Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Bogie on August 11, 2011, 01:44:57 PM
-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to outline my platform for my administration after I'm elected. The prime focus is the economy. ONLY the economy. Grow business, grow jobs, grow our nation. So I pledge to not do ANYTHING that involves gay marriage, abortion, or any of that other crap. NOTHING BUT THE ECONOMY. If I do a good job with that stuff, then we can tackle all the other issues during my second term. Thank you."
-
...and my 1st executive order will be to end Homeland Security"
-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to outline my platform for my administration after I'm elected. The prime focus is the economy. ONLY the economy. Grow business, grow jobs, grow our nation. So I pledge to not do ANYTHING that involves gay marriage, abortion, or any of that other crap. NOTHING BUT THE ECONOMY. If I do a good job with that stuff, then we can tackle all the other issues during my second term. Thank you."
Awesome...can I vote twice? Please? What if I'm homeless or in college? :)
-
Awesome...can I vote twice? Please? What if I'm homeless or in college? :)
birdman, you can only vote twice if you a D after your name and are voting for a person with a D after his/her name. You may also vote twice if you are taking a dirt nap, but only for the latter of the above condition.
-
birdman, you can only vote twice if you a D after your name and are voting for a person with a D after his/her name. You may also vote twice if you are taking a dirt nap, but only for the latter of the above condition.
Crap. What if I pay a ton of taxes...do I get to be fairly represented? Others get to vote twice.
-
Even better:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to outline my platform for my administration after I'm elected. The prime focus is the economy. ONLY the economy. Grow business, grow jobs, grow our nation. I will do this by REDUCING the scope of government involvement in business restrictions. Government will SHRINK under my administration. So I pledge to not do ANYTHING that involves gay marriage, abortion, or any of that other crap. NOTHING BUT THE ECONOMY. If I do a good job with that stuff, then we can tackle all the other issues during my second term. Thank you."
-
A candidate who was serious and explicit about his desire to shrink entitlements and cut fed.gov would draw out the eaters and .gov employees by the millions.
-
Can I be Secretary of the Treasury? I will provide you with 2 lbs of thick cut bacon a week during your term as compensation for the appointment. :angel:
-
Wright bacon? It's like meat candy.
-
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to outline my platform for my administration after I'm elected. The prime focus is the economy. ONLY the economy. Grow business, grow jobs, grow our nation. So I pledge to not do ANYTHING that involves gay marriage, abortion, or any of that other crap. NOTHING BUT THE ECONOMY. If I do a good job with that stuff, then we can tackle all the other issues during my second term. Thank you."
Yawn. Same old fallacy we keep hearing from you. This refusal to take a stand on social issues would be suicidal. The social issues can draw small-government social conservatives to the polls like crazy (see the 2004 election (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04gay.html)). Waffling on social issues alienates a huge chunk of the Tea Party base. (Of course the Tea Party is not a social issue movement, but many of its members are socially conservative.)
Any Republican who wants to win will promise to shrink govt (as AZRedhawk suggested) and never let himself be caught compromising on the social conservative side. That being said, I agree that the economy will probably be the most important issue. But a politician can shrink govt. and stay socially conservative at the same time.
-
Wright bacon? It's like meat candy.
2nd best bacon available, 1st is what I raise myself =D
As to a winning GOP platform? In reality there isn't one and we will likely end up with Romney on the ticket iwth a weak sister tea party wanna be for a the VP slot. I think I'd rather see Obama ge a 2nd term than that. at least then we'd have a better chance at a real re-start.
-
. I think I'd rather see Obama ge a 2nd term than that. at least then we'd have a better chance at a real re-start.
:facepalm: NO! NO! NO! NO! A zillion times NO!
Geeesh....even PeeWee Herman would be better. Heck, Darth Vader would be an IMPROVEMENT.
-
The government should leave all social issues alone.
If we ever get an American party, I might vote for that.
jim
Hey charby, Palin wants to stay in your hood for a few nights.
-
:facepalm: NO! NO! NO! NO! A zillion times NO!
Geeesh....even PeeWee Herman would be better. Heck, Darth Vader would be an IMPROVEMENT.
Darth Vader might actually be an improvement, yes. I don't think he could collapse the system any faster, but at least he'd run it efficiently into the ground.
Otherwise, Obama IS better than a moderate go-along-to-get-along Republican. That type of Republican will only slow our decent into the abyss, ensuring that conservatives are blamed for the collapse.
If we are to collapse, I want liberals clearly at fault. Otherwise, the rebuilding will be impossible.
Thus, unless we get a REAL conservative for the Republicans, I would prefer Obama win and complete his destruction of this nation.
-
2nd best bacon available, 1st is what I raise myself =D
As to a winning GOP platform? In reality there isn't one and we will likely end up with Romney on the ticket iwth a weak sister tea party wanna be for a the VP slot. I think I'd rather see Obama ge a 2nd term than that. at least then we'd have a better chance at a real re-start.
Much like mccain palin.
Yep.
Rather let the dems get the policy lose on record when it goes dow the tubes due to either socialism or socialism-lite.
At least then we reboot on a field based from competition.
-
Otherwise, Obama IS better than a moderate go-along-to-get-along Republican. That type of Republican will only slow our decent into the abyss, ensuring that conservatives are blamed for the collapse.
Obama, with the republicans owning House and Senate, would be great. Because the Republicans only stand up to big government when the other party's president is in charge. With a McCain type, they would happily screw us in unison.
-
Wright Bacon ends and pieces. 3 Lbs, $6 lots of good thick non-fatty pieces of meat in there.
-
Darth Vader might actually be an improvement, yes. I don't think he could collapse the system any faster, but at least he'd run it efficiently into the ground.
Otherwise, Obama IS better than a moderate go-along-to-get-along Republican. That type of Republican will only slow our decent into the abyss, ensuring that conservatives are blamed for the collapse.
