Republicans beginning to notice the non religious.

[blue]

For any of you who follow conservative thought you might find this article I found on National Review.
Nones and the GOP

It’s safe to say that the GOP is facing some challenges. Women gave twice as much money to Obama’s presidential campaign as to Romney’s. It looks like most Americans will blame the GOP if we sail over the fiscal cliff. And Republicans’ most noted political victory of the last few months has been clearing the field so John Kerry can be secretary of state. Things could be better.

And on top of all that, new data from Pew on the voting habits, and growing numbers, of the religiously unaffiliated doesn’t seem to bode particularly well for the party. The bad news is, well, pretty much what you’d expect. The good news is that if Republicans play their cards right (not likely, but one can hope), they might be able to make inroads into Democrats’ territory.

Reading the comments I think it's a bit soon to say we'll be seeing any sort of outreach from the GOP, but it is interesting to see them talking about it.

[Nam]

No, not interesting.

-Nam

[Nick]

I think most of us here have to high of an IQ to consider being republicans.

[Chronos]

So far as I can tell, their only purpose in noticing the non-religious is to convert us. The diehards among them are unable to change -- religion is not negotiable with them. They would rather die on the cross than to admit that some other world perspective is merely acceptable.

[blue]

No, not interesting.

-Nam

Fair enough. It's inside baseball a la United States politics. Not everyone's cup of tea.

I think most of us here have to high of an IQ to consider being republicans.

Ouch. All I can say is that some of us grow out of it, or figure out the enormous  problems with their platform.

So far as I can tell, their only purpose in noticing the non-religious is to convert us. The diehards among them are unable to change -- religion is not negotiable with them. They would rather die on the cross than to admit that some other world perspective is merely acceptable.

What I found interesting is seeing them even talk about non religious Americans. The fact that nones are actually becoming noticed due to the voting power they're showing is very encouraging and I like to think is indicative of a change in American politics.

[Jag]

Republicans noticing blacks, Hispanics, non-hetero's and women hasn't been favorable for any of them so far. I'm not expecting anything better now that the Republicans have noticed "nones", some of whom cross several of those other groups.

All this will do is give them more ammunition to freak out about how the godlessness of the nation is going to doom us when god's aim improves and he finally hits the middle of the country with ... I don't know, something that would radiate outward toward the coasts, thereby proving his power/wrath/love for us and vindicating televangelists after years of mockery by people like me.

Or the raging hypocrites will realize that the boogeyman they keep invoking is both real, and smarter than they are. That could be fun...

[Nick]

50 years from now or more it will be interesting how people look back at this period of American history.

[shnozzola]

........... now that the Republicans have noticed "nones.............

All this will do is give them more ammunition to freak out..................

Something about that word right now.

[Nam]

blue,

There are atheists who are already Republican. There are atheists who vote or who have voted for Republicans. I am one of them. When I first started voting, I voted mainly Republican (not the conservative religious politicians). Those who would even consider what you state in your OP are in the minority. The very minority. The religious far-right control the Republican party. They have for almost 30 years. The sanity in that party is few and far between.

Last election in November, I voted for 2 or 3 Republicans. Next election it'll probably be fewer than that because the religious right would have either driven them out of the party, or those people would have capitulated to the far-right's thinking.

Where as the Democratic party has a fundamental group in the far-left, they do not control the party.

So, my initial comment stands: not that interesting.

-Nam

[Chronos]

So far as I can tell, their only purpose in noticing the non-religious is to convert us. The diehards among them are unable to change -- religion is not negotiable with them. They would rather die on the cross than to admit that some other world perspective is merely acceptable.

What I found interesting is seeing them even talk about non religious Americans. The fact that nones are actually becoming noticed due to the voting power they're showing is very encouraging and I like to think is indicative of a change in American politics.

Be careful to watch who exactly is engaging in such talk. As far as I have witnessed, the only ones doing the recognizing are conservative pundits who are likely fence-sitters and/or do not publicly profess faith. The pragmatists. They don't mind having an abortion or two, and they don't mind a nativity scene here or there, but they do like their taxes lower. These are not the core of the GOP -- they are conservative fringe.

[Nick]

The republicans just sent the country racing towards the financial cliff tonight and then left Washington for vacation.  The markets are set for a dramatic plunge on open Friday.  Maybe the "end of the world" is not such a bad thing and if that does not happen I might have to become a "prepper".  Sh*t, how can we be this dumb?

