View Poll Results: How would it affect your vote if the republican party did not oppose SSM?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • I would not vote republican if they did not support a ban on SSM

    3 8.33%
  • I would be less likely to vote republican

    3 8.33%
  • I would be more likely to vote republican

    8 22.22%
  • It would have no effect on my vote

    15 41.67%
  • Other, don't know

    7 19.44%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 78

Thread: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

  1. #51
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Well, no. Societies and organisms are two distinctly different things. Trying to apply the "rules" of evolution to societies will lead to mistaken ideas.
    I would disagree. While I wouldn't say that one can safely fully adopt Organic State Theory (that is a progressive construct), many of the rules can indeed be applied to societies. The institutions that give societies strength can be weakened, damaged, strengthened, invigorated, corrupted, or turn and attack other institutions. As cultures clash, those which are the most successful in leveraging their resources through their institutions will take the space and resources of those which are not. Notice, for example, that polygamous societies tend to have higher internal dissension, disorder, and violence as men compete over females, and society is left struggling to deal with groups of unattached young men with no future prospects for family (which are socially the most destructive demographic. As an example, suicide bombers are generally exclusively drawn from this group). Notice that not least because monogamous societies generally are more powerful and less authoritative than polygamous societies. Less internal strife requires a less powerful leviathan. And so India did not conquer Britain, despite its' massive advantages in size, resources, and people; but Britain did conquer India (this is not to say it is the only factor, only that it is one, and an important one). Less stable societies have less ability to project power, and less ability to protect themselves from the projection of others. This reality is going to be a powerful influence on China in the next few decades, and is one of the reasons why those who fear her supplanting the US are perhaps overstating the case.

    Thius is a perfect example of why trying to apply evolution to societies does not work.
    On the contrary, this demonstrates that evolution has forced society to grow stronger to the point where it can support a given number of single mothers. They do not starve to death with the same rapidity as they used to. It does not make it immune to being dragged, down, but rather "increases the amount of ruin in a nation" (to abuse Adam Smith).

    It is also not necessarily accurate as there are other factors at play in success of children
    but none so powerful or controlling. Nor does it make it any less accurate to point out that there are other factors at play. That is like saying that a good goalie is not important to a soccer team because it is important to also have good forwards.

    Trying to predict the future is an exorcize in futility
    On the contrary, trying to predict the future is how the vast majority of us live our lives. I, for example, predict that I and my family will survive the next few years, and so I am saving money now in order to be able to purchase a home then. Nor is it an exercise in futility; many of the outlines in the future are already known. For example, when we are looking at populaces, demographics are slow moving targets. If we wish to know how many 75 year olds we shall have in the world in 2038, we need only look to see how many 50 year olds we have now, and then give apply an average range of how many we are most likely to lose in the meantime in order to get a high probability depiction of future septuagenarians.

    The world now is not only nothing like what any one predicted when I was a kid, it is nothing like what any one predicted when I was your age.
    Really? Nations do not pursue power? People do not continue to fight each other over resources or ethnic or religious divisions? Trade does not occur? You are mistaking the expressions of the rules for the rules themselves. The Soviet Union is gone. George Kennan might not be astonished. Russia is attempting once again to secure her near-abroad. Halford Mackinder would not be.

    Not surprisingly, I find the opposite. Might be something in that difference in experience...
    Reminds me of the old saw about Americans and Canadians - that Americans are blissfully unaware of Canada, while Canadians are virulently well-informed on America. Conservatives, from what I see, tend to be virulently well-informed on the history and tenets of progressivism, Liberals tend to be... less so on the history of conservativsm. It seems to basically boil down to a rough sense that "conservatives were racists who didn't like unions". Point out that the great racists in American history were the progressives and you'll get a mixture of angry denial followed by a claim that somehow magically they all switched parties (not to dive into that debate, but to use it as an example). There is no Liberal equivalent to Glenn Beck diving into Woodrow Wilson, but Beck did and conservatives flocked to that show.

  2. #52
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,127

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    and then i pointed out that the same is true of sub-culture units. so it seems that we will allow America to create for itself a permanent underclass of those who fail to pursue education, have children out of wedlock, and can't stay married. Alright. They will be ruled by my (broadly) children, who will pursue education and raise their children inside of marriages which last for a lifetime. Social Conservatives will win against the current forces of anarchy by the simple (ironic) rules of evolution. Weaker social models die and are replaced by stronger ones.
    But that isn't what is happening. The underclass as you've called it are gaining prominence, are doing the ruling at the detriment to the ones you are claiming will win the day. (eventually, even if).

    Now I am with you on what you're saying (at least what I think you're saying) that the moral system and the lifestyle set in place by "social conservatives" are what will persevere. I can't argue with that, I mean I don't label myself a social conservative, though I stand for basically everything they do, the exception is I only find that it is my duty to stay the course for myself and my posterity.