If we are to collapse, I want liberals clearly at fault. Otherwise, the rebuilding will be impossible.
Thus, unless we get a REAL conservative for the Republicans, I would prefer Obama win and complete his destruction of this nation.
Exactly my point. We're gonna auger in one way or another with out real conservative reform. Just as well get it over with sooner rather than later.
-
If we crash and burn now, there are enough folks who understand libertarian/classical liberal economics to help put the ship aright.
20 years from now our educational system will have finally purged any understanding of those principles from the publics consciousness. It will be an even more impossible task to get back to our founding principles.
I'll still vote for the guy/gal who will help turn the ship of state the right direction but I have very little expectation things will get better.
-
If we crash and burn now, there are enough folks who understand libertarian/classical liberal economics to help put the ship aright.
20 years from now our educational system will have finally purged any understanding of those principles from the publics consciousness. It will be an even more impossible task to get back to our founding principles.
I'll still vote for the guy/gal who will help turn the ship of state the right direction but I have very little expectation things will get better.
There's also a little matter of:
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
I don't want to push dealing with the collapse of the entitlement state off to my children. Either I will vote for someone who will reform, reduce, and (note that's not an "or")repeal it or I want the Democrats to go full speed ahead and crash it.
-
Prediction time. If, and I mean If the Republicants can make this election all about jobs and only about jobs, I predict Perry will get the nomination and possibly win.
However. Perry's mannerisims are a lot like GWB. Alot. Expect a new level of dirty politics.
Of course, the GOP usually can't resist wandering into social conservatisim, and Perry is defintely a social conservative. Expect much pandering to the (R) base.... [barf]
-
However. Perry's mannerisims are a lot like GWB. Alot. Expect a new level of dirty politics.
This...but with one exception. Perry is the Texas version of Bill Clinton....he can sound good to whomever he's talking to at the time....social conservatives, business leaders, Tea Party, RHINO's, etc.....he's a master at target marketing.
The problem I have with Perry is that he brings a lot of baggage with him into the race, such as:
1. Approving an illegal income tax: http://www.kutnews.org/post/suit-alleges-perry-approved-unconstitutional-income-tax (http://www.kutnews.org/post/suit-alleges-perry-approved-unconstitutional-income-tax)
2. Controversy with the Texas Enterprise Fund: http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/report-texas-enterprise-fund-falls-short-on-jobs-904912.html (http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/report-texas-enterprise-fund-falls-short-on-jobs-904912.html), http://info.tpj.org/watchyourassets/enterprise2/index (http://info.tpj.org/watchyourassets/enterprise2/index)
3. Selling Texas-built roads to foreign companies: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/perrys-toll-road-sins-mostly-in-woulda-coulda-193585.html (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/perrys-toll-road-sins-mostly-in-woulda-coulda-193585.html)
4. Using state funds to bring Formula 1 Racing to Austin, and charges of bribery on the F1 head: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/8648669/Formula-One-chief-executive-Bernie-Ecclestone-formally-accused-of-paying-bribe.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/8648669/Formula-One-chief-executive-Bernie-Ecclestone-formally-accused-of-paying-bribe.html), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/texas-teacher-layoffs_n_860447.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/texas-teacher-layoffs_n_860447.html)
5. Wishy-washy illegal alien policies: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/rick-perrys-immigration-journey-could-haunt-presidential-race.php (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/rick-perrys-immigration-journey-could-haunt-presidential-race.php), http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/rick-perrys-immigration-journey-could-haunt-presidential-race.php (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/rick-perrys-immigration-journey-could-haunt-presidential-race.php)
6. Massive cuts to education in Texas while other business-related projects remain untouched: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7465134.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7465134.html), http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015476534_perry01.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015476534_perry01.html), http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43525
Perry's been good at letting his policy controversies slide off his back in Texas....but I don't think he'll be as successful in the national media. And I'd rather see him get trounced in the GOP primary by a good candidate than to win the Repub nomination and get blasted by all of this in the general election....and guarantee Obama a second go at gutting our nation.... :facepalm:
-
Prediction time. If, and I mean If the Republicants can make this election all about jobs and only about jobs, I predict Perry will get the nomination and possibly win.
However. Perry's mannerisims are a lot like GWB. Alot. Expect a new level of dirty politics.
Of course, the GOP usually can't resist wandering into social conservatisim, and Perry is defintely a social conservative. Expect much pandering to the (R) base.... [barf]
"Pandering to the base" and "doing what the people legitimately demand" are often the same thing.
But when does the GOP "wander into social issues"? Isn't it usually the Left picking those battles?
-
"Pandering to the base" and "doing what the people legitimately demand" are often the same thing.
But when does the GOP "wander into social issues"? Isn't it usually the Left picking those battles?
Yes, but when conservatives play defense and not capitulate to the libertines, that's picking a fight!
-
"Pandering to the base" and "doing what the people legitimately demand" are often the same thing.
But when does the GOP "wander into social issues"? Isn't it usually the Left picking those battles?
Pandering to the base in this election cycle will be death. The only way to get independants and (D)'s over is to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. On your second point, kind of. I expect this election cycle to see the left trying to deflect the jobs discussion as much as possible and make it about gay marriage, etc.
-
No no no NO damn it! Going weaksauce to try to appeal to Dems and the mythical independents is a death wish. McCain lost because he failed to get the people on his side excited, not because he failed to pander enough.
-
No no no NO damn it! Going weaksauce to try to appeal to Dems and the mythical independents is a death wish. McCain lost because he failed to get the people on his side excited, not because he failed to pander enough.
This too.
McCain only just barely got my vote. I wasn't really excited about voting for him, I swallowed my bile and did so.
McCain 2.0 (Or Dole 3.0, or GHWBush 4.0, whomever that may be, Romney is foremost in my mind) won't be getting my vote. Never again. (And if the party leaders knew how loyal a Republican I've been, they should be afraid.)
