• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conservatives lose either way.

muciti said:
In that case, how do you explain all the right wingers in elected offices?
Click to expand...

lots of pockets of populations where ultra conservatives dominate. thus, they are able to select a local rep with their views

but when running for national office, the extremes are going to be out of favor with the mass electorate
 
rcart76 said:
Okay let consider the options here.

1) Romney Beats Obama - You completed your short term goal of getting Obama out of the office. Now you replace him with a guy you don't even like but your hate for Obama is so strong that you will sacrifice republican values to get him out of office. However, this will eliminate your chances of getting the conservative president you want like Bush, Daniels, or Christie in the office for eight years.

2) Obama is re-elected - This is probably making you throw up right now thinking about it. You will have to tolerate him for another 4 years.


Bottom line, regardless of your choice, your party is still screwed for at least 4 years.
Click to expand...

My take on your options:

1. The short term goal is to get Obama out of Office, but there is a reason for that. With Obama in Office and the Senate controlled by the likes of Reid, there is no way the Republicans can get their proposals passed that they say will help the economy, reduce government control and reduce government spending. We must get Obama out or take the Senate...otherwise we will have four more years of the same crap. Now, if Romney is elected...while he is not the best conservative choice, he's a Republican...and he'll be better than Obama for the country. I see this as a win.

2. We won't just have to tolerate Obama for four more years, we will get four more years of his liberal damage. Definitely a losing scenario for the nation.


Bottom line: Obama needs to go or the Republicans need to take the Senate. I'll be happy with either outcome.
 
rcart76 said:
In what way ???? We don't even know what Romney stands for. You are just saying that because he has a R in front of his name.
Click to expand...

He personally socially conservative. He has business and public executive experience, and business focused education. His actions as a governor were mostly far more conservative than positions taken by Obama as President. And the positions he advocates as a canididate are far more conservative than Obama. This doesnt mean he'll act that way in office, but we know what Obama wants. Romney can at least be held accountable.
 
muciti said:
If America rejected conservatism we wouldnt have so many of them in offices around the country. Sounds to me like they are rejecting both parties but are stuck picking one or the other. Until you have a political party that is actually viewed favorably by the public as a whole, your comment doesnt really hold much weight.
Click to expand...

I don't know how, but somehow, you missed where I said "at a national level."
 
muciti said:
Your logic is flawed. And greatly so. Republican voters are selecting Mitt Romney over the other candidates. Therefore, they are selecting who is representing them. Considering they have more extreme conservative presidential candidates kind of tells us that they want Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

So conservatives best way of pushing conservative values is nominating Romney ???


muciti said:
Your party is also screwed for the next 4 years regardless of who gets elected. Just like they have both been screwed for the last 4 years.
Click to expand...

Correction, if that same congress comes back we are screwed.
 

I hope they nominate Santorum because then when he loses, the conservative right can stop bitching about not putting up a candidate that was more conservative.
 
justabubba said:
lots of pockets of populations where ultra conservatives dominate. thus, they are able to select a local rep with their views

but when running for national office, the extremes are going to be out of favor with the mass electorate
Click to expand...

IF that were the case, half of the recent presidents wouldnt have been conservative. You arguement holds no water. You want it to be that way, doesnt make it so.
 
jonny5 said:
He personally socially conservative. He has business and public executive experience, and business focused education. His actions as a governor were mostly far more conservative than positions taken by Obama as President. And the positions he advocates as a canididate are far more conservative than Obama. This doesnt mean he'll act that way in office, but we know what Obama wants. Romney can at least be held accountable.
Click to expand...


You think so ??? I believe you guys are gonna treat him like you did Bush. JUst whine about him behind close doors.
 
rcart76 said:
So conservatives best way of pushing conservative values is nominating Romney ???




Correction, if that same congress comes back we are screwed.
Click to expand...

By nominating the person they want to represent their party, and their agenda. Mitt Romney did not just randomly get selected by an anonymous group. He was nominated by the very party you think hates him. Considering they have a large group and candidates, and chose Romney, obviously the Republican party does like him, and whether you like it or not, IF he is elected it will be a win for their party.
 
muciti said:
If America rejected conservatism we wouldnt have so many of them in offices around the country. Sounds to me like they are rejecting both parties but are stuck picking one or the other. Until you have a political party that is actually viewed favorably by the public as a whole, your comment doesnt really hold much weight.
Click to expand...

I don't think people are rejecting conservatism as a whole, I think the majority of America would reject social conservatism. That is why I believe, especially with Romney now trying to gain social conservatives, both Santorum and Romney would lose against Obama.

Also, Americans as a whole are not willing to give up entitlements. It's simply a survival option for them, and Romney and Santorum want to take that away.

I know entitlements are costing a lot more than they should, but people are not going to vote themselves out on the street.

