[quote]Sloth wrote:
Libertarian Party is that way---->[/quote]
<---- Constitution Party is that way
Actually our arrows should be reversed but oh well
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Lets fix the money situation and the charge towards collectivism. Can we put that as a priority?
[/quote]
Not if you believe the social order must–not should, or could–come first to move away from the nanny state in the first place.[/quote]
I can’t deny that what you are saying is the very path outlined by the lefty thinkers oh so many years ago, who dreamed of a collective America…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]
Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]
This is now the second Presidential election in a row where the republicans have lost to a radical leftist and in 2000 they only just barely scraped together enough votes. This isn’t representative of a current trend that is going to change.
The country has changed radically in the last hundred years and the Republicans need to face up to that reality. The depression era/world war two generation is dying in droves now. Even the early baby boomers are getting old. There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.
On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]
Agreed.
You have a whole party of self righteous people who like to control others.[/quote]
Control as in taking control of 1/6th of the economy. And controlling which doctor you can see and on and on…it’s called obamacare.
Those nasty controlling democrats.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]
Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]
This is now the second Presidential election in a row where the republicans have lost to a radical leftist and in 2000 they only just barely scraped together enough votes. This isn’t representative of a current trend that is going to change.
The country has changed radically in the last hundred years and the Republicans need to face up to that reality. The depression era/world war two generation is dying in droves now. Even the early baby boomers are getting old. There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.
On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]
Agree again. And you don’t have to change your values at all to change the brand.
You just have to stop running on them to start. Project them, live them, love them, own them, but for the love don’t run on them.
Lets fix the money situation and the charge towards collectivism. Can we put that as a priority?
[/quote]
Romney ran on the economy…PERIOD.
He pushed no social agenda.
Romney’s loss had nothing to do with a social agenda.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Lets fix the money situation and the charge towards collectivism. Can we put that as a priority?
[/quote]
Not if you believe the social order must–not should, or could–come first to move away from the nanny state in the first place.[/quote]
I can’t deny that what you are saying is the very path outlined by the lefty thinkers oh so many years ago, who dreamed of a collective America…
[/quote]
It’s referred to as the nanny state for a reason. Big government is the missing father (or mother), the children never born who’d look after you financially and physically in your old age, the extended family and parishioners to help you with your catastrophes . Everyone loves social individualism, nobody loves to have to foot the bill for their weaknesses and lifestyles all by themselves.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Lets fix the money situation and the charge towards collectivism. Can we put that as a priority?
[/quote]
Not if you believe the social order must–not should, or could–come first to move away from the nanny state in the first place.[/quote]
I can’t deny that what you are saying is the very path outlined by the lefty thinkers oh so many years ago, who dreamed of a collective America…
[/quote]
It’s referred to as the nanny state for a reason. Big government is the missing father (or mother), the children never born who’d look after you financially and physically in your old age, the extended family and parishioners to help you with your catastrophes . Everyone loves social individualism, nobody loves to have to foot the bill for their weaknesses and lifestyles all by themselves. [/quote]
So, if I’m summing your position correctly it is a matter of what gets us there first: total economic ruin (cloward-piven) or total moral breakdown (Gramsci)
But then again I would assume you’re seeing both right now.
I don’t think that Repubs need to give up religion. Even the current pres is religious and attends church. I also don’t think that it’s necessarily about social issues because I think we can all agree that Medicare and SS need reform.
Part of it to me is how Repubs seem to treat other people. When Romney made the famous 47% comment he managed to isolate half of the nation. Couple that with the perception that the Reps think that all immigrants legal and illegal are simply a drain on society and only take just manages to piss off a large portion of society. Maybe it’s because of my Mexican heritage but I know how hard Mexicans can work and I know how committed to finding a better life you have to be to cross that dessert. Instead of embracing that work ethic and capitalizing on getting the American dream they seem to focus on keeping the dream only for those of us who were born here. That might not be what’s being explicitly stated by the party but it’s certainly a perception.
