Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W:96]

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Grant said:

I think Trump is popular right now because he's going around the Latino vote, and despite this many Latinos will support him. Recall how Quebec was always pandered to in the Canadian elections because no one could win without them? Harper went right around Quebec and won handily.

It seems to me that group politics is highly overrated and people will often show up to vote - men, women and minorities- to do what they feel makes sense for the country. The left will never change but the middle, the 'silent majority', can often turn up to do the right thing. After the chaos of Obama, this may be one of those elections.

Click to expand...

I think he is doing good because doesn't care what the press says and he loves pissing on the press. It shows balls, or lunacy. Not sure which. But that is better than being a candidate that panders to the polls all the time. Neither party likes that.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

NonoBadDog said:

When he wore those blue jeans he looked just out of place.
It was like the jeans were starched, new, stiff and to wear a starched shirt with jeans just made it appear even more phony.
I voted for the guy but it wasn't easy.

Click to expand...

I've gone off on both parties quite a bit since I got back from Maine on Thursday, especially my DEMs.
But I've never been one of these bash both parties type and act like you're not part of the problem.

This doesn't mean I won't be partisan and call out Gowdy for extending his Benghazi committee until the election.

Yet my level of anger at my own party for not turning out in 2010 giving us this House knows NonoBadDog ends.
You saw this in your CO last year when Hispanics didn't show up due to Obama not pulling the XO trigger BEFORE the election as he promised.
Costing Udall his seat and almost Hickenlooper.

As for your CO, I first came out in 1973 after my sophomore year in college--just love it.
When they were still building I-70 one mile a year it seemed through the Glenwood Canyon.

I want to go to the High Uintahs in Utah next month.
I've been up and down the Flaming Gorge side but not the west side Utah 150--closed in the winter.
There are supposed to be decent forest roads east-to-west through the true wilderness Uintahs with many camps .

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

US Conservative said:

There are a few RINO's in the current line up, and Im not supporting them .
Im even on the fence about Rubio.

Click to expand...

Sure you are--you really need a better poker face on line.
You know full well that a Bush/Kasich ticket is by far your best way to appoint the next SCOTUS Justices .

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

NIMBY said:

Sure you are--you really need a better poker face on line.
You know full well that a Bush/Kasich ticket is by far your best way to appoint the next SCOTUS Justices .

Click to expand...

Cool story Nimby. I like Walker.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

NIMBY said:

I've gone off on both parties quite a bit since I got back from Maine on Thursday, especially my DEMs.
But I've never been one of these bash both parties type and act like you're not part of the problem.

This doesn't mean I won't be partisan and call out Gowdy for extending his Benghazi committee until the election.

Yet my level of anger at my own party for not turning out in 2010 giving us this House knows NonoBadDog ends.
You saw this in your CO last year when Hispanics didn't show up due to Obama not pulling the XO trigger BEFORE the election as he promised.
Costing Udall his seat and almost Hickenlooper.

As for your CO, I first came out in 1973 after my sophomore year in college--just love it.
When they were still building I-70 one mile a year it seemed through the Glenwood Canyon.

I want to go to the High Uintahs in Utah next month.
I've been up and down the Flaming Gorge side but not the west side Utah 150--closed in the winter.
There are supposed to be decent forest roads east-to-west through the true wilderness Uintahs with many camps .

Click to expand...

If you ever wander around Northern Colorado give me a holler. Good steaks and whiskey, quiet, cool sweet air. It isn't a party unless there are chainsaws, whiskey, gasoline and a big fire.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

US Conservative said:

Cool story Nimby. I like Walker.

Click to expand...

There are a few who wouldn't bring disappointment to many and Walker is certainly among them. Seems he could also do the job..

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Grant said:

Yes, I agree that they should certainly value the Latino vote but not pander to it. That could cost them votes elsewhere.

The reason Donald Trump is ahead in the polls is because he's not pandering to the Latino vote and pointing out strongly where the problems lie. Many Latinos also recognize this problems and want safer neighborhoods, though they would likely remain part of the silent majority. So would those wanting stronger borders and safer streets outnumber those who don't, and would they turn up at the polls? I think it's likely.

Click to expand...

You're right about the silent majority of Latinos being more conservative than believed - it's why GWB was so successful in getting out their vote for him. As for Trump, I believe he's leading the polls now because he's getting 24/7 coverage. The man isn't stupid - he knows that publicity, good or bad, keeps your name front of mind and so when someone polls you, Trump's name comes to mind and he gets the support of those who haven't a clue what or who he is or who or what any of the other candidates are. If he's still got more than single digit support a few months from now, I may believe the hype that he's a serious contender.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

I think it was more of an issue than people wanted to admit, just as the "black thing" was more of an issue than people wanted to admit, both on the part of Obama's supporters and the opponents.

Click to expand...

I travel intellectually in fairly conservative circles as well as this place. I can't think of a single time this was ever discussed as an issue. The only time I am aware of it ever really even coming up was the leading article in National Review making fun of liberals for making fun of Mormons.

