The Democratic Party's political correctness

The Democratic Party is now the party of political correctness: It refuses to endorse Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), because of his opposition to abortion-on-demand, and his similar opposition to ObamaCare.

In all fairness, I should mention that I am not a huge fan of Rep. Lipinski, either: He supports gay marriage (euphemistically known as "marriage equality"); which I find a bit troubling.

But people should not be expected to toe the party line, in all districts. What works well in Massachusetts or California may not work so well in Texas or Alabama.

Here is a link to the story: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/25/lipinski-democrats-abortion-chicago-illinois-423431

 

Now?

It's been like that for decades.

 

You know, the purpose of right-wing media has been to fill conservative brains full of misinformation about Democrats.

This is not about political correctness. It has more to do with party values. If a candidate is taking positions that are counter to the consensus, then they don't really speak for the party, and are unlikely to get elected.

Do you think a Republican candidate promoting Democratic values would ever get elected by Republicans?

 

What does a candidate not meeting the values of their constituents have to do with political correctness? Did I miss something here?

Also, why is marriage equality so troubling to you?

 

There used to be such a thing as Blue Dog Democrats. (In case you do not remember these, they were Democrats of the more conservative variety.)

Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party no longer has any use for these?

 

Before the Reagan revolution, there were liberals, moderates, and conservatives in both parties. It used to be said that a Republican in Maine was more liberal than a Democrat from the South. Republican dog whistling, and catering to the so-called moral majority crowd, is what drew conservatives to the Republican Party, and repealed liberals.

 

Doesn't this sort of remind you of what happened to John Kasich and Jeff Flake

 

Did the RNC refuse to endorse these people? (I do not remember.)

 

Even most liberals will now admit that Ronald Reagan was a great president.
But evidently, you...well, not so much...

Somehow, you have managed, however, to blame Republicans--and their (supposed) "dog whistling"--for the DNC's refusal to endorse one of its own.

 

I was wondering about this also. Personally, I think monogamy among gay people should be promoted to lessen the chances of STDs. They aren't going to have any affect on your life good or bad, and it would probably help your neighborhood housing prices when they buy an old house and fix it up to make it fabulous.

 

These are practical reasons in support of the view you espouse.

I do, however, believe that there is a more urgent reason to believe otherwise: i.e. the preservation of our history, as concerning the very institution of marriage.

Do we really wish to change the very meaning of marriage?

 

How would this change effect people negatively?

 

I'm not sure how it would not preserve history concerning the institution of marriage. It does not affect my marriage if someone that I will never meet gets married nor will I care. The only difference as far as I can see is that they will be taxed the same as me and not have to suffer stupid crap like visiting someone they love in the hospital.

Absolutely no impact on my life either way.

 

I think the two reasonable positions are marriage for everyone or no marriage for anyone.

 

That is hardly the point.

This change is really a function of cultural Marxism (which--unlike economic Marxism--has nothing to do with economic theory.)

I do very much believe that our traditional culture should be preserved--and not handed over to those who wish to trample upon it.

 

Not sure how they are wishing to trample it. I honestly don't see that it matters if two gay guys, either living together or married, have a 4th of July BBQ, fly the flag, and sing the national anthem.

 

The Republican Party is the party of fake news, 24/7 hate and blame, and loony tunes.

 

I really have no objection to their "hav[ing] a 4th of July BBQ, fly[ing] the flag, and sing[ing] the national anthem."

And yes, homosexuality has always been with us--and presumably, always will be.

I simply object to the left's recent push to normalize it--and, in the process, embedding us even more in cultural Marxism.

 

It's troubling to everyone with a lick of sense.

This suggests you're not much concerned with the welfare of the country you live in.

 

If it's normal, than what's wrong with normalizing it?

 

The Democrat Party has gone the fascist route - toe the line or begone (to a re-education camp or an archipelago off of Maine)

Consider that a few 30 year old women have taken over the party agenda and turned the Party into a clown show. Consider that Joe Biden is their favorite candidate for President - that tells you everything you need to know about what a special needs kindergarten the Democrat Party has become.

 

pjohns said: ↑ I really have no objection to their "hav[ing] a 4th of July BBQ, fly[ing] the flag, and sing[ing] the national anthem."
And yes, homosexuality has always been with us--and presumably, always will be.
I simply object to the left's recent push to normalize it--and, in the process, embedding us even more in cultural Marxism.

If it's not hetero sex, it's a deviation from the norm.
In my opinion, most people can agree that homosexuality is an acceptable deviancy, while pedophilia and transgenderism are perversions for pedophiles and mental illness for transgenders.

I can ignore and be tolerant of transgenders - they are the victims of their own perversions - I can't ignore or accept the perversions the militants are trying to force on society in terms of mens bodies in womens sports and men in the womens toilet.

Pedophilia is a perversion of the worst kind deserving of any ills that might befall them.

 

Why is it acceptable?

And again, if it's acceptable, than what's wrong with "normalizing" it?

How is it anyone's business what any consenting adults do?

I bet there are a sh*t ton of Repubs doing some perverted things right now as we speak, those crazy cucks.

 

You miss the point - homosexuality has been around for a long time - most extended families have at least one "suspected" homosexual - if homosexuality was so vehemently rejected, it would have been in hiding as opposed to "in the closet".

 

It is the premise that I have a serious problem with..as previous generations did, also...