There’s also a distinct lack of empathy towards those less fortunate. That also doesn’t sit well with many of us. Not everyone who is poor is there because of lack of hard work or poor choices just like not everyone who is rich is there because of their hard work. And while we’re on the subject of hard work you can’t be a lawyer and talk about how hard you work to a bunch of people who do more manual work or work in McDonalds and expect any sort of sympathy. I always make sure and emphasize to other people that I’ve been very lucky in many, many ways to have what I do and I don’t take that for granted. Instead they make those people feel like crap about themselves. Sure, Obama comes from those same lines as Romney but he was also the victor and didn’t have to overcome stereotypes and perceptions.
There was an earlier comment about how it was libs who wanted change and conservatives wanted status quo. But America is changing not standing still. If the Republican Party wants to stay relevant in the future they need to start changing with the rest of society. Putting our heads in the sand and hoping that people see the way that we do is getting us nowhere.
james
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Everyone loves social individualism, nobody loves to have to foot the bill for their weaknesses and lifestyles all by themselves. [/quote]
Yep. It’s been said a thousand times - fiscal conservatism can’t operate with social libertarianism. It can’t work.
Note: there is a distinction here between social libertarianism and being socially moderate. There aren’t two poles, one with authoritarian rules and the other with unrestrained “if it feels good, do it” libertarianism. There are points in between, caricatures aside.
But if we abandon basic cultural conservatism - the idea that some actions taken by individuals are good, and some are bad, and it’s ok to say so, and sometimes even ok to do something about it - in the name of non-judgmentalism of the libertarian stripe, kiss fiscal conservatism goodbye.
Does the GOP need to moderate socially? Sure, to an extent, I don’t disagree with that, although mainly its national candidates need to, not the rank and file. But no society can last long with a libertarian social ethic, for the same reason socialism fails - sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money to keep cleaning up the mess left behind by the bad choices made.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all congratualtions to all of the liberals on the thread. It was your night last night.
The following is what I believe to be the reasons why Obama was reelected last evening.
It should be very obvious to everyone (as it is to those of us who have lived through many Presidential elections) that Brack Obama has not been treated the same as any other President, or candidate for the office of the Presidency. This is the single worst economy that we have seen since the great depression yet how many serious questions were asked of obama regarding the economy by the press?
Furthermore, how many tough questions were asked of Obama regarding his various foreign policy blunders including Benghazi? I submit to you that if any republican were to have a sitting Ambassador raped, tortured and murdered on his watch it would have been front page news in every newspaper and the lead story on every single broadcast outlet, as it should be.
Now follow that horrendous act with a half hearted cover up “it was a video that caused this” and the media would have been screaming for impeachment. Yet, it was not even an issue for old Barack. So the number one reason for Obama’s reelection is that his friends in the media ran exceptional cover for him and it worked out quite well!
Along with the media “cover-up” Nanny statedom is upon us. We no longer get to look ahead and think, “gee if this keeps going we’re going to be in trouble.” We are in trouble! It is very difficult to defeat someone who wants to hand you free things at someone else’s expense. You neither feel guilt for taking it, or understand that it’s coming from another hard working American soul.
Just like the screaming woman on the video. “I want some of that Obama money.” Interviewer: “Where does Obama get the money?” Screaming woman: “I don’t know he has a stash somewhere…” Oh my! Who voted for Obama in larger numbers than for Romney? Women! Why? Because there is something inside of almost every woman that secretly wants to be taken care of. The democratic party has risen to that “challenge” and has taken upon itself the title of “great distributor.” Just the other day I was talking to one of my employees about the election. She said unequivocally that she was voting for Obama.
I naturally asked why and she told me that she wanted free health insurance. Currently, I have a plan where I (the company) pays 75% and the employee pays 25%. But that’s not quite good enough for her. I then informed her that nothing is free in life and that in order for the government to give you something for “free” they must first take it from someone else. Her answer, “I don’t care as long as I get my medical bills paid.” And so it goes, the taste of “free stuff” can be intoxicating to those uninformed of where such a road will eventually take us.