And Romney never was a "serious conservative" as he had to portray himself to be in order to get the nomination. No one aligned with the extreme right is going to be able to win a national election anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's why Carter served two terms and then we had President Mondale.


The American public is becoming more polarized




Candidates don't win the Presidency any more by appealing to the middle without losing their base, they do it by exciting and turning out their base without turning off the middle. Romney failed to do either, while Obama turned off the middle, but turned out his base, which is why he won and Romney lost. African American women voted at a higher rate than any other group in 2012. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama and they turned out in those numbers because he was successful in turning out his base.

Any Republican Presidential candidate in the future who wants to win but doesn't excite his base needs to be running against either A) two left-leaning candidates who split that vote (think 1992 in reverse) or B) Satan. And I'm not so sure about Satan. In any normal election, however, the extent to which we put up candidates who spend all their time chasing that ever-shrinking middle while losing excitement from the base is the degree to which we lose.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

I travel intellectually in fairly conservative circles as well as this place. I can't think of a single time this was ever discussed as an issue. The only time I am aware of it ever really even coming up was the leading article in National Review making fun of liberals for making fun of Mormons.



Yeah. That's why Carter served two terms and then we had President Mondale.


The American public is becoming more polarized

Candidates don't win the Presidency any more by appealing to the middle without losing their base, they do it by exciting and turning out their base without turning off the middle. Romney failed to do either, while Obama turned off the middle, but turned out his base, which is why he won and Romney lost. African American women voted at a higher rate than any other group in 2012. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama and they turned out in those numbers because he was successful in turning out his base.

Any Republican Presidential candidate in the future who wants to win but doesn't excite his base needs to be running against either A) two left-leaning candidates who split that vote (think 1992 in reverse) or B) Satan. And I'm not so sure about Satan. In any normal election, however, the extent to which we put up candidates who spend all their time chasing that ever-shrinking middle while losing excitement from the base is the degree to which we lose.

Click to expand...

If your analysis is correct, and I'm not going to try to say it isn't, then it looks like the liberal Democrats will have the edge once again. Demographics simply don't support the idea that anyone who is from the extreme right is likely to win an election any time soon.

Now, if the right wingers would simply drop the "social conservative" issues and focus on smaller government, less regulation, and a balanced budget, they just might resonate with more people, but I don't see anyone doing that just now, do you?

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

If your analysis is correct, and I'm not going to try to say it isn't,

Click to expand...

It's not mine, it's PEW's.

then it looks like the liberal Democrats will have the edge once again. Demographics simply don't support the idea that anyone who is from the extreme right is likely to win an election any time soon.

Click to expand...

Demographics are irrelevant except to the point that they make relative turnout difficult or easier to attain. If the country is made up of 57% hispanic women under the age of 30, but they don't vote, then they don't matter to presidential elections. Meanwhile, the notion that Hispanics (who broke 44% for social conservative George W Bush, but only 27% of whom voted for social moderate Mitt Romney) are an inevitable African-American style Democrat constituency is no more legitimate than the 2004 claims that the War on Terror made Republicans a permanent majority. Given Democrats insistence on supporting teacher unions over poor children, I don't see any reason why post-Obama Republicans couldn't start eating back into the black vote, either.

Marco Rubio won 55% of the Latino vote in Florida. Take that trend nation-wide? #Winning.

Now, if the right wingers would simply drop the "social conservative" issues and focus on smaller government, less regulation, and a balanced budget, they just might resonate with more people, but I don't see anyone doing that just now, do you?

Click to expand...

No. Especially given that doing so would guarantee the rise of a third party, and national destruction of the GOP brand followed by permanent minority status. For Republicans to drop social conservatives would be the electoral equivalent of the Democrat party deciding "You know what? **** Minorities and single women". It would be to take the voters they need to turn out the most, and deliberately lose them.

Sure, they'd resonate with some more people. Unfortunately, those "some more people" come down to "liberal republicans in big cities", and do not come anywhere astronomically close to the number of people they would lose. Meanwhile, if the GOP continues to nominate people who do not excite the social conservative base, then they will continue to perform at the presidential level just as well as they did in 2008 and 2012.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

It's not mine, it's PEW's.



Demographics are irrelevant except to the point that they make relative turnout difficult or easier to attain. If the country is made up of 57% hispanic women under the age of 30, but they don't vote, then they don't matter to presidential elections. Meanwhile, the notion that Hispanics (who broke 44% for social conservative George W Bush, but only 27% of whom voted for social moderate Mitt Romney) are an inevitable African-American style Democrat constituency is no more legitimate than the 2004 claims that the War on Terror made Republicans a permanent majority. Given Democrats insistence on supporting teacher unions over poor children, I don't see any reason why post-Obama Republicans couldn't start eating back into the black vote, either.

Marco Rubio won 55% of the Latino vote in Florida. Take that trend nation-wide? #Winning.