-
Hey charby, Palin wants to stay in your hood for a few nights.
She is already here attending the Iowa State Fair.
-
Pandering to the base in this election cycle will be death. The only way to get independants and (D)'s over is to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. On your second point, kind of. I expect this election cycle to see the left trying to deflect the jobs discussion as much as possible and make it about gay marriage, etc.
I don't know about that. That backfired on them in 2004, when social conservatives turned out in high numbers to vote for irrational marriage amendments, and against Kerry/Edwards. On the other hand, they may think they need to pander to their own base (not homosexuals, so much as irrationalists), by pushing the issue. Fortunately, irrational marriage mostly sells to judges; the electorate tends to vote against it, when they won't vote on much of anything else.
You're cracking me up, though. You think that jobs, jobs, jobs is not pandering to the base; only responding sensibly to irrational marriage demands is pandering. :lol:
But keep in mind, no one's saying the GOP should try to make this into the marriage election. We're just pointing out the fact borne out in past elections, that being squishy on social issues (when pressed) loses votes.
Edit: changed "bans" to "amendments." The amendments might ban the legal recognition of irrational marriages, but the word "ban" encourages the lie that irrational marriage is an individual rights issue.
-
I don't know about that. That backfired on them in 2004, when social conservatives turned out in high numbers to vote for irrational marriage amendments, and against Kerry/Edwards. On the other hand, they may think they need to pander to their own base (not homosexuals, so much as irrationalists), by pushing the issue. Fortunately, irrational marriage mostly sells to judges; the electorate tends to vote against it, when they won't vote on much of anything else.
You're cracking me up, though. You think that jobs, jobs, jobs is not pandering to the base; only responding sensibly to irrational marriage demands is pandering. :lol:
But keep in mind, no one's saying the GOP should try to make this into the marriage election. We're just pointing out the fact borne out in past elections, that being squishy on social issues (when pressed) loses votes.
Edit: changed "bans" to "amendments." The amendments might ban the legal recognition of irrational marriages, but the word "ban" encourages the lie that irrational marriage is an individual rights issue.
My point is that being against gay marriage and saying the right thing at the prayer breakfasts isn't going to help the economy, balance the budget, get our credit rating back, cut government spending, keep taxes from being increased, etc. It might help bring out the conservative base, but without independants and swing voting democraps, the election will be lost. Those voters are going to be voting almost entirely on the economy this cycle.
-
My point is that being against gay marriage and saying the right thing at the prayer breakfasts isn't going to help the economy, balance the budget, get our credit rating back, cut government spending, keep taxes from being increased, etc. It might help bring out the conservative base, but without independants and swing voting democraps, the election will be lost. Those voters are going to be voting almost entirely on the economy this cycle.
Indies and swing voters also see the issue in a 20th century "left/right" polarity, and a "centrist" that will appeal to them will be someone that just wants to fix the job and investment situation without going off the Neo-Con or fundie deep end.
And tying an economic candidate to a bunch of southern fundie melodrama is going to turn off the people that see politics as a two-axis system of not just left/right, but also freedom/statism.
We'll see what the policy-fusion results will be as the primaries unfold.
Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea PartyTM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.
-
Indies and swing voters also see the issue in a 20th century "left/right" polarity, and a "centrist" that will appeal to them will be someone that just wants to fix the job and investment situation without going off the Neo-Con or fundie deep end.
And tying an economic candidate to a bunch of southern fundie melodrama is going to turn off the people that see politics as a two-axis system of not just left/right, but also freedom/statism.
We'll see what the policy-fusion results will be as the primaries unfold.
Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea PartyTM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.
Sigworthy quote.
The GOP at its heart uses social conservatisim to snow the base, meanwhile spending like drunken sailors on payday, kowtowing to the demoncrats, and generally selling thier souls to make a buck.
-
Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea PartyTM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.
The GOP at its heart uses social conservatisim to snow the base, meanwhile spending like drunken sailors on payday, kowtowing to the demoncrats, and generally selling thier souls to make a buck.
Both quotes are sigworthy..... :cool:
-
You are not going to see a fiscally conservative/economically rational candidate win without the social conservative vote. Period.
Give them the back of your hand and you'll be McCain in 2000.
Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea PartyTM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.
All the laws & rules are stacked against displacing the two parties. Best bet is to infiltrate the GOP, like many did in 2009-2010, but more so.
-
You are not going to see a fiscally conservative/economically rational candidate win without the social conservative vote. Period.
Give them the back of your hand and you'll be McCain in 2000.
What does being fiscally conservative/economically rational have to do with McCain?.....he wasn't any of that....
-
Obama is vulnerable to losing the votes of some anti-war democrats and independents, for escalating Afghanistan and getting us into another war in Libya over something that has nothing to do with us. A Republican with a strong non-interventionist stance could win some of their votes. The Neo-cons won't like it, but when the alternative is Obama, they will vote for the Republican whether they like it or not. A candidate could get the votes of both independents and the socially liberal as well as limited government and socially conservative folks by taking a constitutionalist/10th amendment stance, saying that social issues need to be resolved on the state level rather than forced on everyone by the national government. The candidate could say that while he has strong moral opinions against abortion and gay marriage, his adherence to the Constitution would prevent him from advocating laws addressing those issues on the national level.
-
I think any Repub candidate can just pay a little attention to those social issues without making them central. Every time they are brought up, just remind people that cutting spending and getting the economy back in shape will be the primary goals for the next 4 years.
I think you also need to remember that many, if not most, of the independents are not politically between Repubs and Democrats, but likely just people fed up with both parties. A Republican doesn't have to move to the left to get the independent vote.
-
The myth that a candidate needs independents is poison. It's why tools like McCain and Romney do so well. Instead of voting for someone who represents actual conservative values, folks try to game the system and primary the most "electable" candidate, where electable is defined as squishy moderate.