Fnally, Obama tapped into a large number of 18-34 year olds who don’t know what their doing but are not at all afraid to do it. Recently a conservative interviewer was on a typical college campus asking people who they were going to vote for. Most, not surprisingly said Obama. But not one could give a single good reason why or name any accomplishment from his first four years as the reason. When asked why they would choose him, the typical answer, “Um…I dunno I just think he’s better.” But, they do know that obama was on Jon Stewart and “um…like Jon Stewart is really cool.”
And that is why Obama never addressed any of the serious issues, he never had to and he knew it all along! All he had to do was continue to run behind the media cover and make the left wing talk show circut and look, “really cool” while he was doing it. He didn’t have to run a “large” campaign because he knew his backers were largely small minded kids, nanny state recipients and powerful unions who would continue to reap big bucks should he be reelected. Therefore, voting for him regardless of his many failures. And of course, he was right!
Love him or hate him Mitt Romney was a serious candidate with both business and government success to his credit in turning bad situations into good ones. Moreover, he picked a very serious Vice Presidential candidate in Paul Ryan. A man who helped create a budget that could eventually lead us to economic freedom. The only problem is they were running for office during the wrong time period. Many people don’t want to be serious as that takes thinking, sacrifice and acting like an adult.
And none of those things are what this country is about any longer. We are about video games, texting our every worthless thought, facebook and a number of other silly past times that allow men to act like kids until they are well into their 30’s. Well, last night while the “kids” were voting for the cool candidate, “the chickens came home to roooooost!”
So, while I do congratulate the left for its great win last night I can’t help recalling an old proverb, “Be careful what you wish for as it might come true!”
Zeb
[/quote]
I understand your frustration with an uninformed voting public but nearly everything you said above was either sexist or insulting to everyone in those demographics who is paying attention and a good citizen. There have always been a large percentage of voters who don’t think through their choice and simply vote along party lines and based off false campaign ads from every demographic. There were a bunch of lazy middle aged white people who voted for Romney too and the party loved their votes all the same. No doubt there are a legion of lazy single women,kids and immigrants but lets not stereotype a whole demographic because its bullshit and irrelevant. Until we have some crazy fucked up distopia where people are cloned and drugged up to stay happy with their class roles or we evolve/(God makes us better) we have to find a way to constructively deal with ignorant apathetic people.
Mitt Romney mostly lost because his campaign counted on the the middle class white vote(both informed and uninformed) to outweigh the demographics of young people, single women and minorities. This strategy has worked very well for Republicans in the past but Obama’s campaign has brought in these other demographics to such a degree that they actually beat out the middle income white vote. The republican party made an effort to connect with these demographics but it was too little to late and they ended up with 5 swing state coin flips that all needed to go their way…
Personally I believe the fiscal responsibility that the Republican party is supposed to be focused on is something that I want to support but if you look in the media, and yes it matters bullshit or not because its what most voters have to go off of, they need to work on the presentation of the message. Romney had to spew a lot of rhetoric to get the Republican nomination to satisfy the parties far right and then some how backpedal to a more moderate stance in the last few months of the election to not scar the moderate masses away. They needed to hammer away at the economic crises and give constant details on how their plan really could do better. I don’t think either side knew how to present this message to the general public probably because they assumed it would be over so many peoples heads it wouldn’t be worth the effort…
Both sides avoided giving a great deal of detail on how they really planned start to fix our limping economy. If one side had found a way to clearly communicate that they had the holy grail of economic guidance to the masses they would have swept the election. Instead both sides played it safe and bet on the strength of their parties hold on a demographic and the democrats had a better position and they knew it based on last nights election results and their model predictions.
I don’t think anyone was convinced of that fact till last night except the people working the Obama campaign.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romney ran on the economy…PERIOD.
He pushed no social agenda.
Romney’s loss had nothing to do with a social agenda. [/quote]
You are 100% correct, however, Bam did make it about social issues, and there was no rebuff. There wasn’t a single “this is not our major concern at the moment”…
So I would say he allowed himself to be manipulated, and you know as well as I do, in today’s world you are guilty until proven innocent. All someone has to do is slander your name and droves of people eat it up.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I don’t think that Repubs need to give up religion. Even the current pres is religious and attends church. I also don’t think that it’s necessarily about social issues because I think we can all agree that Medicare and SS need reform.