A comprehensive job program needs to be put into place and I don't think any of the candidates have one (including Obama), so the fall back will be for the majority to vote Obama.
 
muciti said:
By nominating the person they want to represent their party, and their agenda. Mitt Romney did not just randomly get selected by an anonymous group. He was nominated by the very party you think hates him. Considering they have a large group and candidates, and chose Romney, obviously the Republican party does like him, and whether you like it or not, IF he is elected it will be a win for their party.
Click to expand...

I see it as a lose for the party. The party's base is Conservative and Romney is the least Conservative among those currently running. That represents a lose to Conservatism. And given many of the Conservative base won't come out and vote for Romney in November, that represents a lose for the party.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I see it as a lose for the party. The party's base is Conservative and Romney is the least Conservative among those currently running. That represents a lose to Conservatism. And given many of the Conservative base won't come out and vote for Romney in November, that represents a lose for the party.
Click to expand...

If Romney wins the election, then it was because republicans voted for him and wanted him to win.
 
I don't think people are rejecting conservatism as a whole, I think the majority of America would reject social conservatism. That is why I believe, especially with Romney now trying to gain social conservatives, both Santorum and Romney would lose against Obama.
Click to expand...

People are, and should, reject any extremism from either side. I am certainly not stating I support Romney with this next statement, but Romney were a social conservative, and was widely viewed as such, I'd think that would work strongly to his advantage. Being a social conservative is likely to garner him all of the republican vote (they certainly aren't going to vote for obama) and alot of the independent vote (being the more balanced candidate) and possibly even some of the democratic vote since he shares some of their values. However, I dont view him as a very social conservative and despite what he has shown in the past I believe he will be a puppet and do what his party tells him to do. I think most people are going to be voting D or R regardless of which candidate was there. Have you seen the Simpsons Halloween special where Kang runs vs Kodos? That sums up American politics pretty damn well.

Also, Americans as a whole are not willing to give up entitlements. It's simply a survival option for them, and Romney and Santorum want to take that away.

I know entitlements are costing a lot more than they should, but people are not going to vote themselves out on the street.
Click to expand...

People arent going to, nor should they vote themselves out on the street. But these same people need to stop relying on the government to provide for them. Consumers create, stabilize, and shape the economy. Not the government.

A comprehensive job program needs to be put into place and I don't think any of the candidates have one (including Obama), so the fall back will be for the majority to vote Obama.
Click to expand...

I agree with you for the most part here. American needs a comprehensive job program. But the responsibility is two fold. We need more products to be made here. We need to limit foriegn imports. We need to stop giving big businesses tax breaks. We need to encourage more small business growth. Government can affect all of these things. But what they cant do is dictate to consumers wehre to spend their money. You can encourage 100 million individuals to open their own businesses and give them all the money and resources in the world to do it. But if consumers aren't willing to shop in their stores it wont matter. When Americans are actively endorsing and demanding that products be made in sweat shops, small business is doomed.
 
muciti said:
People are, and should, reject any extremism from either side. I am certainly not stating I support Romney with this next statement, but Romney were a social conservative, and was widely viewed as such, I'd think that would work strongly to his advantage. Being a social conservative is likely to garner him all of the republican vote (they certainly aren't going to vote for obama) and alot of the independent vote (being the more balanced candidate) and possibly even some of the democratic vote since he shares some of their values. However, I dont view him as a very social conservative and despite what he has shown in the past I believe he will be a puppet and do what his party tells him to do. I think most people are going to be voting D or R regardless of which candidate was there. Have you seen the Simpsons Halloween special where Kang runs vs Kodos? That sums up American politics pretty damn well.
Click to expand...

I think social conservatism scares a lot of people period and the fact he's even cozying up to them worries them more. Also, Obama has yet to unleash his election machine yet and with Romney trying to convince conservatives that he is "socially conservative", might play more into the hands of Obamas campaign in trying to pin him as one fully.

And yes, while I rant on social conservatism, social liberalism can also go to the extreme as well.

muciti said:
People arent going to, nor should they vote themselves out on the street. But these same people need to stop relying on the government to provide for them. Consumers create, stabilize, and shape the economy. Not the government.
Click to expand...

You're right, but when the choice is Obama (who will give them entitlements) and Romney or Santorum (Who want to take them away), that isn't going to land those voters on the side of the GOP.