Any attempt to actually reform fed.gov debt will be met by fierce opposition by from .gov employees protecting their jobs. And I include the parasites getting entitlements as fed.gov workers. Their job is to vote Dem, and they get paid in welfare.
-
The President can do about jack concerning "social conservative" issues so why pander to either side?
Simply say that,
"Personally, based on my religious (or philosophical, or whatever) beliefs I feel x,y,and z are wrong but it is not the business under the Constitution of the President, or the Federal government for the most part, to make any rules, regulations or laws effecting them.
If there is a place for such legislation it is at the state level, if you wish to focus your energies on those subjects that is the proper place to do so.
This Presidential election is about getting the Federal government back to performing its limited Constitutional duties in a fiscally and morally responsible manner. I will be focussing my energies on that larger purpose."
italics indicate spoken emphasis.
-
Obama is vulnerable to losing the votes of some anti-war democrats and independents...
A Republican candidate will never get any of those votes. The folks on the left currently upset with Obama will never vote for a Republican. To expend energies trying to get their votes is a complete waste, IMO. They will hold their noses and vote for Obama just to vote against any Republican. Their absolute hatred of Republicans will overcome any doubt or concerns about Obama.
A recognizable lefty third party candidate running (Ralph Nader for the umpteenth time) may siphon off some of the unhappy Democrat votes, but the Republican candidate will never receive a meaningful number of crossovers.
eta: In my experience, most "independant" voters are typically lefties trying to claim some non-existant moral high ground by saying they actually think about the issues. In the voting booth, they reach for the Democrat party lever.
-
A Republican candidate will never get any of those votes. The folks on the left currently upset with Obama will never vote for a Republican. To expend energies trying to get their votes is a complete waste, IMO. They will hold their noses and vote for Obama just to vote against any Republican. Their absolute hatred of Republicans will overcome any doubt or concerns about Obama.
A recognizable lefty third party candidate running (Ralph Nader for the umpteenth time) may siphon off some of the unhappy Democrat votes, but the Republican candidate will never receive a meaningful number of crossovers.
Not all "anti-war" Dems are lockstep lefties. By definition anti-war independents aren't either. Many are just as single-issue on that and moderate-ish on other stuff as gun owners are. Everyone is scared about the economy however.
If you can avoid scaring them with "OMG theocracy" and state a position on war that is not actively interventionist and the economy that is principled, many are likely ripe for the picking.
Few people in this country are "liberals", most just want to be left alone by the government in their social activities. Very libertarian in that way.
-
A Republican candidate will never get any of those votes.
Doesn't matter....as long as Obama doesn't get those votes, the GOP candidate has a shot....
....unless the GOP pulls another Dole/McCain RHINO our of their elephantine butt and snatches defeat from the jaws of victory....
-
Anyone worried about a theocracy is so laughably far off base worrying about them is like worrying about the opinions of 9/11 troofers.
The fact that lefties keep trying to use .gov force to compel Americans to accept moral decisions they disagree with and then spin conservatives defending against this as theocratic fundamentalists is truly one of the greatest double speak propaganda victories ever.
-
Anyone worried about a theocracy is so laughably far off base worrying about them is like worrying about the opinions of 9/11 troofers.
The fact that lefties keep trying to use .gov force to compel Americans to accept moral decisions they disagree with and then spin conservatives defending against this as theocratic fundamentalists is truly one of the greatest double speak propaganda victories ever.
That was hyperbole.
The majority of Americans just do not support Federal intervention into morality issues. What is more important, it is not the F-ing Federal government's job to so intervene. Full Stop.
Do what you want on the state level and advocate, via electing Congressmen, to change Federal laws, perhaps even the Connie via amendments.
The Pres should not be involved in any of that. Full stop.
Concerned about schools teaching stuff you don't agree with? The solution isn't Federal "morality rules", it's getting the Feds out of Education entirely.
Proper limited government policies will by definition accomplish all that social conservatives can legitimately want in our pluralistic Republic based on individual rights.
By making the argument about their various pet issues they get people to act against those legitimate limited government goals. It's short-sighted and frankly stupid.
-
What "morality" issues are you talking about? Gay "marriage" is a lefty issue conservatives are defending against. Intelligent design vs evolution in schools is not something I have heard the candidates address. And abortion (for those on the pro-life side) is not a morality issue, it's a human rights issue. If Arkansas decided black folks could be hunted for sport, that is not a states right issue and fed.gov is right in stepping in to prevent genocide. And fed.gov created the mess where slaughtering the unborn is legal and even federally funded, so they can damn well fix the problem they created.
I'm left wondering what issue you think the socially conservative are frothing at the mouth to impose their will about?
-
Marriage is properly a state issue. However part of being in the Union is "full faith and credit", that is a trade-off of the Republic. Don't like gay marriage? Don't gay marry. Worried about economic effects? Get the Federal government out of the "promoting marriage" business, whether via tax benefits or whatever, entirely.
Abortion is homicide plain and simple, whether justifiable, excusable, negligent or some flavor of actively criminal. Homicide is a state issue. There should not have been a Federal nexus in the first place. However, the President cannot overturn Roe v. Wade through his own power and two wrongs (making it a requirement for USSC appointees) don't make a right. Want to get rid of Roe v. Wade? Get enough people in our pluralistic society to amend the Connie.
-
All properly libertarian party line answers. Since that party has demonstrated it is an utter failure at getting enough votes to matter, how about we concentrate on winning an election and fixing the country instead of throwing a hissy fit that no Republican party candidate conforms to the Libertarian party platform?
-
All properly libertarian party line answers. Since that party has demonstrated it is an utter failure at getting enough votes to matter, how about we concentrate on winning an election and fixing the country instead of throwing a hissy fit that no Republican party candidate conforms to the Libertarian party platform?
Strawman.
What I put down is all "small-l" libertarian if "libertarian" at all and limited to those narrow positions that actively cost votes among the non-Republican Party faithful.