No. Especially given that doing so would guarantee the rise of a third party, and national destruction of the GOP brand followed by permanent minority status. For Republicans to drop social conservatives would be the electoral equivalent of the Democrat party deciding "You know what? **** Minorities and single women". It would be to take the voters they need to turn out the most, and deliberately lose them.

Sure, they'd resonate with some more people. Unfortunately, those "some more people" come down to "liberal republicans in big cities", and do not come anywhere astronomically close to the number of people they would lose. Meanwhile, if the GOP continues to nominate people who do not excite the social conservative base, then they will continue to perform at the presidential level just as well as they did in 2008 and 2012.

Click to expand...

I suppose, given the fact that the Congress and president have little control over the issue of abortion anyway, paying lip service to being "pro life" could get some votes without costing too terribly many from the pro choice side. Pro choice tends to be mostly pro Democrats anyway. They could do the same for gay marriage, as that is a dead issue for now as well. I'm not sure what else they are going to be able to use as a rallying cry for the "base" of social conservatives. Perhaps the Republicans could play up the "family values" idea, but it seems to me that one should fall flat given the family values of the Romney clan and the tight knit Obama family.

But, it may not. Perhaps ranting about gay marriage and abortion, which they can't address anyway, and perhaps once again proposing a border fence, which will never be built and won't work anyway, will rally the voters. That's too bad, as the growth of government will continue unabated regardless of which party is in power.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

I suppose, given the fact that the Congress and president have little control over the issue of abortion anyway, paying lip service to being "pro life" could get some votes without costing too terribly many from the pro choice side.

Click to expand...

:shrug: perhaps. There is widespread support for national limiting of abortion to the first 20 weeks, ending the most egregious practices, just as there was widespread support for the IBAPA and for ending partial-birth abortion.

Pro choice tends to be mostly pro Democrats anyway. They could do the same for gay marriage, as that is a dead issue for now as well.

Click to expand...

Gay marriage is far from a dead issue. See: Bakers, Photographers, and Pizza Joint Owners. This is another instance where social conservatism is a win for Republicans.

I'm not sure what else they are going to be able to use as a rallying cry for the "base" of social conservatives.

Click to expand...

Education is big. So is immigration. We're used to discussing social conservatism as if was only about the sexual revolution, but it's more than just that. In the meantime, WRT the sexual revolution, a position that "The SCOTUS says gays have the right to marry, and so regardless of how I feel about whether or not we should have left it with the states, now they do. Christians also have the right not to be threatened or attacked if their religious beliefs prohibit them from partaking or serving in gay weddings, just as gays have the right not to be threatened or attacked if their beliefs pull them to get married."

Perhaps the Republicans could play up the "family values" idea, but it seems to me that one should fall flat given the family values of the Romney clan and the tight knit Obama family.

Click to expand...

Family structure is huge in its impact on public policy, and getting rid of the marriage penalty and/or increasing the child tax credit would both be fiscal winners and pro-family.

But, it may not. Perhaps ranting about gay marriage and abortion, which they can't address anyway, and perhaps once again proposing a border fence, which will never be built and won't work anyway, will rally the voters. That's too bad, as the growth of government will continue unabated regardless of which party is in power.

Click to expand...

Well, until we have entitlement reform, yes. It will.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

:shrug: perhaps. There is widespread support for national limiting of abortion to the first 20 weeks, ending the most egregious practices, just as there was widespread support for the IBAPA and for ending partial-birth abortion.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is, and most places already only allow late term abortion in certain cases. Nevertheless, that is one issue in which the social conservatives can earn some points.

cpwill said:

Gay marriage is far from a dead issue. See: Bakers, Photographers, and Pizza Joint Owners. This is another instance where social conservatism is a win for Republicans.

Click to expand...

Business owners are required to serve the public. Maybe the conservatives can change that, and maybe not. If they do, they'll have to tackle the civil rights legislation of the '60s.

Churches are afraid that they'll be required to serve gay weddings as well. I think that fear is unfounded, but still, perhaps the social conservatives can gain a point or two there.

cpwill said:

Education is big. So is immigration. We're used to discussing social conservatism as if was only about the sexual revolution, but it's more than just that.

Click to expand...

Education is more about limiting the federal government IMO, and who has stepped up to say, no more federal role in education?

Immigration is an issue that the Republicans are trying to make into a partisan issue. The fact of the matter is, no one has addressed that issue in 60 years now.

Beating the drum about illegals can gain anyone some points. So far, it's all lip service, but lip service can gain votes.

cpwill said:

In the meantime, WRT the sexual revolution, a position that "The SCOTUS says gays have the right to marry, and so regardless of how I feel about whether or not we should have left it with the states, now they do. Christians also have the right not to be threatened or attacked if their religious beliefs prohibit them from partaking or serving in gay weddings, just as gays have the right not to be threatened or attacked if their beliefs pull them to get married."

Click to expand...