Part of it to me is how Repubs seem to treat other people. When Romney made the famous 47% comment he managed to isolate half of the nation. Couple that with the perception that the Reps think that all immigrants legal and illegal are simply a drain on society and only take just manages to piss off a large portion of society. Maybe it’s because of my Mexican heritage but I know how hard Mexicans can work and I know how committed to finding a better life you have to be to cross that dessert. Instead of embracing that work ethic and capitalizing on getting the American dream they seem to focus on keeping the dream only for those of us who were born here. That might not be what’s being explicitly stated by the party but it’s certainly a perception.
There’s also a distinct lack of empathy towards those less fortunate. That also doesn’t sit well with many of us. Not everyone who is poor is there because of lack of hard work or poor choices just like not everyone who is rich is there because of their hard work. And while we’re on the subject of hard work you can’t be a lawyer and talk about how hard you work to a bunch of people who do more manual work or work in McDonalds and expect any sort of sympathy. I always make sure and emphasize to other people that I’ve been very lucky in many, many ways to have what I do and I don’t take that for granted. Instead they make those people feel like crap about themselves. Sure, Obama comes from those same lines as Romney but he was also the victor and didn’t have to overcome stereotypes and perceptions.
james
[/quote]
These problems could be solved with quality branding. The perception issues that is.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Everyone loves social individualism, nobody loves to have to foot the bill for their weaknesses and lifestyles all by themselves. [/quote]
Yep. It’s been said a thousand times - fiscal conservatism can’t operate with social libertarianism. It can’t work.
Note: there is a distinction here between social libertarianism and being socially moderate. There aren’t two poles, one with authoritarian rules and the other with unrestrained “if it feels good, do it” libertarianism. There are points in between, caricatures aside.
But if we abandon basic cultural conservatism - the idea that some actions taken by individuals are good, and some are bad, and it’s ok to say so, and sometimes even ok to do something about it - in the name of non-judgmentalism of the libertarian stripe, kiss fiscal conservatism goodbye.
Does the GOP need to moderate socially? Sure, to an extent, I don’t disagree with that, although mainly its national candidates need to, not the rank and file. But no society can last long with a libertarian social ethic, for the same reason socialism fails - sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money to keep cleaning up the mess left behind by the bad choices made.[/quote]
Rule of law it is, no doubt.
Can you expand on the moderate socially portion.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romney ran on the economy…PERIOD.
He pushed no social agenda.
Romney’s loss had nothing to do with a social agenda. [/quote]
You are 100% correct, however, Bam did make it about social issues, and there was no rebuff. There wasn’t a single “this is not our major concern at the moment”…
So I would say he allowed himself to be manipulated, and you know as well as I do, in today’s world you are guilty until proven innocent. All someone has to do is slander your name and droves of people eat it up.
[/quote]
By not saying anything it was implied (and most likely accurate) that his position on the issue was the opposite of Obama. To be fair Obama did not really push social issues either, everyone knows where he stands on them and you didn’t hear about it every speech.
[quote]StolyElit wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all congratualtions to all of the liberals on the thread. It was your night last night.
The following is what I believe to be the reasons why Obama was reelected last evening.
It should be very obvious to everyone (as it is to those of us who have lived through many Presidential elections) that Brack Obama has not been treated the same as any other President, or candidate for the office of the Presidency. This is the single worst economy that we have seen since the great depression yet how many serious questions were asked of obama regarding the economy by the press?
Furthermore, how many tough questions were asked of Obama regarding his various foreign policy blunders including Benghazi? I submit to you that if any republican were to have a sitting Ambassador raped, tortured and murdered on his watch it would have been front page news in every newspaper and the lead story on every single broadcast outlet, as it should be.
Now follow that horrendous act with a half hearted cover up “it was a video that caused this” and the media would have been screaming for impeachment. Yet, it was not even an issue for old Barack. So the number one reason for Obama’s reelection is that his friends in the media ran exceptional cover for him and it worked out quite well!