I'm not saying run as a gold bug, open-border, isolationist (which are the "L"ibertarian positions that don't get traction with the uncaring middle) but as an actual, limited government, Constitution as written, Republican.
Why would a doctrinaire Repub, not a social conservative single(moralist)-issue tag-along but a limited-government Republican, have real heartburn with any of that?
After all, they can push for more if they want to (and can demonstrate the numbers) after we win teh frikkin' election.
All that kind of statement can do is increase the voter base.
-
And tying an economic candidate to a bunch of southern fundie melodrama is going to turn off the people that see politics as a two-axis system of not just left/right, but also freedom/statism.
No one's calling for anything like that. The OP is calling for GOP candidates to tell half of their own party not to vote for them, right up front. This silly, tired notion is based on the idea that some great mass of independents and libertarians are going to flock to the GOP, and that this is worth the loss of a few bitterly clinging religionists out on the fringe. The problem with this, is that it doesn't reflect the reality of the political landscape, and it doesn't work. The GOP cannot win by alienating a massive chunk of those who favor small government, and are already predisposed to vote for the GOP. That strategy will lose elections. Like Balog said, you're simply calling for a RINO candidate who will fare no better than McCain did in 2008.
Damn your own people, and be not surprised when you lose on election day. Expel the social conservatives from the Tea Party, and see what a meager handful you have left.
No one wants to put the social issues on the back burner more than the social conservatives. Nearly everything we do (on the social front) is a rear-guard action against a left that keeps misusing government. Regardless of all that, however, you will never save the nation economically without us. Without us, you will have no firearms. You will have very little freedom to do much of anything at all.
The GOP at its heart uses social conservatisim to snow the base, meanwhile spending like drunken sailors on payday, kowtowing to the demoncrats, and generally selling thier souls to make a buck.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
-
Fistful,
I disagree.
And I take issue with the claim that...
Gun rights are dependent on supporting abortion bans that simply cannot happen in today's society at a national level, even among Republicans?
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35819
That's the minority holding the majority in the Republican Party hostage to a losing hand that, by definition, violates the entire principle of limited government (in my opinion).
edited because I was way too much of a "jerk" (modified for family friendly) in my initial response. I apologize for the tone to all involved in this thread. There's no excuse.
-
Fistful,
That's BS.
Gun rights are dependent on supporting abortion bans that simply cannot happen in today's society at a national level, even among Republicans?
No, but they are dependent on voters that support that support gun rights. A large share of those voters are also social conservatives. That is what I have been saying, in language that is perfectly clear. Why must I keep repeating myself on this simple point?
The OP called for the GOP to explicitly alienate half of its base, which is idiotic for the reasons already stated. The alternative is not to make the 2012 election into a social issues referendum. That is a false dichotomy. The (wise) alternative is to focus on economics, without alienating the desperately-needed social conservatives.
Edit: Just saw your edits. I was not offended, but I'll modify what I quoted, if you wish.
-
Strawman.
What I put down is all "small-l" libertarian if "libertarian" at all and limited to those narrow positions that actively cost votes among the non-Republican Party faithful.
I'm not saying run as a gold bug, open-border, isolationist (which are the "L"ibertarian positions that don't get traction with the uncaring middle) but as an actual, limited government, Constitution as written, Republican.
Why would a doctrinaire Repub, not a social conservative single(moralist)-issue tag-along but a limited-government Republican, have real heartburn with any of that?
After all, they can push for more if they want to (and can demonstrate the numbers) after we win teh frikkin' election.
All that kind of statement can do is increase the voter base.
Abolition of fed.gov recognition of marriage is not small l libertarian commonly accepted, at least not from where I sit. And very few social conservatives take a "ban it all right now or nothing" approach to abortion. I also disagree that homicide is entirely a states rights issue. The states do not (or should not, in my view) have the right to suspend the 4th amendment, or legalize murdering x ethnic/religious group etc. The Bill of Rights is a binding agreement on the states as well as fed.gov imho.
Also, in an unusual move for me I agree with fisty on his last post.
-
No, but they are dependent on voters that support that support gun rights. A large share of those voters are also social conservatives. That is what I have been saying, in language that is perfectly clear. Why must I keep repeating myself on this simple point?
The OP called for the GOP to explicitly alienate half of its base, which is idiotic for the reasons already stated. The alternative is not to make the 2012 election into a social issues referendum. That is a false dichotomy. The (wise) alternative is to focus on economics, without alienating the desperately-needed social conservatives.
Edit: Just saw your edits. I was not offended, but I'll modify what I quoted, if you wish.
I think that's what we're saying. Any conservative candidate with any kind of track record will already have a position on social issues, easily researched and discussed. However, to make this election about anything but the economy and growth of leviathian is death.
-
The wording was bad in the OP but I don't see it as "alienating" a rational, intelligent base who isn't looking for a reason to be even more offended.
First, that stuff can't be a priority for a President or Congress right now, second, it isn't really Federal stuff anyway, and, third, the President has little to no ability to make any real changes on those issues even if they were Fed issues.
The sooner folks on both sides, who apparently don't understand civics, are gently educated on the fact that we don't have a King and that they are doing the same thing the folks they disagree with are doing by trying to make Federal issues out of what are properly state issues, the better.
The "we (Republicans/limited gov't./ fiscal conservatives) need them (primarily Social cons)" works the other way even more. There are not enough socially conservative voters to win on that platform if the big middle; which has been trending secular, not thrilled with abortion but against outright bans, not necessarily pro-gay marriage but against unequal treatment, pro-gun and pro limited government, realizes they agree on far more than they disagree on.
-
You deal with what you have. We all agree on not putting the focus on social issues. I agree that it isn't a fed issue, but even if the Potus can't directly affect it people still care about his position on those things.