Exactly, but no one is saying that churches have to perform gay marriages. That is a strawman issue.

cpwill said:

Family structure is huge in its impact on public policy, and getting rid of the marriage penalty and/or increasing the child tax credit would both be fiscal winners and pro-family.

Click to expand...

and not an issue that I've heard any self described "social conservative" terribly concerned about, unfortunately. Those are issues that liberals could well take up.

cpwill said:

Well, until we have entitlement reform, yes. It will.

Click to expand...

and election reform, and a lot of other reforms.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

Yes, there is, and most places already only allow late term abortion in certain cases. Nevertheless, that is one issue in which the social conservatives can earn some points.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Business owners are required to serve the public. Maybe the conservatives can change that, and maybe not. If they do, they'll have to tackle the civil rights legislation of the '60s.

Click to expand...

You don't give up your religious rights when you decide to make cakes for people, or take pictures of their family for them.

Churches are afraid that they'll be required to serve gay weddings as well. I think that fear is unfounded, but still, perhaps the social conservatives can gain a point or two there.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is unfounded at all - and we will see increased pressure placed on churches in precisely this area. They will start by claiming public accommodation for churches who allow their spaces to be used by non-church-member couples, arguing that since the Church rents its' space, it is operating as a business rather than as a religious institution. Another attack line will be the day-cares and schools associated with Churches. Having demanded that they be allowed access to the public square, the SSM movement is now going to do it's best to push those who disagree with it out of that public square.

Education is more about limiting the federal government IMO, and who has stepped up to say, no more federal role in education?

Click to expand...

Rick Perry, when he can remember to do so :lol:

Seriously, however, Common Core is a major issue for social conservatives, as is the broader issue of education reform.

Immigration is an issue that the Republicans are trying to make into a partisan issue. The fact of the matter is, no one has addressed that issue in 60 years now.

Beating the drum about illegals can gain anyone some points. So far, it's all lip service, but lip service can gain votes.

Click to expand...

Well hopefully eventually we elect enough ornery people that we get some traction on enforcement and/or border security. But yes, it's a position of social conservatives that has broad support.

cpwill said:

In the meantime, WRT the sexual revolution, a position that "The SCOTUS says gays have the right to marry, and so regardless of how I feel about whether or not we should have left it with the states, now they do. Christians also have the right not to be threatened or attacked if their religious beliefs prohibit them from partaking or serving in gay weddings, just as gays have the right not to be threatened or attacked if their beliefs pull them to get married."

Click to expand...

Exactly, but no one is saying that churches have to perform gay marriages.

Click to expand...

1. Sure and 15 years ago hardly anyone was saying gay marriage - it lost in that bluest of states, California. We will absolutely get attacks on churches to force them to let gays get married in their facilities.
2. That being said, I didn't say Churches. I said Christians.

That is a strawman issue.

Click to expand...

We are talking here about relevance to the voting public. That is a way of stating a social conservative position in such a way that it appeals to the broader American public.

and not an issue that I've heard any self described "social conservative" terribly concerned about, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Then you should spend more time reading our material. Why do you think "Focus on the Family" is called "Focus on the Family" instead of "Focus on Top Marginal Tax Rates"?

Those are issues that liberals could well take up.

Click to expand...

Not well. Talking about the need to reinforce two-parent family structure in this country and rewarding marriage is A) anathema to much of the Lefts' sexual revolution and B) bad politics. One of the biggest places where the Democrat loses voters is the wedding chapel.

and election reform, and a lot of other reforms.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but entitlement reform is the only one that is required to directly impact that.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

Indeed.



You don't give up your religious rights when you decide to make cakes for people, or take pictures of their family for them.

Click to expand...

No, but when you have a business, you don't have a right to refuse service because you don't agree with the politics or religion of potential clients.

cpwill said:

I don't think that is unfounded at all - and we will see increased pressure placed on churches in precisely this area. They will start by claiming public accommodation for churches who allow their spaces to be used by non-church-member couples, arguing that since the Church rents its' space, it is operating as a business rather than as a religious institution. Another attack line will be the day-cares and schools associated with Churches. Having demanded that they be allowed access to the public square, the SSM movement is now going to do it's best to push those who disagree with it out of that public square.

Click to expand...

I really don't think so. Churches that use their tax exempt status to make money by renting facilities could be judged to be businesses, and rightly so. Churches have not to date been required to perform marriages with which they disagree, however. No priest is going to perform a Catholic marriage between two atheists, nor is the government going to force him to do so.

cpwill said:

Rick Perry, when he can remember to do so :lol:

Seriously, however, Common Core is a major issue for social conservatives, as is the broader issue of education reform.

Click to expand...

I think we must have a different definition of "social conservative". I see CC more as an issue of the federal government taking on a role that belongs to the states, more of a Constitutional issue.

cpwill said:

Well hopefully eventually we elect enough ornery people that we get some traction on enforcement and/or border security. But yes, it's a position of social conservatives that has broad support.

Click to expand...

