I'm a Libertarian, but I do tend to vote for Republican candidates. IMHO both parties want government to interfere with things it has no business in. Republicans want to have government interference in our personal lives (as you noted), and Democrats want government interference in our economic lives (B. Hussein Obama's famous doctrine of "wealth redistribution" comes to mind). Give me a dysfunctional government that gets nothing done, and I am a happy camper.NiMexicatl wrote:Coming from someone who votes Democrat while still supporting gun rights, don't any of you think that it might be possible that if the Republican party stopped pushing to pass laws infringing on constitutionally afforded rights that aren't the second ammendment (as decided by the supreme court) things might improve a little?
Gay marraige, abortion laws under the guise of womens health, etc. Why are these things always a hot topic? Why is universal healthcare a problem? Most sensible non-BLM supporting liberals see things in a similar light as most other sensible people. People's rights shouldn't be trampled on, especially those deemed to be fortified by the constitution and that people deserve a little common decency.
While we all have arguments over things that shouldn't even be an argument everytging becomes polarized. Don't you expect a little bit of pushback when there are a few more ammendments than just the second?
A more moderate party draws votes, and in a two party system votes influence platforms. A republican party that isn't infected with overbearing religous morality, anti-science, heartless self interest, and wall building might just make for a democratic party that isn't infected with antigun, black lives matter, make everyone feel like a snowflake, hand outedness.
I don't deny there's an issue on our side of things. Just that you can't have a group of people go off the deep end and not expect some people on the other side to respond in kind.
That said, I must disagree that the things you have listed are "Constitutionally afforded rights". Rights are "afforded" to us by our creator at the time of our birth. They are not bestowed upon us by some benevolent government. The best that the constitution can do is promise that the government will not infringe on the rights that we have, and ensure that we have the ability to defend our rights if the government tries to overstep its bounds.
Also, I can not find the right to marriage mentioned anywhere in my copy of the constitution, and I think that the government has no business regulating the private contractual arrangement that we call marriage, or the religious ceremony (and commitment) that is called by the same name. Ensure that parents are taking care of their kids in all circumstances and otherwise stay out of it. I know that a majority of SC justices disagree with me and IMHO they are wrong.