    I've no right to prevent someone else to follow the path of their choosing. If the rest of society wants to take that head long plunge, I say have at it.

    Social conservatives as well as those on the other side have this overwhelming desire to force their worldview onto others, and as many of them as possible.

    An entirely new way of doing things can allow for the securing of social conservative values while also allowing the "free spirits" (and I really dislike using that term but it is the only one I can come up with) to live out their life as they choose.

    Bringing this back around, social conservatives I'm afraid lack the guile necessary to achieve their goals in today's politcal climate. Direct confrontation and steadfast resolve against compromise won't win the day, and won't provide political clout. Where they need to focus their energies and political muscle is in candidates who will allow them to pursue their agenda in an unencumbered, extra-governmental capacity. This very well might be in a party which supports everything they stand agaisnt but then they must ask themselves is political clout what's most important or is it their agenda?

  3. #53
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    But that isn't what is happening. The underclass as you've called it are gaining prominence, are doing the ruling at the detriment to the ones you are claiming will win the day. (eventually, even if).
    Well, increasingly, wealth and success comes not from entrepreneurialism, but rather from rent-seeking. That, too, is a cognitive competition, and ones that children who had better upbringings will be more suited to winning. I agree, it will lead to the partial collapse of the state, but at that point the state will no longer have a fiscal choice but to radically reduce expenditures, at which point (again) those children who had better upbringings will be better suited to adapt.

    Perhaps I should make it more clear and thus less politically partisan Democrats are trying (and may succeed) to destroy the United States of America, but will fail to destroy Americans

    Now I am with you on what you're saying (at least what I think you're saying) that the moral system and the lifestyle set in place by "social conservatives" are what will persevere. I can't argue with that, I mean I don't label myself a social conservative, though I stand for basically everything they do, the exception is I only find that it is my duty to stay the course for myself and my posterity.
    Have you ever read Charles Murrays' "Coming Apart"? You might find his depiction of those who "Don't Preach What They Practice" with regards to social conservatism interesting.

    I've no right to prevent someone else to follow the path of their choosing. If the rest of society wants to take that head long plunge, I say have at it.
    well, there we get into the problem of the fact that our rules of society tie their success to ours. Gotta redistribute all that unfairly accumulated success, after all .

    Social conservatives as well as those on the other side have this overwhelming desire to force their worldview onto others, and as many of them as possible.
    Hm. Yes and no. For example, any set of borders, as wide ranging as the steppes or as constrained as a fjord (I've been looking at a lot of maps lately) are a set of borders - and to say that we should not apply a narrower standard, we should apply a broader standard, is still to apply a standard.

    As two specific examples, of how this gets' misconstrued people tend to rush to the abortion debate here, mistaking its' underlying premise. Both sides on the abortion issue are arguing under the same construct of defending the individual from the coercive power of others. Secondly, folks accuse social conservatives of wishing to impose their views on others because they do not acquiesce to social liberals imposing their view of marriage on society. That is rhetorical sleight of hand, not an honest or accurate appraisal of coercion.

    Social Conservatives, for example, do not wish to force folks to go to church. They typically do not wish to force a national religious or forcibly patriotic curriculum on school children - they rather think that they should be free at the local or private level to do so. They probably think that people should, but social conservatives draw a thicker line between "what is good for people" and "what the rest of us therefore have a right to use the state to force people to do or not do". It is not social conservatives pushing bans on soda cup sizes; for example.

    An entirely new way of doing things can allow for the securing of social conservative values while also allowing the "free spirits" (and I really dislike using that term but it is the only one I can come up with) to live out their life as they choose.
    An entirely new way of doing things? Color me intensely suspicious of the plausibility of that. "Third Way"s are long the slogan of old ways, failed ways, and often brutal ways.

    Bringing this back around, social conservatives I'm afraid lack the guile necessary to achieve their goals in today's politcal climate. Direct confrontation and steadfast resolve against compromise won't win the day, and won't provide political clout. Where they need to focus their energies and political muscle is in candidates who will allow them to pursue their agenda in an unencumbered, extra-governmental capacity. This very well might be in a party which supports everything they stand agaisnt but then they must ask themselves is political clout what's most important or is it their agenda?
    Well there has been a big push in conservative circles since Nov 2012 that we need to "re win society", which is true. Conservatives were successful in gaining major political victories, and didn't realize the electoral import of the growing numbers of broken families and unattached adults. With regards to electoral turnout, however, you demonstrate my own point - if social conservatives lack the machiavellian guile to seek their own best interest in indirect manners, then they will not come out in favor of a party which preaches SSM as much as they would for one which did not.

  4. #54
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Incidentally, this is fun . This is what I'd hoped the Loft would be, but instead it seems to be where Ideas Go To Die.

  5. #55
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    It wouldn't change the way I vote one bit.