That is where I think as a whole a jobs plan needs to be done. But since Obama seems to just care about re-election, he will fall more on the "give them more or let them keep their entitlements" rather then formulate an extensive plan so he can win re-election.

muciti said:
I agree with you for the most part here. American needs a comprehensive job program. But the responsibility is two fold. We need more products to be made here. We need to limit foriegn imports. We need to stop giving big businesses tax breaks. We need to encourage more small business growth. Government can affect all of these things. But what they cant do is dictate to consumers wehre to spend their money. You can encourage 100 million individuals to open their own businesses and give them all the money and resources in the world to do it. But if consumers aren't willing to shop in their stores it wont matter. When Americans are actively endorsing and demanding that products be made in sweat shops, small business is doomed.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about two fold. However, just to avoid the Walmart, I shopped at local places. That lasted about 3 months. I literally paid over 3 times the amount of money shopping at the local places than Walmart. That simply isn't economically feasable for me and most Americans to shop local stores when it costs that much more.

That is where I think government CAN help out those smaller businesses. Instead of giving tax breaks to the big corporations, the smaller guys need it.
 
rcart76 said:
Okay let consider the options here.

1) Romney Beats Obama - You completed your short term goal of getting Obama out of the office. Now you replace him with a guy you don't even like but your hate for Obama is so strong that you will sacrifice republican values to get him out of office. However, this will eliminate your chances of getting the conservative president you want like Bush, Daniels, or Christie in the office for eight years.

2) Obama is re-elected - This is probably making you throw up right now thinking about it. You will have to tolerate him for another 4 years.


Bottom line, regardless of your choice, your party is still screwed for at least 4 years.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about it. Either get a batter guy now or the public suffers even more fo it's stupidity and we end up with an even better guy in 4 years. Either way is fine by me.
 
muciti said:
If Romney wins the election, then it was because republicans voted for him and wanted him to win.
Click to expand...

And that would be a loss for Conservatism as it shows they can't even nominate a Conservative on a national level, no less get one elected.
 
I agree with you about two fold. However, just to avoid the Walmart, I shopped at local places. That lasted about 3 months. I literally paid over 3 times the amount of money shopping at the local places than Walmart. That simply isn't economically feasable for me and most Americans to shop local stores when it costs that much more.
Click to expand...

You pay less at walmart because you are paying for slave labor, horrid working conditions, human enslavement and the destruction of the American and global economies. Not to sound like an ass, but getting chips and t shirts a bit cheaper really isnt worth that. You could survive without walmart if you wanted to, but you want more for you money. If you ok with helping the rich getting richer and further suppressing the poor to save some money I'm am not going to be able to convince you to do otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Dude - open your eyes: our country is ****ed either way.

It would take more than some political podium thumping to fix our problems.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean thumping the politician against his podium to have the desired effect?
 
rcart76 said:
You think so ??? I believe you guys are gonna treat him like you did Bush. JUst whine about him behind close doors.
Click to expand...

From what I remember conservatives were crucial in stopping several of Bush's proposals, like immigration reform. Unfortunately on some other things, liberals went along with him which conservatives spoke out against, like medicare part d and bailouts.
 
muciti said:
They are electing the person they want in office. How is that not a win?
Click to expand...
Umm, you just said "Republicans" are electing the person they want in office. I replied by saying that is a loss for "Conservatives."

Please note the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. Hopefully, that will clear up your confusion.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, you just said "Republicans" are electing the person they want in office. I replied by saying that is a loss for "Conservatives."

Please note the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. Hopefully, that will clear up your confusion.
Click to expand...

I'd say a pretty large part of the conservative base is republican.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
And that would be a loss for Conservatism as it shows they can't even nominate a Conservative on a national level, no less get one elected.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we couldn't get a liberal nominated or elected in 2008, either. This country likes moderates. Bush was an abberation, not the norm. Moderates likes Obama and Romney are what the country wants. I suppose the majority feels that rocking the boat is the most dangerous thing of all right now. And I think it's fair to say that people who feel really strongly about either liberal or conservative ideas are actually in the minority. Most people are moderates, who don't want extreme solutions to our problems. They don't want Laissez Faire economics, or really progressive socialism, or strict religious morality, or a completely permissive culture. They want something in the middle. We here at DP are unusual in that we care so much. We are the vocal minority. As much as we wish the rest of the country would rally behind our banners and get passionate, they won't. They want moderates so that their lives won't suddenly get more complicated.

So no, conservatives won't lose either way, because conservatives are regular working stiffs, not "real conservatives" who obsess about their guns and the right to totally and completely control their property. And liberals won't lose either way, because liberals are also regular working stiffs, not "real liberals" who want to solve everyone's problems and make everyone get along perfectly all the time. Liberals and conservatives are the left and right side of moderate. And they don't care that much. They'll be fine under Romney or Obama. They weren't so fine under Bush, since Bush was not moderate. And they probably wouldn't be so fine if I were president, either, since I am certainly not a moderate. Actually, the majority of Americans probably wouldn't vote for any of us. We're all fairly extreme.

The silent majority will be fine. It's the vocal minority (us) who will get upset.
 
muciti said:
I'd say a pretty large part of the conservative base is republican.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that nominating the least Conservative candidate among those running is what Conservatives want??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom