Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office.

    I arrived at that conclusion after having read this...

    Some evangelicals in Republican Party are feeling left out, see no standard-bearer - The Washington Post


    I recall that as Obama won in 08, MSM, even FOX were doing dirges for the republican party, and that they would remain out of power for perhaps a long, long time, an end to their rule. And of course the repubs took back the House, and there ya go. Yet they were perhaps very correct when it comes to the presidency. For given this division within the repub party, with the social conservatives not willing to concede to the forces of a less religious culture, this will serve to keep the party weak when it comes to putting a repub into the white house. For it is assumed by many pundits that they will simply stay home instead of supporting a non social conservative. And Rand Paul with his libertarian streak in regards to drugs and foreign is untenable to a social conservative.

    So it seems, that between the tea people and the morality police, with both seeing being unmovable as a virtue, this pretty much takes away any future republican chances to ever hold the oval office.

    Something else comes to mind when thinking about the future of the social conservative republican party. Theoretically, the change in demographics, with Hispanics taking over, offers the social conservatives a chance to gain power back, and influence. For these Hispanics people are mostly catholic, and that is Christianity, and as such are much more favorable to social conservatism than the secular, non religious are. As white America moves away from religion, the Hispanics will bring it back. One would think that the light bulb should be coming on just about now, if one is concerned with the future of the republican party and the white house.

    Don't you republicans think that beginning right now the party should do what it takes to appeal to future Hispanic voters as well as current Hispanic americans? For they will be the majority in the not so distant future. And they are catholic, and still are faithful to this organized religion, and plays a role in their daily life. They are a wet dream for social conservatives who dream of once again having more influence and power in DC.

  • #2
    Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

    I think until the republicans learn how to talk to the poor and immigrants without demonising them they are pretty much screwed.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

      I think that you are both wrong...

      And so goes the BD claim 'I'd vote for Rand Paul' Lasted less than 24 hours.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
        I think until the republicans learn how to talk to the poor and immigrants without demonising them they are pretty much screwed.
        Jeb Seems to fit all of those roles, and has the social values to boot.

        I disagree with Blue Doggy totally, until a social conservative is nominated the GOP will never win the WH again.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

          Republicans have real problems at the national level. There are Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and a bunch of Old Guard Republicans who want to spend as much as the Democrats do. It's hard to nominate a true conservative of any kind when the leadership wants to spend, spend, spend.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
            I think until the republicans learn how to talk to the poor and immigrants without demonising them they are pretty much screwed.
            The tide is turning on how to treat thos "poor immigrants". I know how to talk to them: "No Mas". We need someone who isn't a coward and wants to represent the hundreds of millions who are here legally. Someone who wants to protect the citizen-workers of this nation. Not a fool that panders to pee-cee ideals or corporate manipulators while wages are driven ever downward.

            We need an ethical conservative and fiscial conservative that is more then a flim-flam not-a-Democrat.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

              Where did I say they needed to pander to the poor or immigrant's?
              Republicans need to learn that they can be tough on both without being rude or dismissive. You can cut spending and limit benefits and communicate this message to people so they know why the purse strings are bei g tightened by not at the same time giving huge tax breaks to the rich while the poor and middle class are asked to contribute more and more.

              Things like the famous "I like firing people" at a time when millions were indeed being fired are going to continue to cost you elections.
              Seeing a hugely wealthy guy say that is not good.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                This is not new, and we have had discussions before on the demographics of the nation when it comes to social issues. We can also dismiss the OP idea that the Tea Party is in opposition to social conservatism, most polls support that the overwhelming majority of the Tea Party also sides social conservative.

                What we are really seeing is the same thing the Republican Party has struggled with since Bush 43's second mid term, identification. OldmanDan is right, there is a real divide within the party when it comes to what establishment wants, what fiscal conservatism wants, and what social conservatives wants. Those three are no longer in alignment, and all those parties no longer feel welcome at the same table. In a sense, it is establishment that did this to themselves going way to far with their view of poor government fiscal and monetary policy for way too long.

                For social conservatism exclusively, I offer the below somewhat older polling. The pulse of the nation in that regard is very different than it was all of 15-20 years ago. During Clinton's time, he could get away with signing a Defense of Marriage Act. The pulse of the nation today would not allow for that even if the numbers still support the measure. As said below, what is growing in numbers are those that do not side social conservative on arguably the bread and butter topics Republicans are used to running on.

                Attitudes about gay marriage, alternative family structures, birth control use, role of men and women, even abortion tend to tell us that running on a platform social conservatives are used to tends to backfire. The suggestion of "family values" is no longer has the same meaning. Now we can blame any number of factors but the point is we are here now. The polling suggests the conclusion that it will be tough for Republicans to run a true across the board social conservative and win the WH.

                All the problems are still here. Today's establishment Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. Today's fiscal conservatives tend to look at Libertarianism as a response. Today's social conservatives are finding their numbers and that impact reducing. So it makes perfect sense for the party as a whole to seem like they are facing an identify crisis where "factions" within the party feel ignored.

