Demographic changes

I have seen the idea here lately that political parties need to "adapt to changing demographics".

What the hell is this idea??? Why should a party need to change??? Shouldn't a party be all inclusive no matter what demographic changes occur???

The idea that parties should "market" itself to certain groups is an abomination. As I said before, when gubment is selling you something, you are paying for it with your freedom. So go ahead people, let yourself be bought by the party that is selling you the things you want. In the end, I will loudly say, "I told you so".

Selling things like infrastructure and recognizing rights...

Both of which were sold to us in the late 1700's. Neither of which have changed. Goods and services are not now, nor will they ever be "rights".

Marconius wrote:I have seen the idea here lately that political parties need to "adapt to changing demographics".

What the hell is this idea??? Why should a party need to change??? Shouldn't a party be all inclusive no matter what demographic changes occur???

The idea that parties should "market" itself to certain groups is an abomination. As I said before, when gubment is selling you something, you are paying for it with your freedom. So go ahead people, let yourself be bought by the party that is selling you the things you want. In the end, I will loudly say, "I told you so".

Agreed.  That's sort of my complaint in an earlier post about the GOP moving toward 'Compassionate Conservatism' and a 'kinder, gentler, conservative'...and they did it to get votes.  The GOP has changed and consequently there is a fight now for the life of the party.

The Dems went through this change awhile back.  The Dems in the 50s and 60s would never have championed gay marriage, transgender rights, and Progressivism.  They were more liberal to be sure.  They championed the causes of LBJ.  But somewhere along they leaped from that to caving to the demands of the tree huggers and gay rights activists.  I don't think LBJ would have thought very highly of gay issues back then.  Not even Kennedy would have.

Dennis324 wrote:

Marconius wrote:I have seen the idea here lately that political parties need to "adapt to changing demographics".

What the hell is this idea??? Why should a party need to change??? Shouldn't a party be all inclusive no matter what demographic changes occur???

The idea that parties should "market" itself to certain groups is an abomination. As I said before, when gubment is selling you something, you are paying for it with your freedom. So go ahead people, let yourself be bought by the party that is selling you the things you want. In the end, I will loudly say, "I told you so".

Agreed.  That's sort of my complaint in an earlier post about the GOP moving toward 'Compassionate Conservatism' and a 'kinder, gentler, conservative'...and they did it to get votes.  The GOP has changed and consequently there is a fight now for the life of the party.

The Dems went through this change awhile back.  The Dems in the 50s and 60s would never have championed gay marriage, transgender rights, and Progressivism.  They were more liberal to be sure.  They championed the causes of LBJ.  But somewhere along they leaped from that to caving to the demands of the tree huggers and gay rights activists.  I don't think LBJ would have thought very highly of gay issues back then.  Not even Kennedy would have.

Eh, I still ain't feeling it. Prolly never see eye to eye on the social issues. That's cool.

I like a party that allows anyone who recognizes the rights of the individual regardless of sexual orientation or whatnot. Hell, I have been known to hug a tree or two in my day. I ain't no hippie though. Just love the outdoors and being in it.

Hold on now, i'm not comparing outdoorsmen with tree huggers. 

Yeah, but I fight to save them there trees every chance I get.


Seriously,
If it weren't for acceptable excise taxes paid by us hunters/sport fishermen, there would be no outdoors. We pay so all can enjoy....those damn hippies pay squat.

Yeah, I support Conservation and fishing and hunting sportsmen.  I just don't support folks who sabotage logging equipment just because they think no trees should ever under any circumstances be cut down.  Around here most logging companies come in, cut trees and a team follows up replanting.

Dennis, i rhink this is the second time ive heard you reference gay eights with progressivism, and i think a better category for that is secular humanism. Think thats a better fit ideologically.

Gay eights?  That's a new one on me.   

Secular humanism is a good term for that.  Gay rights activists though are prevalent enough that, imo, they can stand on their own as a category.  I'm not sure secular humanists are in cahoots with the Gay rights activists.  But I wouldn't put it past them.