Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Do you think the Republican Party will die off in the future?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
bbanks1995

bbanks1995

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • LocationIllinois
Due to demographic changes, America is becoming more left-wing and less conservative. I don't see how republicans will continue to exist as a major party in the next few decades, unless they change their archaic policies.
  • wjfox likes this

#2
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,133 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

All political parties will eventually fade and die off, so there's no doubt. As to expecting that America will forever become more left-wing or at least liberal... well consider this— Germany was the most tolerant, progressive, socially liberal nation on Earth going into the 1900s and even the 1930s. They could have been the first nation to decriminalize homosexuality. 

 

And then, of course, the völkisch movement that was a reaction to all that gave us a little something in the early to mid '30s.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#3
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

the two party system will die off and will just vote on people based on opinions that we share of the person rather than what political sector they reside in. just give it about 100 years and we done.



#4
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,721 posts

Hopefully!

 

The republican party is a disease that is holding back our society from being one that is far more advanced and great. Its goals are to turn us back into a third world shit hole.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#5
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Well, yes, the Republican Party will eventually be dissolved and/or become unrecognizable compared to its present form. As will the Democratic Party and all other parties, the United States itself, and indeed all current social institutions. On a long enough timescale nothing in society is constant.

 

But I suspect you mean "will everyone become a Democrat in the near-to-medium term future?"--or possibly even "I hope everyone will become a Democrat in the near-to-medium term future", but I'll take it on faith that you are asking a real question.

 

No. The Democrats in their present form are alienating almost everyone with their identity politics and casual disregard for middle America ("basket of deplorables" anyone?). Meanwhile, Generation Z--of which I am part of, albeit barely--is shaping up to be most conservative/libertarian generation in recent history. (source)

 

However, I do predict that the parties are going to realign in the 2020s. Trump is obviously a new breed of Republican, and while the Democrats aren't going to be stable much longer, they aren't going to just die either, not after 200 years on the national stage. We'll likely see them reemerge from the 2020s as a party of Silicon Valley centrist technocrats that admire China's way of doing things.

 

General Consensus: Trump Republicans and Zuckerberg Democrats


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#6
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,133 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Meanwhile, Generation Z--of which I am part of, albeit barely--is shaping up to be most conservative/libertarian generation in recent history.

Other sources suggest that, while there's a conservative strain to Generation Z as it currently is, it's most definitely not libertarian conservatism. People have said that there's a libertarian element to Generation Z, but I don't see it at all.

 

Source

Source 2

Not to mention that, as I've been saying, this may be a premature statement altogether. I doubt the authoritarian streak is false, however. Especially after Trump's election, people on both sides have been very down on democratic elections (though for wildly different reasons).


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#7
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,721 posts

Any party that supports allowing the old to die, infrastructure to fall into rivers, discrimination against millions of people and pretty much turning this country into a third world is a fucking idiot.

 

The problem with humanity for the most part is so many countries use these dumb ideas already and reject European ideas that work. Doesn't make sense. Until this changes I wouldn't count on humanity becoming a class 1 civilization.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#8
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,721 posts

oh yeah, I am sure that this new generation wants to:

1. Slave in sweat shops for .25 cents per hour. That is what would happen in some cases if it wasn't for government setting a minimum wage and the work place environment would be utter shit.

2. Eat old food, drink dirty water and get poisoned by dirty air. Don't believe me? Look to India or China.

3. Never get to go to school. Yep, during the 18th and 19th century a good portion of the poorest children never got to go to school and in fact worked in sweat shops. Read the fiction of the day! Make everything about class as the republican party wishes to do = a large percentage of our society would quickly lose out. There's a reason why social democracy was the solution to all these problems here and above.

 

You think inequality is bad now? Try India or china or even worse try most of Africa. One of the biggest signs of a third world country is the fact that the poor(being most of the population) have next to shit but the few that are rich have it all!!! sounds pretty republican too me. God willing the republican party will be defeated before they're allowed to reverse this shit or I am moving to Canada.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#9
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,721 posts

oh yeah, I am sure that this new generation wants to:

1. Slave in sweat shops for .25 cents per hour. That is what would happen in some cases if it wasn't for government setting a minimum wage and the work place environment would be utter shit.

2. Eat old food, drink dirty water and get poisoned by dirty air. Don't believe me? Look to India or China.

3. Never get to go to school. Yep, during the 18th and 19th century a good portion of the poorest children never got to go to school and in fact worked in sweat shops. Read the fiction of the day! Make everything about class as the republican party wishes to do = a large percentage of our society would quickly lose out. There's a reason why social democracy was the solution to all these problems here and above.

 

You think inequality is bad now? Try India or china or even worse try most of Africa. One of the biggest signs of a third world country is the fact that the poor(being most of the population) have next to shit but the few that are rich have it all!!! sounds pretty republican too me. God willing the republican party will be defeated before they're allowed to reverse this shit or I am moving to Canada.

 

 

Generation z is lazy and without understanding that life will be pure hell if the Aye Rands have their way. What's funny is they think liberterianism is cool because of drugs and gays but the republicans will get rid of both. lol, lol, lol


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#10
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

Meanwhile, Generation Z--of which I am part of, albeit barely--is shaping up to be most conservative/libertarian generation in recent history.

Other sources suggest that, while there's a conservative strain to Generation Z as it currently is, it's most definitely not libertarian conservatism. People have said that there's a libertarian element to Generation Z, but I don't see it at all.

 

Source

Source 2

Not to mention that, as I've been saying, this may be a premature statement altogether. I doubt the authoritarian streak is false, however. Especially after Trump's election, people on both sides have been very down on democratic elections (though for wildly different reasons).