[Nam]

Well, look at the House. What is it filled with?

-Nam

[The Gawd]

my degree was in Politics and Government... I used to want to get into this stuff.
I have since changed my tune. I honestly think the entire government needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. A two party system is as moronic a system that there has ever been. Its only result can be what we see today... When you pit two sides against each other this is the natural progression.

Also, the R party appears to always be moving away from inclusion. Remember, this WAS the party of Lincoln. Anyone think any radical civil rights legislation could be passed from those ranks today? What theyve also done, by becoming essentially a non-factor/non-option to minority groups (not just by race) and making it ever so clear, is that the D party doesnt necessarily have to or even strive toward any real results once elected. They will get the minority vote simply by not being bigotted over the airwaves.

As a minority, I suggest a concerted effort of NOT voting... Yes I know, a lot of people died and went through a lot of BS in order to get that right. But at this point it doesnt serve its purpose. I mean how are we still "debating" over equal rights for gays and lesbians? That shit is guaranteed in the constitution. Equal protection under the law has been confirmed with the civil rights movements of women and race groups. How are we still talking about such a goddamn stupid topic? And how come the democrats havent pushed this?

Truth of the matter is D's cannot win without this cobblestone voting block of the leftover white males, women in general, racial minorities, and the gay and lesbian community. Not voting assuredly puts an R in office, forcing Dems to actually do stuff or not ever be in office again.

Personally, like I said earlier, I think the system needs destroying. We need multiple parties that share power, not a winner takes all scenario. The court system needs to be abolished as well... I have an opinion on that but its a whole 'nother thread.

[Nam]

I honestly think the entire government needs to be destroyed and rebuilt.

Never happen. And even if it were "destroyed", it would never be rebuilt, at least not in the image everyone would want. It'd be more dictatorial, or anarchist. Unless that is what you're thinking.

A two party system is as moronic a system that there has ever been.

Technically the US isn't a two-party system. There are many political parties. It's just that the two main parties dictate everything, from votes, to debates, to everything. It's actually the only thing Democrats and Republicans come together on. They dictate everything, and the public, for the most part, allows them to. I think it's more out of fear. For Democrats that someone will be voted in not supporting their cause, and for the Republican being branded as a traitor to their party.

Look at the two parties: one is diverse (if not lazy), and the other is mainly white and old. Democrats outnumber Republicans yet Republicans are loyal to their party where as a Democrat seems to be more loyal to themselves and their wants and needs (look at all the liberal states with Republicans running their governments).

As a minority, I suggest a concerted effort of NOT voting... Yes I know, a lot of people died and went through a lot of BS in order to get that right. But at this point it doesnt serve its purpose.

Many people already do this, that's how many Republicans get into office.

I mean how are we still "debating" over equal rights for gays and lesbians? That shit is guaranteed in the constitution. Equal protection under the law has been confirmed with the civil rights movements of women and race groups. How are we still talking about such a goddamn stupid topic? And how come the democrats havent pushed this?

Not all Democrats are for Homosexual rights. Many of them, or the vast majority of them are still highly religious (no matter what the Republicans tend to say).

Personally, like I said earlier, I think the system needs destroying.

I would rather have it broken than destroyed. Destroyed probably means that the states control themselves 100%, and then the conservative states will become highly conservative. The liberal states will become more liberal. The in-between states will most likely be broken up between those two factions, which will cause yet another war.

We need multiple parties that share power, not a winner takes all scenario.

Don't see it happening. We're too diverse of a nation.

The court system needs to be abolished as well...

More of that anarchy.

I have an opinion on that but its a whole 'nother thread.

So create one. Do it at ATT. We could use the conversation.

-Nam

[The Gawd]

Thats requesting a LOT of thought outta me, because its one thing to suggest destruction and another thing to suggest something in its place. I have probably come up with something if I were to have a database with the compilation of my thoughts, but sadly no such database exists.


As for the point by point... I'll address them in order.

1. Never happen internally, I agree. I dont think, however, that if it were to occur it would be more dictatoral. But then again it would probably depend on who did the destroying.

2. Technically it is not. In application it is. I mean, technically we dont have a theocracy, but how many confessed atheists are in office? Yes, the R is typically loyal. The D is a patchwork quilt that has probably come about to oppose the R. Nothing truly bonds the different groups.

3. Many people dont vote on both sides, this is true. However, to my knowledge this isnt a concerted effort of not voting, rather simply not going to the polls.