Again, how is that a "social conservative" issue? It's really more of a national security issue.

cpwill said:

1. Sure and 15 years ago hardly anyone was saying gay marriage - it lost in that bluest of states, California. We will absolutely get attacks on churches to force them to let gays get married in their facilities.
2. That being said, I didn't say Churches. I said Christians.

Click to expand...

OK, then, Christians haven't been required to perform marriages that they don't agree with.

cpwill said:

We are talking here about relevance to the voting public. That is a way of stating a social conservative position in such a way that it appeals to the broader American public.



Then you should spend more time reading our material. Why do you think "Focus on the Family" is called "Focus on the Family" instead of "Focus on Top Marginal Tax Rates"?

Click to expand...

Fairness in taxation is an economic issue. I suppose if you define "social conservative" broadly enough, then there are issues that would appeal to a lot of American voters.

cpwill said:

Not well. Talking about the need to reinforce two-parent family structure in this country and rewarding marriage is A) anathema to much of the Lefts' sexual revolution and B) bad politics. One of the biggest places where the Democrat loses voters is the wedding chapel.

Click to expand...

You do have a point there.
Unfortunately, mostly what is being done by both parties is talking about it.

cpwill said:

Perhaps, but entitlement reform is the only one that is required to directly impact that.

Click to expand...

and election reform, getting the money out of politics, and ending subsidies of all sorts, and ending the "bailing out" of failing industries. There is a lot to be done in that area.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

:shrug: what about Michael Moore and Howard Dean?


The Loud and Angry allow a base to exercise their anger; and they come and go.

Click to expand...

Followed by, "They gonna put us in chains".

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

No, but when you have a business, you don't have a right to refuse service because you don't agree with the politics or religion of potential clients.

Click to expand...

That depends on whether or not they are asking you to participate in their politics or religion. I shouldn't refuse to serve a burger to a guy who's a NAMBLA member. But I should not be forced to cater their annual meetings.

I really don't think so. Churches that use their tax exempt status to make money by renting facilities could be judged to be businesses, and rightly so.

Click to expand...

So.... you really don't think so.... but you agree that indeed it should happen.

Churches have not to date been required to perform marriages with which they disagree, however.

Click to expand...

Sure, and 10 years ago the claims that gays would force wedding photographers or caterers to support their wedding with their time and services would have been considered laughable.

No priest is going to perform a Catholic marriage between two atheists, nor is the government going to force him to do so.

Click to expand...

Naturally. Atheists aren't a powerful interest group intent on forcing them to do so.

I think we must have a different definition of "social conservative". I see CC more as an issue of the federal government taking on a role that belongs to the states, more of a Constitutional issue.

Click to expand...

Then you are thinking "small government conservative", not social conservative. Perhaps you are merely taking those cultural issues in which you disagree with the right and lumping them together as "well, that's social conservatives".

But no, Common Core is a huge issue - education in general is; as is immigration.

Again, how is that a "social conservative" issue? It's really more of a national security issue.

Click to expand...

National security is important, sure, but it is a sub-portion of the immigration debate.

OK, then, Christians haven't been required to perform marriages that they don't agree with.

Click to expand...

I also didn't say "perform", I said "participate in". Why are you insisting on changing the verbiage when you agree?


my bet:

Is that you have no intention whatsoever of arguing that social conservatives retain first amendment rights because you do not empathize with them, and so "you don't see why it's a big deal". When in fact, WRT the First Amendment, it shouldn't matter whether or not you see why it's a big deal. It's enough that it is a violation to someone else. We don't get to force Muslims to handle pork or Jews to handle pork because we think their objections are silly and outdated - what is important is not whether or not we think it's a big deal, but rather that they do.

Fairness in taxation is an economic issue. I suppose if you define "social conservative" broadly enough, then there are issues that would appeal to a lot of American voters.

Click to expand...

You could pitch it as fairness if you like - we shouldn't punish people for getting married, nor should we expect parents to bear a disproportionate burden of the cost of investing in future benefits. Social conservatives, however, would approach it primarily as a way to stop having government create perverse incentives that are harmful to society.

You do have a point there.
Unfortunately, mostly what is being done by both parties is talking about it.

Click to expand...

:shrug: well, every time social conservatives talk about it, the left begins to hysterically scream its' head off, and people like you agree with them that we need to just get over all these silly social issues.

and election reform, getting the money out of politics, and ending subsidies of all sorts, and ending the "bailing out" of failing industries. There is a lot to be done in that area.

Click to expand...

Sure, but none of those are going to reduce the size of government without entitlement reform, and entitlement reform can reduce the size of government without any one of them.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

That depends on whether or not they are asking you to participate in their politics or religion. I shouldn't refuse to serve a burger to a guy who's a NAMBLA member. But I should not be forced to cater their annual meetings.

Click to expand...

If you have a catering business, then catering a meeting is not "participating", but simply serving a customer. You and I may not agree with it, but it is the law of the land: You really can't refuse service simply because you disagree with someone's politics or lifestyle.

cpwill said:

So.... you really don't think so.... but you agree that indeed it should happen.