 

I've also seen suggestions that they're socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

 

Also, perhaps I am the exception that proves the rule, but there's me.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#11
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Any party that supports allowing the old to die, infrastructure to fall into rivers, discrimination against millions of people and pretty much turning this country into a third world is a fucking idiot.

 

The problem with humanity for the most part is so many countries use these dumb ideas already and reject European ideas that work. Doesn't make sense. Until this changes I wouldn't count on humanity becoming a class 1 civilization.

Good thing no major party supports that!


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#12
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,442 posts
https://en.m.wikiped...nfirmation_bias

#13
Guyverman1990

Guyverman1990

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

Hopefully!

 

The republican party is a disease that is holding back our society from being one that is far more advanced and great. Its goals are to turn us back into a third world shit hole.

 

Are you forgetting that it was the Republicans under Lincoln who abolished slavery?



#14
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Due to demographic changes, America is becoming more left-wing and less conservative. I don't see how republicans will continue to exist as a major party in the next few decades, unless they change their archaic policies.

 

At the risk of being accussed of being a grammar nazi, I think you mean "Republicans will continue to exist as a major party..."  

 

Republican is the proper name of a political party. Small "r" republican refers to one who believes in a republican form of government, as opposed to say an anarchist or fascist, etc.

 

I know this may seem like I am just quibbling, but I am getting a little tired of seeing that mistake repeated over and over in this forum.  It really can result in a confusion of thought and meaning, and therefore should be avoided as a mistake in grammar.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#15
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

 

Hopefully!

 

The republican party is a disease that is holding back our society from being one that is far more advanced and great. Its goals are to turn us back into a third world shit hole.

 

Are you forgetting that it was the Republicans under Lincoln who abolished slavery?

 

 

Are you forgetting that was more than one hundred and fifty years ago?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#16
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

 

Any party that supports allowing the old to die, infrastructure to fall into rivers, discrimination against millions of people and pretty much turning this country into a third world is a fucking idiot.

 

The problem with humanity for the most part is so many countries use these dumb ideas already and reject European ideas that work. Doesn't make sense. Until this changes I wouldn't count on humanity becoming a class 1 civilization.

Good thing no major party supports that!

 

 

Oh, I guess that means you do not consider the Republican party to be a major party?

 

Seriously, the Republicans really are beginning to support policies that are just one or two steps away (if that) from what Sciencerocks is saying.

 

Consider their desire to repeal Obamacare. Do you seriously think that depriving millions of people health insurance is not the equivalent of allowing people to die?

 

Or ignoring the effects of global warming?

 

Will that not also result in more premature deaths?

 

Or stripping back environmental protection regulations?

 

Why do you suppose those regulations were put into effect in the first place?

 

As to discrimination, I guess I just haven't posted enough articles on voter suppression efforts for you to get the picture on that score.

 

As to infrastructure.  Since when is turning that into yet another excuse for a giant tax break really addressing the infrastructure needs of this country?

 

Sure, maybe in some limited circumstances in the kind of highly urbanized environment that Trump has experience in, the plan might make a certain amount of sense.  But for the rest of the country it is sure idiocy.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#17
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Well, yes, the Republican Party will eventually be dissolved and/or become unrecognizable compared to its present form. As will the Democratic Party and all other parties, the United States itself, and indeed all current social institutions. On a long enough timescale nothing in society is constant.

 

But I suspect you mean "will everyone become a Democrat in the near-to-medium term future?"--or possibly even "I hope everyone will become a Democrat in the near-to-medium term future", but I'll take it on faith that you are asking a real question.

 

No. The Democrats in their present form are alienating almost everyone with their identity politics and casual disregard for middle America ("basket of deplorables" anyone?). Meanwhile, Generation Z--of which I am part of, albeit barely--is shaping up to be most conservative/libertarian generation in recent history. (source)

 

However, I do predict that the parties are going to realign in the 2020s. Trump is obviously a new breed of Republican, and while the Democrats aren't going to be stable much longer, they aren't going to just die either, not after 200 years on the national stage. We'll likely see them reemerge from the 2020s as a party of Silicon Valley centrist technocrats that admire China's way of doing things.

 

General Consensus: Trump Republicans and Zuckerberg Democrats

 

Ok, here is where you are on a little bit firmer ground.

 

I would add "Berniecrats".  

 

I can't see Zuckerberg as the next Bernie Sanders.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#18
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

 

 

Speaking strictly for myself, I find it very difficult to avoid confirmation bias.

 

One technique I use is to assume the premise of someone I am arguing against is correct.  I mean as opposed to "well I am not even going to consider that possibility since I don't trust the source."  I then try to think out the logical conclusions.  

 

Also, when I notice myself uncomfortable about a certain line of argument, I try to figure out the source of that discomfort. 

 

Is it because it challenges a pre-conceived notion that I have?

 

Or is it just because of what I regard as obvious flaws in reasoning by the person presenting the argument?

 

If it challenges a pre - conceived notion, then I have to acknowledge that there may be some validity to what is being argued.

 

If there are what I consider obvious flaws in reasoning, then I point those out and let the other person defend that line of reasoning.

 

I think these (and other such) techniques are important to attaining a truly scientific approach to social problems.  Otherwise, we all just become highly emotional opinion making machines who become increasingly disconnected from reality.


  • Unity likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#19
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

With the gay marriage being repealed sooner, might as well wait a 100 years until transgender people can join the military and gays can marry again. You know how long it took for people to,realize, minorities were people? Decades my friend and we need a decade more to fight against those that want to turn earth into a barren wasteland. As which, will be the most likely scenario due to the fact America, china, and and India refuses to get better energy. Sometimes I wish I had a death note.



#20
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

^^^I think your point is well taken  I think we are suffering through a kind of future shock (remember the Tofflers) on cultural issues.  So a kind of war is developing between the rapid adapters and the entrenched traditionalists.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users