    While I am against SSM, it is not a major enough issue to me. The GOP is only an ally to me, not my choice of representatives. They are an ally in the fight against socialism, whether it be called Liberal, progressive, socialism, communism, or any other name that exist merely to hide the real agenda of the left, that is to enslave mankind to their idea of "common good".

    The core of my political beliefs is the betterment of mankind as a whole through the empowerment of the individual to achieve or fail based upon their own initiative, choices, etc and that individuals should prosper or suffer based upon these factors. Economically, I believe in a lightly regulated free market economy that allows and encourages growth and advancement through open competition. This places me at odds with first socialist since socialism, in the end, is slavery and the greatest evil ever fostered upon mankind, and secondly at odds with corporatism since slavery to "protected" corporations is still slavery, just a more comfortable slavery than socialism and it will take longer than socialism to cause total economic collapse. So my first priority is to support the defeat of socialism, there for, I will not vote for a Dem who is any further left than "moderate" regardless of what the GOP does. It would be great to see a separate party arise embracing my beliefs, but until then, I will support the GOP candidates against the red menace.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  6. #56
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Notice, for example, that polygamous societies tend to have higher internal dissension, disorder, and violence as men compete over females, and society is left struggling to deal with groups of unattached young men with no future prospects for family (which are socially the most destructive demographic.
    It sounds plausible, but is it really the case? Polygamy and concubinage were practiced in China for thousands of years, doing no obvious damage to the overall stability. And, of course, the Islamic countries have a few centuries of steady expansion and regional dominance under their belts.

    While tensions may spike when the richest guy in the town takes 10 wives, and the poorest guys get none, in the next generation it means his wealth being distributed among many children - both poverty and inequality reduced, which must be good for stability. It is very hard to trace actual influence of one factor in systems as complex as human society.

  7. #57
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    It sounds plausible, but is it really the case?
    Yup. I did some study on this back when the gang-rape cases were huge news in India. Turns out that societies that have a critical mass of unmarried adult males who have no serious prospects of becoming married are more violent places. Astonishingly, the best social science is now discovering that testosterone may be tied to aggression (shocking, right?).

    Polygamy and concubinage were practiced in China for thousands of years, doing no obvious damage to the overall stability. And, of course, the Islamic countries have a few centuries of steady expansion and regional dominance under their belts.
    And lots of tribal war and infighting to show for it. And if you think that China's leadership isn't desperately seeking a way to keep its Bare Branches successfully integrated productive members of society, you need to take a better look at how desperately they are trying to keep their civil infrastructure bubble (which employs these men) going.

    While tensions may spike when the richest guy in the town takes 10 wives, and the poorest guys get none, in the next generation it means his wealth being distributed among many children - both poverty and inequality reduced, which must be good for stability. It is very hard to trace actual influence of one factor in systems as complex as human society.
    It's not that "tensions spike", it's that "non-state violent groups form". not good for stability.

  8. #58
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Sticking the government nose in the private lives of citizens is not a "conservative" principle and Republicans would be well advised to distance themselves from the branch of the party that insists on dragging religious doctrine into the public square. It may cost them some elections in the short term, but I'd be willing to bet that the Republican brand would be more attractive to more people if it spent all it's time on fiscal issues, the economy, and the financial health of the country.

  9. #59
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,127

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Well, increasingly, wealth and success comes not from entrepreneurialism, but rather from rent-seeking. That, too, is a cognitive competition, and ones that children who had better upbringings will be more suited to winning. I agree, it will lead to the partial collapse of the state, but at that point the state will no longer have a fiscal choice but to radically reduce expenditures, at which point (again) those children who had better upbringings will be better suited to adapt.

    Perhaps I should make it more clear and thus less politically partisan Democrats are trying (and may succeed) to destroy the United States of America, but will fail to destroy Americans
    Seperating the curd from the whey won't prevent the milk from turning sour.


    Have you ever read Charles Murrays' "Coming Apart"? You might find his depiction of those who "Don't Preach What They Practice" with regards to social conservatism interesting.
    I have not but reading a review I put the suggestion on my list, thanks for the recommendation.

    well, there we get into the problem of the fact that our rules of society tie their success to ours. Gotta redistribute all that unfairly accumulated success, after all .
    ha! No, but taking away the guns of law abiding citizens is a good way to help that redistribution, ain't it?

    Hm. Yes and no. For example, any set of borders, as wide ranging as the steppes or as constrained as a fjord (I've been looking at a lot of maps lately) are a set of borders - and to say that we should not apply a narrower standard, we should apply a broader standard, is still to apply a standard.

    As two specific examples, of how this gets' misconstrued people tend to rush to the abortion debate here, mistaking its' underlying premise. Both sides on the abortion issue are arguing under the same construct of defending the individual from the coercive power of others. Secondly, folks accuse social conservatives of wishing to impose their views on others because they do not acquiesce to social liberals imposing their view of marriage on society. That is rhetorical sleight of hand, not an honest or accurate appraisal of coercion.

