said:

I'd proudly stand on the "quagmire of secularism!"

By protecting everyone's personal liberty you do a lot for your votes. It'd be more effective than people think. I think Obama's position on social issues probably got him re-election.

Click to expand...

The John Kerry approach!!! As Bush quipped 'I congratulate John Kerry for firmly standing on both sides of all issues'.

Jeffwhosoever said:

LOL, No.

I'd bet many who voted for Obama paid no attention his social positions. Free cell phones!

Click to expand...

Are you saying there is a government program for free cell phones? Because that would be false:

snopes.com: Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

The programs you are misleading about were also founded by Reagan.

diychristian said:

The John Kerry approach!!! As Bush quipped 'I congratulate John Kerry for firmly standing on both sides of all issues'.

Click to expand...

How is what I said standing on both sides of the issue? Being a secularist involves someone who defends the rights of everyone to live their life as they see fit regardless of their religion and seeks no legislation based on any religion. The only way that you could think I'm standing on both sides here would be if you think that standing up for every citizen is somehow hypocritical.

Isn't that the job of someone who yearns for high office? To stand up for the rights of everyone?

Jeffwhosoever said:

People paid attention to who they perceived would be better for putting food in their bellies near term.

Click to expand...

The statistics show that the Republicans could not get near enough from any demographic barring white Christian votes. The voting bloc for Republicans is in perennial decline and they are doing nothing to appeal to a broader base.

Skavau said:

The statistics show that the Republicans could not get near enough from any demographic barring white Christian votes. The voting bloc for Republicans is in perennial decline and they are doing nothing to appeal to a broader base.

Click to expand...

Nor should they. If they start appealing to minorities more, they would have to become the Democratic Party. The best thing Republicans can do is stop all immigration, especially from countries like Mexico. States should also ignore federal laws or perhaps even leave the Union entirely.

If the Republican Party is to survive, we must remain a country with a majority European ancestry, and Republicans should be striving to keep US from becoming the minority.

Creech said:

Nor should they. If they start appealing to minorities more, they would have to become the Democratic Party.

Click to expand...

Then they will within the next twenty years or so decline to the point of never getting back into power. Their voting base will for want of a better word begin to die.

It is that simple.

The best thing Republicans can do is stop all immigration, especially from countries like Mexico. States should also ignore federal laws or perhaps even leave the Union entirely.

If the Republican Party is to survive, we must remain a country with a majority European ancestry, and Republicans should be striving to keep US from becoming the minority.

Click to expand...

This isn't even about race either, by the way, this is also about religion. What about non-religious Americans? What about Americans of other religions? What about Americans who share Republican economic values but not their social values?

It is also comical, by the way, how you seem to identify with a political party more than your nation. So much for patriotism.

Creech said:

Nor should they. If they start appealing to minorities more, they would have to become the Democratic Party. The best thing Republicans can do is stop all immigration, especially from countries like Mexico. States should also ignore federal laws or perhaps even leave the Union entirely.

If the Republican Party is to survive, we must remain a country with a majority European ancestry, and Republicans should be striving to keep US from becoming the minority.

Click to expand...

Why would that be?

Jeffwhosoever said:

Marco Rubio is already warming up in the bull pen.

Click to expand...

That makes no difference at all. Less the GOP comport to Rubio's immigration stance( aka Obama's stance) and they won't, it is meaningless.

...less he does just like Romney did given the GOP nomination and the Presidential election, and ran against himself as the GOP nomination.

Skavau said:

Then they will within the next twenty years or so decline to the point of never getting back into power. Their voting base will for want of a better word begin to die.

It is that simple.

This isn't even about race either, by the way, this is also about religion. What about non-religious Americans? What about Americans of other religions? What about Americans who share Republican economic values but not their social values?

Click to expand...

In the past, believers and non-believers alike have embraced Christian traditions, symbols, and institutions without actually believing in God or the Christian religion. These types of atheists I think have a place in the party.

To the non-believers who throw a fit every time they even hear about God, we don't want them. They might as well join Libertarians.