Click to expand...

only if the "church" is really a business. The law needs to apply equally to all businesses.

cpwill said:

Sure, and 10 years ago the claims that gays would force wedding photographers or caterers to support their wedding with their time and services would have been considered laughable.

Click to expand...

and 30 years ago gays had to keep their sexual orientation to themselves or be ostracized at best, physically attacked at worst. It's still that way in parts of the country.

But 30 years ago, a wedding photographer who refused to serve at a black wedding would have been sued.

Forty years before that, the photographer in question would have been able to simply say, "No N****", and that would have been that.

Sounds like positive change to me.

cpwill said:

Naturally. Atheists aren't a powerful interest group intent on forcing them to do so.

Click to expand...

The priest wouldn't be required to marry Methodists, either.

cpwill said:

Then you are thinking "small government conservative", not social conservative. Perhaps you are merely taking those cultural issues in which you disagree with the right and lumping them together as "well, that's social conservatives".

But no, Common Core is a huge issue - education in general is; as is immigration.



National security is important, sure, but it is a sub-portion of the immigration debate.

Click to expand...

I think we're arguing from two different definitions of the term "social conservative."

cpwill said:

I also didn't say "perform", I said "participate in". Why are you insisting on changing the verbiage when you agree?

Click to expand...

OK, "participate in", then. A wedding photographer isn't "participating in" the wedding. He is providing a service to the family.

cpwill said:

my bet:

​

Is that you have no intention whatsoever of arguing that social conservatives retain first amendment rights because you do not empathize with them, and so "you don't see why it's a big deal". When in fact, WRT the First Amendment, it shouldn't matter whether or not you see why it's a big deal. It's enough that it is a violation to someone else. We don't get to force Muslims to handle pork or Jews to handle pork because we think their objections are silly and outdated - what is important is not whether or not we think it's a big deal, but rather that they do.

Click to expand...

If a Jew or a Muslim has a hog ranch, then they have to handle pork. If they don't want to handle pork, then they don't have to have a business that requires them to handle pork. If they have a restaurant that is Kosher of Halal, then are they required to serve ham? I don't think so. They are, however, required to serve Christians, atheists, Hindus, or anyone else.

cpwill said:

You could pitch it as fairness if you like - we shouldn't punish people for getting married, nor should we expect parents to bear a disproportionate burden of the cost of investing in future benefits. Social conservatives, however, would approach it primarily as a way to stop having government create perverse incentives that are harmful to society.

Click to expand...

Now, that's an issue that a social liberal could get behind. Penalizing people for getting married, or paying them for not being married is just a bad policy for everyone.

cpwill said:

:shrug: well, every time social conservatives talk about it, the left begins to hysterically scream its' head off, and people like you agree with them that we need to just get over all these silly social issues.

Click to expand...

All the conservatives do about promoting the nuclear family is talk. The "left" begins to "hysterically scream" about it? How so? Do you have an example? I'm beginning to think we're talking about two different things here.

cpwill said:

Sure, but none of those are going to reduce the size of government without entitlement reform, and entitlement reform can reduce the size of government without any one of them.

Click to expand...

Correct. It has to be a whole package.

And reducing the size and reach of government is a pipe dream, building castles in the air sort of an issue as our elected representatives are well invested in keeping the growth going as long as possible.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

If you have a catering business, then catering a meeting is not "participating", but simply serving a customer. You and I may not agree with it, but it is the law of the land: You really can't refuse service simply because you disagree with someone's politics or lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Except that that's not the argument anyone is making, making this a strawman. To force Christians to participate in homosexual weddings is indeed to violate their first amendment rights. Christian's aren't out there arguing that they want to refuse service to homosexuals because they disagree with their politics or lifestyle - they are arguing that they do not want to participate through their business in celebrations of it.

only if the "church" is really a business. The law needs to apply equally to all businesses.

Click to expand...

Church's are non-profits. It's about as much a business as when BloodWater or something else holds dinners at $50 a plate. Even where Churches do run businesses (such as schools), they retain their first amendment rights.

and 30 years ago gays had to keep their sexual orientation to themselves or be ostracized at best, physically attacked at worst. It's still that way in parts of the country.

But 30 years ago, a wedding photographer who refused to serve at a black wedding would have been sued.

Forty years before that, the photographer in question would have been able to simply say, "No N****", and that would have been that.

Sounds like positive change to me.

Click to expand...

So are you abandoning your earlier position that it's not going to happen in favor of the agreement that the direction of movement is in favor of it happening?

The priest wouldn't be required to marry Methodists, either.

Click to expand...

Naturally. Methodists aren't going to scream and throw fits, or claim discrimination, or sue, or try to destroy the church and claim massive idiotic damages if he doesn't.

I think we're arguing from two different definitions of the term "social conservative."

Click to expand...

Yup - as stated.