4. I agree. Many are not for. Thus I think they need to look at point 3 and concert their effort of not voting until D's get their shit together and demand the law be enforced or never be in office.

5. I say destroy because it  is designed to keep existing as is. I dont think it can be broken w/o being destroyed.

6. Diversity doesnt affect how we divy up the power.

7. Hardly. The court system is designed to get a result, not necessarily arrive at truth. I'd have it built to arrive at truth. I mean the idea of committing a 1st degree murder but pleading down to 2nd degree so the state doesnt have to prove its case. Its wrong on all levels. As is someone innocent pleading guilty to a lesser charge because they fear they cant get a fair trial. The courts dont care. It needs destruction.

8. Once I organize the thoughts.

[Bagheera]

I don't understand how a concerted effort of not voting would achieve anything, unless you can somehow get every person in the US to withhold their vote.

You can't even get most of the people in the US to cover their mouth when they sneeze.

[The Gawd]

I don't understand how a concerted effort of not voting would achieve anything, unless you can somehow get every person in the US to withhold their vote.

You can't even get most of the people in the US to cover their mouth when they sneeze.

Not everyone, only certain blocs of voters. Say for instance the black community, which typically votes democratic I believe at about a 90% clip, however a lot of the issues these voters vote on arent addressed sufficiently when either party is in office. Now, even though we have a diverse array of issues as does the entire population we still vote as a bloc because one "option" is hardly seen as an option at all probably because of the hatred and vitriol they spew for anything not like them. Because of this the democratic party doesnt have to do anything to get that 90% except not be republican. Work doesnt have to get done. However, if we withheld our vote there just is no way democrats could win the presidency and after a cycle or two they would realize that and either actually do something or fall to the wayside.

Not that government solves all societies ills, but damn, I'm from Chicago and parts of the southside are a literal warzone right now and nothing is being done. Meanwhile we spend billions upon billions in neighborhoods across the globe (im speaking military $$). You cant tell me we cant afford some nation building right here at home.

[Bagheera]

I don't understand how a concerted effort of not voting would achieve anything, unless you can somehow get every person in the US to withhold their vote.

You can't even get most of the people in the US to cover their mouth when they sneeze.

Not everyone, only certain blocs of voters. Say for instance the black community, which typically votes democratic I believe at about a 90% clip, however a lot of the issues these voters vote on arent addressed sufficiently when either party is in office. Now, even though we have a diverse array of issues as does the entire population we still vote as a bloc because one "option" is hardly seen as an option at all probably because of the hatred and vitriol they spew for anything not like them. Because of this the democratic party doesnt have to do anything to get that 90% except not be republican. Work doesnt have to get done. However, if we withheld our vote there just is no way democrats could win the presidency and after a cycle or two they would realize that and either actually do something or fall to the wayside.

Not that government solves all societies ills, but damn, I'm from Chicago and parts of the southside are a literal warzone right now and nothing is being done. Meanwhile we spend billions upon billions in neighborhoods across the globe (im speaking military $$). You cant tell me we cant afford some nation building right here at home.

Accepting your theory of blacks voting Democrats into power, if you could in fact convince a significant voting block of African-Americans to NOT vote at all, it would simply mean that Republicans would rule the Senate, House and White House. Democrats would no longer be in power, and thus their desire to do anything would be hampered by their inability to do anything. Sweeping victories for the Republican party would allow them to pursue the traditional goals of the Republican party, and also allow them the opportunity to solidify their power against any attempts by the Democrats to challenge them in future elections.  If that's what you want, why not vote republican?

The only possible upside I can see for this notion is that Republicans, seeing a chance to further solidify their hold on power, might begin marketing themselves much more heavily to minorities. . . but they will likely no change their policies to do so, because sticking to their policies is what got them into power in the first place. They'd be better off telling black people how much better off they'd be voting Republican, because the Republican party will do things that make business want to invest in the US (like reducing the minimum wage, gutting environmental regulations, doing away with taxes on the wealthy and businesses, eliminating welfare, Social Security and Medicare, getting rid of mandated medical insurance for large companies, etc) so all black people can have businesses back in their neighborhoods, and the resulting jobs booms will lower crime and increase prosperity all the way round.