    Social Conservatives, for example, do not wish to force folks to go to church. They typically do not wish to force a national religious or forcibly patriotic curriculum on school children - they rather think that they should be free at the local or private level to do so. They probably think that people should, but social conservatives draw a thicker line between "what is good for people" and "what the rest of us therefore have a right to use the state to force people to do or not do". It is not social conservatives pushing bans on soda cup sizes; for example.
    Then what we are getting into here is a matter of semantics. As you've portrayed them, social conservatives seem more like proponants of that anarchy you had previously mentioned which would be our undoing. I'm not talkng the silly, childish, Battle in Seattle miscreants who have an unwavering disgust for storefront windows, I'm talking of the mature, self-controlled,self governed type who realisticly understand that government isn't going anywhere so to make due they'll take government at its most local form.


    An entirely new way of doing things? Color me intensely suspicious of the plausibility of that. "Third Way"s are long the slogan of old ways, failed ways, and often brutal ways.
    Oh, that old line of conservative thinking... Let my good friend George Orwell explain my position;

    A rich man who happens to be intellectually honest, if he is questioned about the improvement of working conditions, usually says something like this:

    ‘We know that poverty is unpleasant; in fact, since it is so remote, we rather enjoy harrowing ourselves with the thought of its unpleasantness. But don’t expect us to do anything about it. We are sorry for you lower classes, just as we are sorry for a, cat with the mange, but we will fight like devils against any improvement of your condition. We feel that you are much safer as you are. The present state of affairs suits us, and we are not going to take the risk of setting you free, even by an extra hour a day. So, dear brothers, since evidently you must sweat to pay for our trips to Italy, sweat and be damned to you.’

    This is particularly the attitude of intelligent, cultivated people; one can read the substance of it in a hundred essays. Very few cultivated people have less than (say) four hundred pounds a year, and naturally they side with the rich, because they imagine that any liberty conceded to the poor is a threat to their own liberty. Foreseeing some dismal Marxian Utopia as the alternative, the educated man prefers to keep things as they are. Possibly he does not like his fellow-rich very much, but he supposes that even the vulgarest of them are less inimical to his pleasures, more his kind of people, than the poor, and that he had better stand by them. It is this fear of a supposedly dangerous mob that makes nearly all intelligent people conservative in their opinions.

    Fear of the mob is a superstitious fear. It is based on the idea that there is some mysterious, fundamental difference between rich and poor, as though they were two different races, like Negroes and white men. But in reality there is no such difference. The mass of the rich and the poor are differentiated by their incomes and nothing else, and the. average millionaire is only the average dishwasher dressed in a new suit. Change places, and handy dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief? Everyone who has mixed on equal terms with the poor knows this quite well. But the trouble is that intelligent, cultivated people, the very people who might be expected to have liberal opinions, never do mix with the poor. For what do the majority of educated people know about poverty? In my copy of Villon’s poems the editor has actually thought it necessary to explain the line ‘NE PAIN NE VOYENT QU’AUX FENESTRES’ by a footnote; so remote is even hunger from the educated man’s experience.

    From this ignorance a superstitious fear of the mob results quite naturally. The educated man pictures a horde of submen, wanting only a day’s liberty to loot his house, burn his books, and set him to work minding a machine or sweeping out a lavatory. ‘Anything,’ he thinks, ‘any injustice, sooner than let that mob loose.’ He does not see that since there is no difference between the mass of rich and poor, there is no question of setting the mob loose. The mob is in fact loose now, and — in the shape of rich men — is using its power to set up enormous treadmills of boredom, such as ‘smart’ hotels.
    This can be read literal as well as allegorical.

    Well there has been a big push in conservative circles since Nov 2012 that we need to "re win society", which is true. Conservatives were successful in gaining major political victories, and didn't realize the electoral import of the growing numbers of broken families and unattached adults. With regards to electoral turnout, however, you demonstrate my own point - if social conservatives lack the machiavellian guile to seek their own best interest in indirect manners, then they will not come out in favor of a party which preaches SSM as much as they would for one which did not.
    Oh, but then you forget what you've stated earlier -- they won't get to preach what they practice. They'll turn-out...and vote in predictable fashion...

  10. #60
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,127

    Re: For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Sticking the government nose in the private lives of citizens is not a "conservative" principle and Republicans would be well advised to distance themselves from the branch of the party that insists on dragging religious doctrine into the public square. It may cost them some elections in the short term, but I'd be willing to bet that the Republican brand would be more attractive to more people if it spent all it's time on fiscal issues, the economy, and the financial health of the country.
    Where would you suggest the line of distinction be drawn between moral principle and religious doctrine?

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •