[oh_sigh]

That's an old view of the republican party. They were staunchly against gays, and the democrats didn't exactly embrace gays, but they didn't want to make their lives miserable for being gay.

But, we have a new republican party now - one that is centered on Trump at the moment and is entirely concerned with the economics of the middle/working class. I'm glad to see that's here. I've always been conservative leaning, but couldn't countenance being a republican because of their old social views which I thought to be completely backwards.

Now that they've dropped that, and (I think) embraced identity differences, I am more than willing to throw my hat in with them.

[lnrdgmz]

The Republican party has hardly dropped its old social views. Its 2016 platform[1] continues to call for a ban to same-sex marriage, and goes so far as to say that LGBT persons should not be entitled to anti-discriminatory protections. This is despite an attempt by more socially moderate Republicans to craft a more inclusive platform[2].

Its nominee may be an unconventional Republican, but the GOP is still the Grand Old Party.

[1] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-con...

[sp527]

Have you actually read his tax plan?

"If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, 'I win,'"

"All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II."

"No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes."

I think I'll just leave it there. If you read that and still think "this is the man for the job", then I'm not sure what more can be said.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

[blhack]

>I think I'll just leave it there.

I've found that usually when people say things like this, as if the conclusion is extremely obvious, it's because they actually can't articulate why they have the position that they have.

Could you better articulate your point? Here's what I know of what Trump has said:

1) Yes, considerably less tax revenue 2) Which is justifiable because of a massive reduction of our military, and because of vague "waste fraud and abuse".

I guess what I'm getting at is: every single politician talks about cutting taxes. I think there is quite a bit more to be said on this topic.

[runamok]

I have only heard him say he will increase defense spending. Ref: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/09/trump-i-would-incr...

Here is a back of the envelope accounting of his plan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/07/...

All politicians are somewhat hand wavy about getting costs and revenues to line up. Most don't just completely make shit up.

[shrewduser]

the biggest problem i have with trump is his seeming stance on protectionism and anti globalism.

but like most things he says, i'm not sure if he means it.

[Trundle]

That's exactly how he plans to help the working class no? I don't want to get in to whether it will help, just pointing out that you're basically saying "my biggest problem with Trump is the part of his platform you find redeeming".

[elgabogringo]

Is trump for protectionism or just fair trade agreements?

[pinaceae]

what?

have you looked at the positions of the current candidate for VP? the various "bathroom" laws, as currently exhibited in Carolina?

the republicans, especially the evangelicals amongst them are pro LGBT. what. the. hell.

trump's speech got praise by david duke. the grand-wizard of the KKK, in case that isn't clear.

and this is the republican party platform. thiel right in the middle of it. pro big government, how else will you deport 11mio people, enforce law and order and build that wall?

libertarian MY ASS.

[elgabogringo]

People always drag out david duke, but how many Republican offices did that guy ever hold? ZERO.

Meanwhile, how about Democrat Robert Byrd who was an ex-KKK segregationist that was in the senate for FORTY YEARS!

Democrats are the part of slavery and segregation. They fought for slavery, they fought for segregation, they voted against the civil rights acts. TIL.

[ZeroGravitas]

This is a bit of a backhanded-compliment. People are genuinely surprised, if they don't know the history, that the republican's weren't the party of slavery. Just meditate on that fact for a moment.

[pinaceae]

you realize i am talking about current events, right? show me robert byrd's twitter postings please - vs. trump and duke.

if you truly believe that today's democrat party, the one with the black president, is pro-slavery and pro-racism, well, good riddance then.

[elgabogringo]

A) Duke has nothing to do with the republican party. It's not intellectually honest to keep bringing up David Duke as a proof-point that Republicans are racist when you dismiss that only six years ago there was a KKK grand cyclops in the Senate as a Democrat.

B) I don't think Trump is racist. It may also shock you that, despite being the party of the slavery and segregation, I don't think Democrats are racist either. In fact, I am fine having a long political discussion about ideas without ever labeling the other side with a scary name.