Along with the media “cover-up” Nanny statedom is upon us. We no longer get to look ahead and think, “gee if this keeps going we’re going to be in trouble.” We are in trouble! It is very difficult to defeat someone who wants to hand you free things at someone else’s expense. You neither feel guilt for taking it, or understand that it’s coming from another hard working American soul.
Just like the screaming woman on the video. “I want some of that Obama money.” Interviewer: “Where does Obama get the money?” Screaming woman: “I don’t know he has a stash somewhere…” Oh my! Who voted for Obama in larger numbers than for Romney? Women! Why? Because there is something inside of almost every woman that secretly wants to be taken care of. The democratic party has risen to that “challenge” and has taken upon itself the title of “great distributor.” Just the other day I was talking to one of my employees about the election. She said unequivocally that she was voting for Obama.
I naturally asked why and she told me that she wanted free health insurance. Currently, I have a plan where I (the company) pays 75% and the employee pays 25%. But that’s not quite good enough for her. I then informed her that nothing is free in life and that in order for the government to give you something for “free” they must first take it from someone else. Her answer, “I don’t care as long as I get my medical bills paid.” And so it goes, the taste of “free stuff” can be intoxicating to those uninformed of where such a road will eventually take us.
Fnally, Obama tapped into a large number of 18-34 year olds who don’t know what their doing but are not at all afraid to do it. Recently a conservative interviewer was on a typical college campus asking people who they were going to vote for. Most, not surprisingly said Obama. But not one could give a single good reason why or name any accomplishment from his first four years as the reason. When asked why they would choose him, the typical answer, “Um…I dunno I just think he’s better.” But, they do know that obama was on Jon Stewart and “um…like Jon Stewart is really cool.”
And that is why Obama never addressed any of the serious issues, he never had to and he knew it all along! All he had to do was continue to run behind the media cover and make the left wing talk show circut and look, “really cool” while he was doing it. He didn’t have to run a “large” campaign because he knew his backers were largely small minded kids, nanny state recipients and powerful unions who would continue to reap big bucks should he be reelected. Therefore, voting for him regardless of his many failures. And of course, he was right!
Love him or hate him Mitt Romney was a serious candidate with both business and government success to his credit in turning bad situations into good ones. Moreover, he picked a very serious Vice Presidential candidate in Paul Ryan. A man who helped create a budget that could eventually lead us to economic freedom. The only problem is they were running for office during the wrong time period. Many people don’t want to be serious as that takes thinking, sacrifice and acting like an adult.
And none of those things are what this country is about any longer. We are about video games, texting our every worthless thought, facebook and a number of other silly past times that allow men to act like kids until they are well into their 30’s. Well, last night while the “kids” were voting for the cool candidate, “the chickens came home to roooooost!”
So, while I do congratulate the left for its great win last night I can’t help recalling an old proverb, “Be careful what you wish for as it might come true!”
Zeb
[/quote]
I understand your frustration with an uninformed voting public but nearly everything you said above was either sexist or insulting to everyone in those demographics who is paying attention and a good citizen.[/quote]
If you are one of the 18-24 year olds who actually pays attention then good for you. As for women, most want to be told that there will never be another war again. And that big daddy will take care of you. If you think I’m mistaken then you can explain why the very largest of corporations market different to women than they do men. There’s more on that but you can take it from there for now.
That is certainly true.
No, actually it is not bullshit and it is very relevant. The obama machine knew how to reach the 18-24 year old droolers. You’re not one…good for you! But many, many of them voted for Obama for no other good reason than he was the coolest kid on the block. They don’t know Benghazi from Bengay. But they do watch Bill, Jon, Dave, and the other ass clown liberal comics who hoisted Obama on their shoulders and carried him to victory. If you doubt this then you can explain in detail why Obama avoided the hard news guys (and they loved him as well) and went on the simple simon TV tour. We both know don’t we? Stop pretending.
I credit Obama for finding a way to deal with them. I don’t respect obama but I do give him credit for pulling out the flute and whistling a merry tune as all the empty headed idiots followed him cause he’s cooooool!