OK, "participate in", then. A wedding photographer isn't "participating in" the wedding. He is providing a service to the family.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Just as every wedding cake is an individually crafted product designed to fit the event, the couple, and the celebration, so is the photographic work. They have every right to refuse to take part as the Church has a right to refuse to let it's sanctuary or meeting area be used.

More to the point of this discussion, any Republican who refuses to protect the First Amendment Rights of the base will not get their support. If you have no intention whatsoever of stopping others from trying to use the coercive power of the state to force me to violate my conscience, I have no intention of voting for you, and in fact, will happily vote against you.

Weren't you the one complaining earlier about conservatism needing to focus on getting government smaller and out of our lives?

If a Jew or a Muslim has a hog ranch, then they have to handle pork.

Click to expand...

Sure, and if they are a grocer, then they don't. And if the State comes along with a law that says "grocers need to carry pork", and they object that their religion forbids them from doing so THEN CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW forcing them to do so anyway. Not "some laws" not "no law unless we really want to". Not "no laws unless you don't agree with their beliefs and think they are rather silly".

If they don't want to handle pork, then they don't have to have a business that requires them to handle pork. If they have a restaurant that is Kosher of Halal, then are they required to serve ham? I don't think so. They are, however, required to serve Christians, atheists, Hindus, or anyone else.

Click to expand...

Sure. What they shouldn't be required to do is cater my bah mitzvah or my bar-b-que featuring pork ribs.

Now, that's an issue that a social liberal could get behind. Penalizing people for getting married, or paying them for not being married is just a bad policy for everyone.

Click to expand...

Actually it's a good policy for Democrats.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

All the conservatives do about promoting the nuclear family is talk. The "left" begins to "hysterically scream" about it? How so? Do you have an example?

Click to expand...

You want an example of social leftists claiming that social conservatives are a bunch of patriarchal theocratic tyrannical nutjobs trying to impose fascism on them? Have you been out on vacation for the past 50 years or so?

Um. Start with Daniel Patrick Moynihan and read forward, I guess? His conclusions are still considered blasphemy for the left. Read any thread here on the subject of two-parent families to see loud, long insistence that it's morally wrong to argue that they are better than single-parent families or other expressions of our broken family structure. If you believe the social science, well, you're a bigot.

Correct. It has to be a whole package.

Click to expand...

Well, mathematically, it doesn't.

And reducing the size and reach of government is a pipe dream, building castles in the air sort of an issue as our elected representatives are well invested in keeping the growth going as long as possible.

Click to expand...

:shrug: the one good thing about unsustainable things is that they are unsustainable - and the growth in our government is unsustainable. It will be reduced in the future, the main question is whether or not we will get control over the process, or have it forced upon us. Given that people who want to avoid the worst of the crises are all evil racists who hate children and want everyone's grandmother to die, it will probably be the latter.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

You want an example of social leftists claiming that social conservatives are a bunch of patriarchal theocratic tyrannical nutjobs trying to impose fascism on them? Have you been out on vacation for the past 50 years or so?

Um. Start with Daniel Patrick Moynihan and read forward, I guess? His conclusions are still considered blasphemy for the left. Read any thread here on the subject of two-parent families to see loud, long insistence that it's morally wrong to argue that they are better than single-parent families or other expressions of our broken family structure. If you believe the social science, well, you're a bigot.

Click to expand...

What I'm hearing from social liberals is that anyone should be able to get married. That sounds a lot like supporting two parent families to me. Moreover, supporting families would mean things like working people having it better than those who choose to simply live together for the sake of continuing to get welfare benefits of one kind or another. That one goes to salaries of working people. It entails being able to get health insurance, even if one of the children is born with a "pre existing condition", and yet the social conservatives beat the drum to overturn the ACA without putting anything in its place.

I'm not sure just what statements by Moynihan you are saying is considered "blasphemy" by "the left", or whether by the phrase "the left" you're talking about social liberals or not. A social liberal would be someone who would be against the idea of government interfering in people's private lives, correct? Or are we using two different definitions of the term?

cpwill said:

Well, mathematically, it doesn't.

Click to expand...

I thought you just posted that it does.

cpwill said:

:shrug: the one good thing about unsustainable things is that they are unsustainable - and the growth in our government is unsustainable. It will be reduced in the future, the main question is whether or not we will get control over the process, or have it forced upon us. Given that people who want to avoid the worst of the crises are all evil racists who hate children and want everyone's grandmother to die, it will probably be the latter.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will probably be the latter.

Isn't it supporters of the ACA who want to off Grandma in order to save money?

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

Dittohead not! said:

What I'm hearing from social liberals is that anyone should be able to get married. That sounds a lot like supporting two parent families to me.

Click to expand...

Firstly no. "Anyone should be able to get married" includes a host of relationships that are not two-parent families

Secondly, feel free to take a look at the discussions of single parenthood, re: the Right's Decrial of, The Left's Reaction to the Rights Decrial of.