However, there is a long running trend on APS of socially liberal folks bitching about the horrid millstone of social conservatives, and wishing for a candidate who could tell those icky religious folks to go f*** themselves but likes guns. It's a bit of a meme at this point, and I think that was the lens fisty and I have been viewing this thread through.
-
Abolition of fed.gov recognition of marriage is not small l libertarian commonly accepted, at least not from where I sit. And very few social conservatives take a "ban it all right now or nothing" approach to abortion. I also disagree that homicide is entirely a states rights issue. The states do not (or should not, in my view) have the right to suspend the 4th amendment, or legalize murdering x ethnic/religious group etc. The Bill of Rights is a binding agreement on the states as well as fed.gov imho.
Also, in an unusual move for me I agree with fisty on his last post.
Again, strawman.
Who said "abolish Fed recognition of marriage"? I said "apply full faith and credit to state decisions on the subject" and also, if someone has heartburn with gays getting the same benefits as heteros, the proper, rational on a limited government/equal rights basis response isn't to deny homos the benefits but to deny them to all married couples. Which is the proper response from a tax basis anyway if "simplifying the tax code and easing the individual's tax burden" is something a person genuinely cares about.
Obviously, the states' can't selectively "okay" killing any "X" group, but "unborn babies" aren't a "group", any more than "burglars" are also a "group"; for whom, by the way, the states' have decided to limit its protection against homicide in certain limited and voter-determined circumstances.
Again, state's should be able to regulate abortion but "when personhood begins" is a philosophical question that medical science can only inform and which, in the end, will be up to the individual to decide. Thus the overwhelming support, however distasteful, for 1st trimester legality informed by new medical discoveries.
-
Again, strawman.
Who said "abolish Fed recognition of marriage"? I said "apply full faith and credit to state decisions on the subject" and also, if someone has heartburn with gays getting the same benefits as heteros, the proper, rational on a limited government/equal rights basis response isn't to deny homos the benefits but to deny them to all married couples. Which is the proper response from a tax basis anyway if "simplifying the tax code and easing the individual's tax burden" is something a person genuinely cares about.
Obviously, the states' can't selectively "okay" killing any "X" group, but "unborn babies" aren't a "group", any more than "burglars" are also a "group"; for whom, by the way, the states' have decided to limit its protection against homicide in certain limited and voter-determined circumstances.
Again, state's should be able to regulate abortion but "when personhood begins" is a philosophical question that medical science can only inform and which, in the end, will be up to the individual to decide. Thus the overwhelming support, however distasteful, for 1st trimester legality informed by new medical discoveries.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with tax benefits or fairness, it's use of force to compel social acceptance. Bolded part is entirely incorrect. And I don't see this "overwhelming support" you speak of, so pony up some data or let's just agree to disagree.
-
Balog,
Like you I'm definitely viewing "social cons", with whom I group myself morally, through a lens.
That lens is those idiotic Pledges which, once signed, put the candidate on record as, for example, supporting overturning Roe v. Wade (which I too would like to do on Constitutional grounds) and using that as a litmus test for otherwise sound, Senate-approvable, Justices, which means they just lost or made uneasy the majority of potential voters who see that as code for "ban all abortions even life of mother etc. etc."
Which, unfortunately is in fact the position of many of the social con groups that put out the damn pledges in the first place.
If the candidate sensibly refuses to sign due to the pledge's moronic lack of nuance they lose those arch-social cons. You can't even agree with those folks in principle, if you aren't in lockstep in practice you are an outcast.
Which is not the way to win national office.
-
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35819
"The rest of the poll had good news and bad news for the pro-life community. While U.S. adults think third-trimester abortions (86-10 percent) and second-trimester abortions (71-24 percent) should be illegal, they believe first-trimester abortions should be legal, 62-35 percent. The second-trimester data is particularly good news for pro-life groups who are in the middle of a major push to pass state laws prohibiting abortion at 20 weeks on the basis that the unborn child feels pain."
Pushing 2/3 is overwhelming considering the subject will need to be voted on. This is consistent with other polling on the subject and the majority number continues to increase. Particularly when you add the (minority of such in fact) nuances of "life of the mother" and "incest/rape".
How are babies a "group"? They share no common characteristic other than being babies. "Armed Robbers" share no common charateristics other than being armed robbers. Bolded part is absolutely factual. But then again I'm against Federal involvement in "discrimination" in the majority of cases regardless.
Gay marriage does not affect you in any way, particularly if tax dollars are removed from the equation, any more than hetero marriage.
-
Balog,
Like you I'm definitely viewing "social cons", with whom I group myself morally, through a lens.
That lens is those idiotic Pledges which, once signed, put the candidate on record as, for example, supporting overturning Roe v. Wade (which I too would like to do on Constitutional grounds) and using that as a litmus test for otherwise sound, Senate-approvable, Justices, which means they just lost or made uneasy the majority of potential voters who see that as code for "ban all abortions even life of mother etc. etc."
Which, unfortunately is in fact the position of many of the social con groups that put out the damn pledges in the first place.
If the candidate sensibly refuses to sign due to the pledge's moronic lack of nuance they lose those arch-social cons. You can't even agree with those folks in principle, if you aren't in lockstep in practice you are an outcast.
Which is not the way to win national office.
Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Broad statements about the majority of potential voters don't agree with my experiences and need some support to be accepted. And "I kinda support the biased poll about abortion" does not equal "I won't vote for anyone to the right of me on abortion."
If fed.gov was requiring vehement condemnation of homosexuality would that "still not effect me" if no tax dollars were involved? Face it, the push to recognize gay marriage does affect society.
I agree with the "all or nothing" nature of some social cons, but I don't agree that they have a serious effect on people one way or another.
-
We're going to have to disagree. Our premises on these few issues are different.
-
Yeah, the Feds calling homos "bad", if it had practical effects on their rights, would be wrong.
But what is wrong with saying "homo marriage is the same"? How does that, in a practical or financial way, affect anyone?
