Romney 2012?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Damici wrote:
Jeezus, man, PLEASE read/listen to what I’ve said a zillion times now. BECAUSE THE RIGHT-WINGERS STILL PREFER FISCAL CONSERVATISM AND STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE (and social moderation) OVER FISCAL LIBERALISM (and social liberalism)!!

You’re telling me a lot of the right-wingers, given that choice, would choose the DEMOCRAT?? What on earth are you talking about??
[/quote]

The right wingers are social conservatives. Sounds to me like your describing the libertarians. They already have a party. Did you vote for them?

202

I’m not even going to respond to that one. Letting disease and unwanted pregnancy run rampant . . . Great platform. You’ll clean up.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
Did you just make an argument for NO sex education?? Is that what you just did??

Tell me you’re joking . . . .

Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
Yeah, because as the Palin family has proven SO well, abstinence-only sex ed is the BEST way to go!! :slight_smile:

Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’

How about no sex education, no absitnence education?

Well, yes, in fact I did.
[/quote]

203

[quote]Damici wrote:
I’m not even going to respond to that one. Letting disease and unwanted pregnancy run rampant . . . Great platform. You’ll clean up.

[/quote]

I’m not letting unwanted pregnancy and disease run rampant. That would be the fault of the sexual revolution and the instant gratification culture we have. Don’t blame me because society decided to do away with shame and guilt.

By the way, you did make a response.

204

Sloth, in which dimension do you live?

In pre-pill and mass produced condom times,you actually think that people used …abstinence successfully?

The sexual “revolution” made today’s young people fuck around more?

Are you sure?

205

All you, buddy! You go on with your bad self with THAT argument!

No further comment needed! :=)

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
I’m not even going to respond to that one. Letting disease and unwanted pregnancy run rampant . . . Great platform. You’ll clean up.

I’m not letting unwanted pregnancy and disease run rampant. That would be the fault of the sexual revolution and the instant gratification culture we have. Don’t blame me because society decided to do away with shame and guilt.

By the way, you did make a response.[/quote]

206

[quote]Damici wrote:
All you, buddy! You go on with your bad self with THAT argument!

No further comment needed! :=)

[/quote]

I wasn’t expecting any.

207

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sloth, in which dimension do you live?

In pre-pill and mass produced condom times,you actually think that people used …abstinence successfully?

The sexual “revolution” made today’s young people fuck around more?

Are you sure?[/quote]

In what reality do you live in, where a person who abstains, becomes pregnant?

208

Why don’t you guys start another thread for the subject of sex ed. This one’s getting dragged off on tangents, and the point of it is to discuss the future (or lack thereof) of the Republican party. There’s no point in trying to argue the merits of every single political issue in this thread. That’s not what it’s about.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Sloth, in which dimension do you live?

In pre-pill and mass produced condom times,you actually think that people used …abstinence successfully?

The sexual “revolution” made today’s young people fuck around more?

Are you sure?

In what reality do you live in, where a person who abstains, becomes pregnant? [/quote]

209

[quote]Damici wrote:
Did you just make an argument for NO sex education?? Is that what you just did??

Tell me you’re joking . . . .

[/quote]

Well, we have more sex education than we’ve ever had, and teen pregnancy and STD rates are through the roof. Seems like sex education isn’t working too well.

210

[quote]Damici wrote:
Why don’t you guys start another thread for the subject of sex ed. This one’s getting dragged off on tangents, and the point of it is to discuss the future (or lack thereof) of the Republican party. There’s no point in trying to argue the merits of every single political issue in this thread. That’s not what it’s about.

[/quote]

I thought it was about discussing Romney running?

211

[quote]Damici wrote:
Hmm. If Reagan, for example, was guilty of it, how is it that he was colossally successful politcally? Hmmm? Because you win elections by winning the MIDDLE, the swing voters.
[/quote]

No, because the religious right was in its infancy, and he talked the talk very well. The addition of Reagan Democrats gave him the blowout of 1984, but he never would have gotten there without the Goldwaterites and social conservatives.

You don’t get it. There aren’t that many swing voters. The “ENTIRE” swing voter bloc is not more than 5% of the country. That was Karl Rove’s central insight, even if his legacy has essentially collapsed.

Most of the country habitually identifies with one party, and votes for that party. It takes a lot to tear them away from that.

This year, when Republicans were running with the anchor of one of the worst presidents all time, an unpopular war, a sinking economy, and a mediocre candidate with an incoherent message, the GOP still won 46% of the vote! There is not that much of a great moderate middle to be captured.

But if you were to alienate social conservatives (who are not “a few Bible-thumpers”), by going pro-choice, you would lose at least a third of that base. It’s that simple.

The only way you will get evangelicals and born-agains to vote for a pro-choice president is by relentless, paranoid fear-mongering about terrorism and Islam. That was the Giuliani strategy. Didn’t work too well.

212

You’re not following. A few Bible-thumpers might very well stay home. But faced with the alternative of a liberal Democratic candidate, the great majority of them WOULD still vote for the Republican, without a shadow of a doubt.

The few that would stay home are a REAL small fringe, and alienating them should not be feared. PANDERING to them, to the detriment of EVERYTHING ELSE IMAGINABLE is ludicrous.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Hmm. If Reagan, for example, was guilty of it, how is it that he was colossally successful politcally? Hmmm? Because you win elections by winning the MIDDLE, the swing voters.

