I’m not sure the purpose of your proclamations, mfm. Your rampant generalizations make it difficult to respond.
I’m proclaiming my stance on things in a clear and obvious way.
Yes, like me declaring that Democrats are the worst because they don’t care about working class people because they oppose tax cuts. I just don’t see the purpose, as I said, of that kind of proclamation, stuffed with a generalization (that I wager you take issue with in a fundamental way).
They don’t oppose tax cuts. The tax cuts that benefit only the rich are a bipartisan affair and don’t do shit for the working class. Regarding the working class, Democrats are more in favor of some weak drug legalization as well as vague healthcare for all, which benefit the working class far more than what the Republicans are for. I take issue with your generalization because it’s inaccurate. If you wanted to generalize the Democrats as center-right corporate sell-outs with some mildly enlightened social values that they don’t actually care enough about to fight for, then I’d be right there with you in that generalization. My generalization that the Republican party is opposed to gay marriage and gay rights on the whole is actually an accurate generalization that I doubt even you would argue with. Oh wait, nevermind, you do.
Again, what is the purpose of such a generalization? Once you unpack it, of course you will find reasons to disagree. It would be an absurd pretense that such a statement would be unassailable: that was my point. You happen to think your gay rights example is incontrovertible, like most positions you proclaim on here. I think it difficult to engage in dialogue when you proceed in that way. As you well illustrate with your continued disbelief that anybody could dispute your position.
I agree that it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Dems or the GOP is worse on a given issue. But the reasonableness depends on the extent to which you’re informed on the actual positions of each party.
And any generalization of a party’s position doesn’t apply to every member of the party and doesn’t comprehensively describe a party’s position, parts of which actually may not be bad.
It does apply to the party’s general position, though. Are you seriously going to claim that the Republican is not worse on gay rights than the Democrats?
Your statement on civil liberties for gays is an obvious generalization but also a mischaracterization.
Prove me wrong. The Republican platform is “family values” which is another term for anti-gay.
I think most people say they believe in family values but we don’t need to be that vague when there are identifiable policy differences (feel free to identify!). I’m not denying that Republicans don’t generally oppose items usually associated with “gay rights” but I do deny that Republicans are “opposed to their civil liberties on the whole,” as you said previously.
Family values in the Republican sense is the “One man, one woman” bullshit that most of them don’t even live by. The civil liberties that they’re opposed to are the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, gay adoption, protection from zealots refusing to do their jobs (e.g. Kim Davis), and the list goes on and on. I don’t know if those are the things that you consider “gay rights” in quotation marks (is that supposed to imply that they aren’t real rights?).
I put “gay rights” in quotation marks in that instance (but not others) to highlight that the term doesn’t have a precise meaning and there is a philosophical dispute about what would be included. We can pretend this is all so simple and everything you would include is an undisputed right because “rights” is in the title, but that’s not correct.
The enforcement of anti-discrimination laws runs straight into the conservative (and libertarian) view that private actors should generally be permitted to discriminate as well as concerns for religious liberty. That philosophical view is not inherently anti-gay. And yet you lump it in as if it is necessarily so. Which brings me back to the unproductive nature of your generalized and imprecise declarations.