When it comes to "can't opt out" in terms of landlords or churches then that is an intrusion in "support" of gay marriage which I no more support than I do intrusions on behalf of any "protected class". Simply recognizing it, but not requiring you to do anything, doesn't.
-
Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.
-
Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.
Please explain this to me. The country where I live recognizes gay marriages performed abroad and extends benefits to married gay couples. This has been the case for five years now. Yet nobody has been oppressed by it.
-
Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.
Umm, no. That is not an inevitability, particularly if we elect limited government folks. Which is the larger goal.
If we don't maximize our limited-government voting block by de-emphasizing SoCon issues then the other guy's "intrusive government" types will recognize gay marriage and ensure it is forced upon us. As we are seeing now.
What we need are truly non-intrusive types in terms of both "traditional morality" and "lefty weirdness", who want the government to just leave us alone.
And we know who those folks are.
-
If the candidate runs on purely conservative ideals (and having a record of having voted/governed that way) will be (and history has shown) the winner. That includes both social and fiscal conservative values.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi776.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fyy50%2Fjdavis147%2Fbeliefs.jpg&hash=33516bc26ea423cbad879adf1080508376606581)
jim
-
What does being fiscally conservative/economically rational have to do with McCain?.....he wasn't any of that....
I wrote two different sentences. They were not necessarily linked. But, in fact, McCain claimed to be fiscally conservative and then proceeded to tell the socons to piss off in 2000. They believed him and voted for somebody else. In 2008, McCain was much more cordial toward socons.
No one's calling for anything like that. The OP is calling for GOP candidates to tell half of their own party not to vote for them, right up front. This silly, tired notion is based on the idea that some great mass of independents and libertarians are going to flock to the GOP, and that this is worth the loss of a few bitterly clinging religionists out on the fringe. The problem with this, is that it doesn't reflect the reality of the political landscape, and it doesn't work. The GOP cannot win by alienating a massive chunk of those who favor small government, and are already predisposed to vote for the GOP. That strategy will lose elections. Like Balog said, you're simply calling for a RINO candidate who will fare no better than McCain did in 2008.
The bold face part is reality as of 2011. Maybe in 50 years it won't be so. As it is, moves that alienate socons by a GOP/some sort of fiscally conservative candidate in favor of the semi-mythical mass of gun-loving fiscally conservative, but socially liberal independent types will result in a net loss of voters. This is foolish, when the aim is to cobble together 50%+1 in enough states to win the electoral college.
Your last point showcases the utopian nature of libertarianism. Federal recognition of marriage will in fact lead to oppression of those who do not recognize it.
Umm, no. That is not an inevitability, particularly if we elect limited government folks. Which is the larger goal.
If we don't maximize our limited-government voting block by de-emphasizing SoCon issues then the other guy's "intrusive government" types will recognize gay marriage and ensure it is forced upon us. As we are seeing now.
What we need are truly non-intrusive types in terms of both "traditional morality" and "lefty weirdness", who want the government to just leave us alone.
And we know who those folks are.
Granted, it is not a physical law, like gravity. But, Balog's point is accurate in the places in western civ where "gay marriade" has been imposed. UK, Canada, and teh USA (among others) have all provided examples to bolster Balog's contention.
To sum up, any viable GOP or fiscally conservative candidate will not do as the OP wrote and cut his campaign's throat.
-
When we are talking about Israel, then I'll give a s### about the Israeli recognition of gay marriage. You're living in an expressly religious state, not likely the .gov is going to persecute Jews for being observant is there? Since it's already happening here in the largely secular country I live in, your observation is wholly irrelevant.
A pastor has been jailed for "hate speech" because they took out newspaper articles qouting anti-homosexual bits of the Bible. Many people have been sued for refusing perform/photograph etc gay marriages.
Libertarians are not trying to stop this. Libertarians want to see gov legitimacy extended to gay marriage.libertarians reveal their deep, deep hypocrisy every time they pimp for gay marriage.
-
No, your argument is this will inevitably happen. There are many countries where gay marriage is recognized and that has not happened at all.
-
The wording was bad in the OP but I don't see it as "alienating" a rational, intelligent base who isn't looking for a reason to be even more offended.
That is simply incorrect. Read it again.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to outline my platform for my administration after I'm elected. The prime focus is the economy. ONLY the economy. Grow business, grow jobs, grow our nation. So I pledge to not do ANYTHING that involves gay marriage, abortion, or any of that other crap. NOTHING BUT THE ECONOMY. If I do a good job with that stuff, then we can tackle all the other issues during my second term. Thank you."
I think that's what we're saying. Any conservative candidate with any kind of track record will already have a position on social issues, easily researched and discussed. However, to make this election about anything but the economy and growth of leviathian is death.
Then, unless someone has called for the latter course, we're probably all in agreement on that point. Bogie will not be offended if I ask who has paid him to make divisive comments to pit us against each other. He constantly accuses other people of that during election years, and here he is on the payroll, it would seem. =|
Because this has to be re-stated infinitely, I'll explain again. There is a big, big difference between focusing on economics, and telling half your base to STFU. I, and others, objected to the latter as a losing proposition. That doesn't mean that our ideal candidate would ignore economics and only talk about marrying heterosexual embryos and leading them in prayer in a public school.
-
No, your argument is this will inevitably happen. There are many countries where gay marriage is recognized and that has not happened at all.
It is happening. We are not discussing hypotheticals, we are discussing what is actually happening, right now, in the actual country in which I live. Why do you keep pretending this is some pretend future menace I'm talking about, when it is events that are currently happening?
-
Can you all stop derailing the thread please?
To respond to makattak (edit: and Tommygun) - Lord Vader was clearly a a great statesman, your attacks are WAY off base. The first death star took twenty years to build (and had the shoddy workmanship typical of union-built machinery), but the second was built within a mere three years, and they were able to cut out much of the typical government / contractor waste whilst doing so. He was also able to cut welfare costs on Alderaan by 100%, and created thousands of jobs in asteroid mining as a by product of that policy. He was (obviously) pro-family values, and reduced spending on the Emperor's pension, security costs and travel expenses by a huge amount.