No, because the religious right was in its infancy, and he talked the talk very well. The addition of Reagan Democrats gave him the blowout of 1984, but he never would have gotten there without the Goldwaterites and social conservatives.

I explained this clearly. Given a choice of a Democrat who is fiscally liberal (and socially liberal) and a Republican who is fiscally conservative (and socially moderate/liberal), who do you think the right-wingers will vote for? The Democrat??

Uh, no. And winning the ENTIRE swing voter block will far more than make up for the few Bible-thumpers who actually decide not to vote in protest.

Election won.

You don’t get it. There aren’t that many swing voters. The “ENTIRE” swing voter bloc is not more than 5% of the country. That was Karl Rove’s central insight, even if his legacy has essentially collapsed.

Most of the country habitually identifies with one party, and votes for that party. It takes a lot to tear them away from that.

This year, when Republicans were running with the anchor of one of the worst presidents all time, an unpopular war, a sinking economy, and a mediocre candidate with an incoherent message, the GOP still won 46% of the vote! There is not that much of a great moderate middle to be captured.

But if you were to alienate social conservatives (who are not “a few Bible-thumpers”), by going pro-choice, you would lose at least a third of that base. It’s that simple.

The only way you will get evangelicals and born-agains to vote for a pro-choice president is by relentless, paranoid fear-mongering about terrorism and Islam. That was the Giuliani strategy. Didn’t work too well.[/quote]

213

And it more broadly, and sensibly, evolved into who the Republicans might want to run. Not arguing the pros and cons of each political issue. That just makes the thread devolve into scattershot nothingness. No problem with discussing it, just start a separate thread.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
Why don’t you guys start another thread for the subject of sex ed. This one’s getting dragged off on tangents, and the point of it is to discuss the future (or lack thereof) of the Republican party. There’s no point in trying to argue the merits of every single political issue in this thread. That’s not what it’s about.

I thought it was about discussing Romney running? [/quote]

214

Well, it did devolve into a “those religious nutjobs, and the nutjobby social conservatism they cling to” fest.

215

And how they affect the party, and the party going forward. That’s very different than devolving into a debate about each particular political issue.

Debating where the party should go is not the same as arguing pro or con on each issue. Again, I have no problem with anyone doing that. But the thread is nine pages long already, so let’s try to keep it focused, and argue about that in another thread if you’d like to.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, it did devolve into a “those religious nutjobs, and the nutjobby social conservatism they cling to” fest. [/quote]

216

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Hmm. If Reagan, for example, was guilty of it, how is it that he was colossally successful politcally? Hmmm? Because you win elections by winning the MIDDLE, the swing voters.

No, because the religious right was in its infancy, and he talked the talk very well. The addition of Reagan Democrats gave him the blowout of 1984, but he never would have gotten there without the Goldwaterites and social conservatives.

I explained this clearly. Given a choice of a Democrat who is fiscally liberal (and socially liberal) and a Republican who is fiscally conservative (and socially moderate/liberal), who do you think the right-wingers will vote for? The Democrat??

Uh, no. And winning the ENTIRE swing voter block will far more than make up for the few Bible-thumpers who actually decide not to vote in protest.

Election won.

You don’t get it. There aren’t that many swing voters. The “ENTIRE” swing voter bloc is not more than 5% of the country. That was Karl Rove’s central insight, even if his legacy has essentially collapsed. .[/quote]

If 3 million would have went McCain instead of Obama we would be having a different discussion. The margin is razor thin and it is mostly morons.

217

Without looking at polls, I bet the Iraq war played a far bigger factor in the Republican defeat than social conservatism.

218

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Without looking at polls, I bet the Iraq war played a far bigger factor in the Republican defeat than social conservatism.[/quote]

No question. As gay marriage or abortion ballot measure votes would indicate.

219

The sex education thing: do you all NOT remember being teenagers? I’m a realist about this. It’s not a question of IF a teenager will learn about sex but from whom. Seriously, do you really think that you can keep teenagers from learning about sex? I also think that keeping it a secret makes it all that more exciting to try.

Again, go back to your teenage years: if it’s something that mom and dad don’t want me to know about, then it’s got to be really good. Teach it in school as a science in a mature fashion and that’s the attitude you will cultivate. Yes, human reproduction is a science.

Pee-pees, boobies, and whoo-whoos are just body parts like any other body parts. I have no doubt that there will be some stupid, immature kids who will laugh and giggle and may even decide to go try it out. But I’m really tired of basing policies on what idiots will do.

I have an intelligent child who I trust to do the right thing. Values come from parents. If you can’t trust your kid, then you messed up somewhere as a parent.

220

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Without looking at polls, I bet the Iraq war played a far bigger factor in the Republican defeat than social conservatism.

No question. As gay marriage or abortion ballot measure votes would indicate.[/quote]

Most measures seeking to prevent gay marriage passed, while I believe every measure seeking to restrict abortion were defeated. Colorado had a proposed amendment that would have defined life as beginning at the moment of conception.

It was defeated by a resounding 75-25 vote. Even Colorado Republican candidates refused to support the amendment saying that it went too far. I thought that was interesting.