Thirdly, there is a reason why it is Democrat policies that impose large marriage penalties. Because they don't care, because they don't think that marriage as the basis of a two-parent household is anything other than some kind of weird, ancient, patriarchal conspiracy That We're So Glad We Moved Away From.

Moreover, supporting families would mean things like working people having it better than those who choose to simply live together for the sake of continuing to get welfare benefits of one kind or another. That one goes to salaries of working people. It entails being able to get health insurance, even if one of the children is born with a "pre existing condition", and yet the social conservatives beat the drum to overturn the ACA without putting anything in its place.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect - there is, if anything, a plethora of health care plans out of Republicans, both from the social conservative and fiscal conservative wings.

I'm not sure just what statements by Moynihan you are saying is considered "blasphemy" by "the left", or whether by the phrase "the left" you're talking about social liberals or not. A social liberal would be someone who would be against the idea of government interfering in people's private lives, correct?

Click to expand...

No. A social liberal, for example, would support the government forcing you to partake in a gay wedding, or using the government to limit political speech. A social liberal would be in favor of forcing people to get all manner of vaccines, a social liberal would be in favor of federalizing education - especially when the opportunity is there to force socially liberal assumptions into the curriculum for children. A social liberal would be in favor of forcing employers or everyone else to pay for people's birth control - including forcing employers who have religious objections because they belief birth control is antithetical to Gods' intentions for our lives. A social liberal would be in favor of defining "your private life" ever-downward, ever out of existence, in favor of the greater efficiencies that can be found through allowing the government to mold us to all be liberals.

Perhaps a quick example in a well known field:
Due to the heavy overlap between social and small government conservatives, you will also see a lot of social conservatives who have a social libertarian viewpoint on that particular issue.

Or are we using two different definitions of the term?

Click to expand...

I think so - I think you are using "social conservative" as a synonym for "people who approve of social policies I dislike".

I thought you just posted that it does.

Click to expand...

No, I stated that entitlement reform by itself could reduce the size of government, irrespective of the other items.

Yes, it will probably be the latter.

Isn't it supporters of the ACA who want to off Grandma in order to save money?

Click to expand...

Nope. But that message was brought to you by the DNC . Next up, the RNC Rebuttal: How Obama Wants To Take Your Guns As Part of the Jade Helm Invasion of Texas.

Re: Hillary is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states[W

cpwill said:

Perhaps a quick example in a well known field:

Social Conservative : the schools should be teaching abstinence-only sex education, or not teaching it at all, but letting the family do that
Social Liberal : you can't trust families. The school should be teaching socially liberal sexual lessons as well as handing out condoms and letting students get abortions without telling their folks
Social Libertarian : Schools shouldn't be touching this stuff, but government also has no business worrying about whether or not families are taking care of it.
​

Due to the heavy overlap between social and small government conservatives, you will also see a lot of social conservatives who have a social libertarian viewpoint on that particular issue.



I think so - I think you are using "social conservative" as a synonym for "people who approve of social policies I dislike".



No, I stated that entitlement reform by itself could reduce the size of government, irrespective of the other items.



Nope. But that message was brought to you by the DNC . Next up, the RNC Rebuttal: How Obama Wants To Take Your Guns As Part of the Jade Helm Invasion of Texas.

Click to expand...

OK, time to define terms.

As social conservative wants government to decide on issues such as marriage and abortion. A social liberal wants the individual to decide on issues of family matters.

Abortion: liberal view, if you don't think abortion is moral, then don't have an abortion.
Conservative view: Abortion is immoral and should be banned.

Marriage: liberal view: If some people are born homosexual, then they should have their relationship recognized and have the same rights as a heterosexual couple.
conservative view: Marriage is between a man and a woman. Government should mandate that it be only between a man and a woman.
Sex education: Liberal view: Children should be taught the basics of human reproduction so that they can make informed decisions when they're ready.
Conservative view: Premarital sex is immoral, and so the schools should either teach abstinence or not address human sexuality at all.

A social liberal could well be a fiscal conservative. In fact, the ideology of small government and individual responsibility is more compatible with social liberalism as I just defined it than is social conservatism.

As for supporting marriage and family through eliminating the marriage penalty, that is not an issue of government forcing one person's moral code on another who may not agree with it.

And supporting the welfare state despite the effect it has on families is not so much a social liberal idea as it is simply a part of the ideology of entitlement, meaning that people are entitled somehow to a living whether or not they have earned it. It's not a part of my definition of the term "social liberal."

Further, there are social liberals in both parties. The social conservatives, on the other hand (as I just defined the term) are mainly in the Republican Party, and are doing no good to the popularity of that party.

So, we have been debating an issue using different definitions of the basic terms. I'm not going to say yours is wrong, just that there can be no conclusion when terms haven't been defined and agreed upon. It's like the little syllogism:


No car in town is faster than Joe's Corvette.
My Yugo is faster than no car in town.
Therefore, my Yugo is faster than Joe's Corvette.

It's a syllogism based on two definitions of the same phrase.

Note: had to abbreviate your post as I exceeded the word limit.