Vader makes Perry look like a dog by comparison.
-
Can you all stop derailing the thread please?
To respond to makattak (edit: and Tommygun) - Lord Vader was clearly a a great statesman, your attacks are WAY off base. The first death star took twenty years to build (and had the shoddy workmanship typical of union-built machinery), but the second was built within a mere three years, and they were able to cut out much of the typical government / contractor waste whilst doing so. He was also able to cut welfare costs on Alderaan by 100%, and created thousands of jobs in asteroid mining as a by product of that policy. He was (obviously) pro-family values, and reduced spending on the Emperor's pension, security costs and travel expenses by a huge amount.
Vader makes Perry look like a dog by comparison.
I don't know. I'm kind of concerned about his past, abandoning his family and paying no child support. (Not to mention that alleged domestic violence incident.) He may have reformed since then and reached out to his son and daughter, but I'm still a little worried about his sincerity.
-
Can you all stop derailing the thread please?
Vader makes Perry look like a dog by comparison.
Oddly enough, Vader & Perry have something in common....both are fictional characters whose dialogue is written by others....
-
I don't know. I'm kind of concerned about his past, abandoning his family and paying no child support. (Not to mention that alleged domestic violence incident.) He may have reformed since then and reached out to his son and daughter, but I'm still a little worried about his sincerity.
No child support, but no drain on the public treasury either. Lets also remember his criminal justice policy, which avoided the pitfalls of the soft left and hard right, and instead turned unproductive criminals into artworks fit to hang on even the finest walls.
-
Hmmm... you're starting to sway me.
I'm still a little concerned that the son he abandoned became a mass-murdering terrorist, though.
But I do like his management style, he definitely understands how to motivate his subordinates. And is willing to promote on the spot.
-
It is happening. We are not discussing hypotheticals, we are discussing what is actually happening, right now, in the actual country in which I live. Why do you keep pretending this is some pretend future menace I'm talking about, when it is events that are currently happening?
This not an inevitable consequence. It has been headed off in other nations that have legalized gay marriage, why can America not head it off? There is a difference between something being a potential negative concequence and an inevitable one.
[Nevermind the factual questions of whether these lawsuits went anywhere, how much money the people won, and whether they are isolated incidents or samples of a trend]
-
This not an inevitable consequence. It has been headed off in other nations that have legalized gay marriage, why can America not head it off? There is a difference between something being a potential negative concequence and an inevitable one.
[Nevermind the factual questions of whether these lawsuits went anywhere, how much money the people won, and whether they are isolated incidents or samples of a trend]
It has happened. It is currently happening. An established fact is about as "inevitable" as it can be. What Balog wrote is, in the realm of inevitability, roughly equivalent to writing, 'Water is wet," "Space is mostly vacuum," and "No self-respecting man willingly watches Yentl."
Not sure what else folks can do to convince you, if you pull the Adam Savage trick and "reject our reality and replace it with your own."
-
There's an easy solution to this. You limit legal marriages to actual marriages. Tell the irrationalists to pound sand.
Problem solved, reason and rights preserved.
-
It has happened. It is currently happening. An established fact is about as "inevitable" as it can be.
Plural of anecdote. Not data.
-
Plural of anecdote. Not data.
You're just being wilfully obtuse at this point. You're looking at something that is happening, and claiming it won't happen. It is happening. Fact.
You're also saying that fed.gov could recognize GM while also undoing discrimination laws so as to avoid oppressing those who have an objection to it. That's wildly dishonest. The people making the push for GM are doing so in order to be able to have full access to those laws, in order to force social acceptance. Saying homosexuality is morally wrong is a "hate crime" in the view of many of these folks.
-
The people pushing for GM are not a homogenous force.
-
Sure, plenty of useful idiots for whome the expansion of what is already happening will be a surprise, albeit probably a pleasent one. Just like all the naive kids who voted for Obama but were not actually hardline race baiting socialists.
-
Plural of anecdote. Not data.
Yes, data.
da·ta (dt, dt, dät)
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.
4. Plural of datum.
My factual (and therefor falsifiable) claim is that acts such as Balog described have already occurred. Ministers, photographers, and others have already had this occur to them, to be more specific. More as like, we have already discussed them on APS.
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
----Daniel Patrick Moynihan
-
The fact that certain individuals - whose number can apparently be counted on one hand - have been unfairly abused neither means that
1) This abuse is common.
2) This abuse will inevitably occur in the future.
-
I'm not sure if you're being naive or just blinded by your own ideology here, but it's kind of embarassing to watch.
-
Here ya go, fisty and roo_ster.
http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-candidate-paul-shaping-2012-race-205132862.html
"I believe in a very limited role for government. But the prime reason that government exists in a free society is to protect liberty, but also to protect life. And I mean all life," he told a raucous crowd on Saturday.
"You cannot have relative value for life and deal with that. We cannot play God and make those decisions. All life is precious," he said, opening his remarks with an anti-abortion appeal to the social conservatives who have great sway here in Iowa's leadoff caucuses.
Vote for Ron Paul. He's now made the requisite abortion-noises for your demographic.
-
Your concern for the lives of the unborn is as touching as your eloquence in delivery is stirring.
-
Here ya go, fisty and roo_ster.
http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-candidate-paul-shaping-2012-race-205132862.html
Vote for Ron Paul. He's now made the requisite abortion-noises for your demographic.
What's your point? Are you saying that Ron Paul is trying to make this into the abortion election?
-
Here ya go, fisty and roo_ster.
http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-candidate-paul-shaping-2012-race-205132862.html
Vote for Ron Paul. He's now made the requisite abortion-noises for your demographic.
Already did, in the 2008 GOP primary.
Balog has your number.