How dare you lump women as those who are not in the middle class. Are you sexist? The economy is just as important to women as it is to men.
My, my, my
You should know this, if it were not for the “white vote” Obama would not have won.
White’s apparently (unlike blacks) did not go for skin color alone.
How many elections have you watched? One?
In every single campaign the democrats move to the left to win the party nomination and then back to the center to win. The republicans move to the right to get the nomination and then back to the center to win.
Romney had a 5 point plan and I think if he had stated it one more time he probably would have thrown up. Oby had a really shiny pamphlet with lots of pictures and some words that assured us that more of the same is what we need. The 18-24 year olds must have liked those shiny pictures. And most of the rest of the voting block just knew that if they voted for Obama they’d get even more free stuff, or be taken care of by big brother because they’re afwaid…
Someday we will all have to clean up the mess that this guy has created and will continue to create. Sort of like one of those all you can eat buffetts. Feeling good right now? Feeling full? Great. Here comes the check and it’s whopper!
!
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romney ran on the economy…PERIOD.
He pushed no social agenda.
Romney’s loss had nothing to do with a social agenda. [/quote]
You are 100% correct, however, Bam did make it about social issues, and there was no rebuff. There wasn’t a single “this is not our major concern at the moment”…
So I would say he allowed himself to be manipulated, and you know as well as I do, in today’s world you are guilty until proven innocent. All someone has to do is slander your name and droves of people eat it up.
[/quote]
By not saying anything it was implied (and most likely accurate) that his position on the issue was the opposite of Obama. To be fair Obama did not really push social issues either, everyone knows where he stands on them and you didn’t hear about it every speech.[/quote]
I mean, you are a reasonable person, you get above.
There are many people who belived the hype.
And you are correct in that Obama let his ads, pacs and Eva Longoria push his agenda for him for the most part.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romney ran on the economy…PERIOD.
He pushed no social agenda.
Romney’s loss had nothing to do with a social agenda. [/quote]
You are 100% correct, however, Bam did make it about social issues, and there was no rebuff. There wasn’t a single “this is not our major concern at the moment”…
So I would say he allowed himself to be manipulated, and you know as well as I do, in today’s world you are guilty until proven innocent. All someone has to do is slander your name and droves of people eat it up.
[/quote]
Obama successfully made it about social issues as he had not much else to say as he is a failed President.
But…
He also ran the dirtiest modern day Presidential campaign in history. When Obama started telling people that Romney was a thief, a murderer and a tax cheat and there was no response I sort of thought that was going to have a bad effect on Romney’s campaign.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One thing the GOP hasn’t done well is reach out to ethnic minorities - you think taking on the banner of gay marriage is going to help that? No. There are much bigger fish to fry that the GOP needs to work on in the electoral sense.[/quote]
The GOP supporting gay marriage in the immediate future would be disastrous. Maybe 20-30 years from now, but not yet. They would lose more then they would gain in the religious conservative group. If they simply became neutral, not trying to ban it or better yet, taking the stance that the government should not be defining marriage at all and leave it up to individual religions to decide how to practice marriage and not give marriage rights at all, that would be much better. It would allow churches to marry only straight people if they wished, or both straight couples and homosexual couples if they wish. This satisfies the traditional conservative/Republican small government stance as well as preserves religious freedom for each religious group to decide how to practice the primarily religious institution of marriage. Taking similar stances on social issues popular with young people will go a long way to evening out the spread in votes.
[/quote]
The problem is at the federal level the GOP deals with the gay marriage issue in the most toxic way possible. If Romney had said that he would neither support nor oppose it but would instead leave it to the states he could have undermined the democrats on that issue.
The bible belt Republicans needs to face up to the fact that their part of the country isn’t representative of the bulk of the country and they need to be more flexible at the federal level.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Romney ran on the economy…PERIOD.
He pushed no social agenda.
Romney’s loss had nothing to do with a social agenda. [/quote]
You are 100% correct, however, Bam did make it about social issues, and there was no rebuff. There wasn’t a single “this is not our major concern at the moment”…
So I would say he allowed himself to be manipulated, and you know as well as I do, in today’s world you are guilty until proven innocent. All someone has to do is slander your name and droves of people eat it up.