[The Gawd]

Accepting your theory of blacks voting Democrats into power,

Didnt say that blacks do, each voting bloc does. And without each piece D's arent getting the presidency and maybe not the senate.

if you could in fact convince a significant voting block of African-Americans to NOT vote at all, it would simply mean that Republicans would rule the Senate, House and White House. Democrats would no longer be in power, and thus their desire to do anything would be hampered by their inability to do anything. Sweeping victories for the Republican party would allow them to pursue the traditional goals of the Republican party, and also allow them the opportunity to solidify their power against any attempts by the Democrats to challenge them in future elections.  If that's what you want, why not vote republican?

Its not happening at all, the pressure to vote is too strong to convince a large group of people who otherwise would vote not to. But I think it would have the opposite affect than what you propose. You really think D's would just up and quit? I think they would try and find a way to get back in power. Vote republican? Why not ask why I dont just become a believer? Its the same as the question "if you found out Yahweh was real would you worship him?"

The only possible upside I can see for this notion is that Republicans, seeing a chance to further solidify their hold on power, might begin marketing themselves much more heavily to minorities. . . but they will likely no change their policies to do so, because sticking to their policies is what got them into power in the first place. They'd be better off telling black people how much better off they'd be voting Republican, because the Republican party will do things that make business want to invest in the US (like reducing the minimum wage, gutting environmental regulations, doing away with taxes on the wealthy and businesses, eliminating welfare, Social Security and Medicare, getting rid of mandated medical insurance for large companies, etc) so all black people can have businesses back in their neighborhoods, and the resulting jobs booms will lower crime and increase prosperity all the way round.

I dont see that ever happening. None of it. Businesses dont go to areas where there is no money. And I dont even come from those surroundings. Born and raised in the burbs, but I know it will take more than some tax cuts to heal the ills in the areas I'm talking about. Much more.

[Nam]

Thats requesting a LOT of thought outta me, because its one thing to suggest destruction and another thing to suggest something in its place. I have probably come up with something if I were to have a database with the compilation of my thoughts, but sadly no such database exists.

You brought the subject up. There should already be thought in it. Don't need a database. Some research may be required but that's life.

1. Never happen internally, I agree. I dont think, however, that if it were to occur it would be more dictatoral. But then again it would probably depend on who did the destroying.

If either side, or both together, destroyed the system then Marshal Law most likely would be set in motion whether locally, state, or what's left Federally. Chaos would be inevitable. Look at places around the world that already have little to no government. It's chaos.

2. Technically it is not. In application it is. I mean, technically we dont have a theocracy, but how many confessed atheists are in office? Yes, the R is typically loyal. The D is a patchwork quilt that has probably come about to oppose the R. Nothing truly bonds the different groups.

Chaos.

3. Many people dont vote on both sides, this is true. However, to my knowledge this isnt a concerted effort of not voting, rather simply not going to the polls.

Actually Republicans tend to vote more than Democrats, and Independents tend to vote Republican which is ironic 'cause most Independents are independent because they don't like the direction of the main parties. It's stupid.

4. I agree. Many are not for. Thus I think they need to look at point 3 and concert their effort of not voting until D's get their shit together and demand the law be enforced or never be in office.

Not voting would only work to your point-of-view if all people in all parties didn't vote. If Democrats didn't vote next election then we'd have a government, in totality, run solely by Republicans. Is that a world you want to live in? There aren't too many sane Republicans left in the party, and those that are there usually capitulate to the base.

5. I say destroy because it  is designed to keep existing as is. I dont think it can be broken w/o being destroyed.

It'd be like having a Fire Sale, and though on paper it looks pretty, in reality it would not only destroy the US but other countries, as well. Are you thinking about what would happen to the rest of the world? I don't think you are. Don't think that if such a thing happened here it would have little to no effect on the rest of the world. It would, and not in a good way.

6. Diversity doesnt affect how we divy up the power.

Diversity wouldn't play a role. We'd be back to 1860.

7. Hardly. The court system is designed to get a result, not necessarily arrive at truth. I'd have it built to arrive at truth. I mean the idea of committing a 1st degree murder but pleading down to 2nd degree so the state doesnt have to prove its case. Its wrong on all levels. As is someone innocent pleading guilty to a lesser charge because they fear they cant get a fair trial. The courts dont care. It needs destruction.

It's not necessarily that the courts don't care (at least, I feel, in most cases) it's that most of the time no one can afford anything. Whether the "criminal" or the court. The US has gone so far away from being a democracy/republic and more about being money-hungry (Capitalism) that when it comes to state/federal issues there's no profit in it. Except for private companies who run prisons. And lawyers.

-Nam