[/quote]
By not saying anything it was implied (and most likely accurate) that his position on the issue was the opposite of Obama. To be fair Obama did not really push social issues either, everyone knows where he stands on them and you didn’t hear about it every speech.[/quote]
I mean, you are a reasonable person, you get above.
There are many people who belived the hype.
And you are correct in that Obama let his ads, pacs and Eva Longoria push his agenda for him for the most part.[/quote]
No, no, no beans!
Obama did not win because the main stream media, Hollywood was in his back pocket. And he was able to do and say whatever he wanted knowing nothing bad would be said about him. (same with his clown VP). He won because he had a stellar record to run on.
How did you miss that?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
There is never going to be widespread support for a return to the social values of the nineteen twenties.
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter. If it’s destructive legislation it needs to be opposed. And EVERYTHING libs advocate is destructive. Doesn’t matter if you don’t win, you can still put up one hell of a fight and obstruct them every step of the way.
[quote]
On many issues the Republicans have a lot to offer and should have been very competitive. But their focus on social issues is very polarizing and toxic to the brand. [/quote]
It’s the libs who are focused on social issues. They demand radical change: changing the definition of marriage, changing drug laws etc. Conservatives mostly just want to keep the status quo. It’s the libs who are polarising and refusing to bend. Let them make the concessions for once.[/quote]
This attitude will yield days like yesterday again and again and again. If you are so intent on telling somebody they can’t dry out and smoke a plant that makes them goofy, confused, and hungry in the comfort of their own home–and if that is more important to you than fiscal conservatism–then fine, but it and positions like it will make presidential elections an uphill battle from here on out, given the shifting demographics of this country. If electoral losses are what you crave, they’ll be handed to you–as one was yesterday, despite 7.9 percent unemployment and $16 trillion in debt.[/quote]
Romney didn’t lose because of marijuana. As you say, there are more important things to worry about. So why are people concentrating on marijuana and gay marriage? As I said, it’s the “progressives” who are making these demands when they should be more concerned about the economy.[/quote]
In a narrow sense, you’re correct. But I detect an undercurrent of fairly deep resentment for what many people believe is anachronistic Republican arrogance on social issues. It may not have been an explicit part of the campaign dialogue proper, but Obama pushed social issues to the forefront at every opportunity (women may well have broken for the Democrats on “rape-pregnancies are God’s will” alone) and I’m sure you will recall that social issues figured very heavily into periods of the primary campaign.
I doubt very much that I’m the only person in this country–otherwise entirely sympathetic to the concerns of the libertarians and fiscal conservatives–who watched with disgust as the primary contenders struggled to keep up with Rick Santorum’s ass-backward view of the world on a range of issues that, according to opinion polls (and, as I’m sure you’re aware, a number of actual polls held less than 24 hours ago), are increasingly becoming political advantages for liberals.
Again, this is from a political standpoint. You may disagree with the socially liberal on pretty much everything, but, as I said, demographic trends predict that you will almost certainly continue to be disappointed.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Couple that with the perception that the Reps think that all immigrants legal and illegal are simply a drain on society and only take just manages to piss off a large portion of society. Maybe it’s because of my Mexican heritage but I know how hard Mexicans can work and I know how committed to finding a better life you have to be to cross that dessert. Instead of embracing that work ethic and capitalizing on getting the American dream they seem to focus on keeping the dream only for those of us who were born here.
That might not be what’s being explicitly stated by the party but it’s certainly a perception.
[/quote]
Most if not ALL Republicans have ZERO problem with legal immigrants (hell all of our families were there at some point.) This is not a racial issue as Obama tried to make it while courting La Raza.
It’s fiscal…how do we pay for all the illiegals??
I would rather see a easier road to citizenship, but don’t make it racial it’s not.
It’s who foots the bill.
And a footnote…I was on vacation in Mexico recently, and I was asked for “my papers” around 5 times in 10 days…why does the hispanic population in the U.S fear it so?