                Too much has happened to take us back to the ideology make up of the 1950's. You could say the damage was done as far back as the social revolutions of the 1960's, kickstarting the idea that concepts of social control were bound to change. They clearly have, we clearly see the result, and the acceptance of social norms today suggests Republicans need a new strategy. Getting up and saying rape that results in pregnancy is "God's gift" will turn voters away today where as in the 1950's it may have secured votes. Talking about what is and is not "legitimate rape" tends to do the same today vs. the 1950's. Getting up and suggesting a traditional family is the only way to raise a child has a dramatic impact on the voters today just not considered even 20 years ago.

                Bottom line, people (by trend) no longer want a government telling them moral code. Because of that, running as a social conservative means something in the primary but becomes adversarial with a growing voter demographic in the general elections. In my opinion what ends up discarded is fiscal conservatism, and because of Libertarians would not even be a party if Republicans knew how to keep voters that simply want the government to exist like it did at founding and leave social matters to the people and the church. But we know that bridge was made a long way back, there is a consequence in doing so.

                Conservative Lead on Social and Economic Ideology Shrinking

                On social issues, 34% identify as conservative and 30% as liberal

                [ATTACH]15381[/ATTACH]

                In the same poll, using Gallup's standard ideology question, 37% of Americans describe their political views overall as conservative, 25% as liberal, and 35% as moderate. That 12-point conservative-liberal gap falls in between the 21-point gap on economic issues and the four-point gap on social issues. But this general measure of ideology has also shown that the conservative-over-liberal advantage has been narrowing in recent years.

                Americans' increasingly liberal views on social issues are apparent in trends showing that the public is exhibiting greater support for gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, and having a baby outside of marriage, and diminished support for the death penalty.
                http://www.gallup.com/poll/170741/co...shrinking.aspx
                Attached Files

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                  Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                  This is not new, and we have had discussions before on the demographics of the nation when it comes to social issues. We can also dismiss the OP idea that the Tea Party is in opposition to social conservatism, most polls support that the overwhelming majority of the Tea Party also sides social conservative.

                  What we are really seeing is the same thing the Republican Party has struggled with since Bush 43's second mid term, identification. OldmanDan is right, there is a real divide within the party when it comes to what establishment wants, what fiscal conservatism wants, and what social conservatives wants. Those three are no longer in alignment, and all those parties no longer feel welcome at the same table. In a sense, it is establishment that did this to themselves going way to far with their view of poor government fiscal and monetary policy for way too long.

                  For social conservatism exclusively, I offer the below somewhat older polling. The pulse of the nation in that regard is very different than it was all of 15-20 years ago. During Clinton's time, he could get away with signing a Defense of Marriage Act. The pulse of the nation today would not allow for that even if the numbers still support the measure. As said below, what is growing in numbers are those that do not side social conservative on arguably the bread and butter topics Republicans are used to running on.

                  Attitudes about gay marriage, alternative family structures, birth control use, role of men and women, even abortion tend to tell us that running on a platform social conservatives are used to tends to backfire. The suggestion of "family values" is no longer has the same meaning. Now we can blame any number of factors but the point is we are here now. The polling suggests the conclusion that it will be tough for Republicans to run a true across the board social conservative and win the WH.

                  All the problems are still here. Today's establishment Republicans are not fiscal conservatives. Today's fiscal conservatives tend to look at Libertarianism as a response. Today's social conservatives are finding their numbers and that impact reducing. So it makes perfect sense for the party as a whole to seem like they are facing an identify crisis where "factions" within the party feel ignored.

                  Too much has happened to take us back to the ideology make up of the 1950's. You could say the damage was done as far back as the social revolutions of the 1960's, kickstarting the idea that concepts of social control were bound to change. They clearly have, we clearly see the result, and the acceptance of social norms today suggests Republicans need a new strategy. Getting up and saying rape that results in pregnancy is "God's gift" will turn voters away today where as in the 1950's it may have secured votes. Talking about what is and is not "legitimate rape" tends to do the same today vs. the 1950's. Getting up and suggesting a traditional family is the only way to raise a child has a dramatic impact on the voters today just not considered even 20 years ago.

                  Bottom line, people (by trend) no longer want a government telling them moral code. Because of that, running as a social conservative means something in the primary but becomes adversarial with a growing voter demographic in the general elections. In my opinion what ends up discarded is fiscal conservatism, and because of Libertarians would not even be a party if Republicans knew how to keep voters that simply want the government to exist like it did at founding and leave social matters to the people and the church. But we know that bridge was made a long way back, there is a consequence in doing so.


                  http://www.gallup.com/poll/170741/co...shrinking.aspx
                  Many seem to believe that social conservatives want to dictate what you can do or not do. That is not the case. What I want is not to be told what I need to accept because it is politically correct. I don't want my children to be taught that abortion and gay marriage are right and acceptable. I don't want my children to be taught that homosexual behavior is right. I want to be able to believe and observe my moral and religious values and not have government subvert those values. I don't want government telling me I have to buy abortificants for my employees. I don't want the government to be telling me I have to bake a cake for a gay wedding or deliver flowers to a gay wedding. I'm not telling you what you can do, I just don't want you telling me what I must do or accept.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                    Many seem to believe that social conservatives want to dictate what you can do or not do. That is not the case. What I want is not to be told what I need to accept because it is politically correct. I don't want my children to be taught that abortion and gay marriage are right and acceptable. I don't want my children to be taught that homosexual behavior is right. I want to be able to believe and observe my moral and religious values and not have government subvert those values. I don't want government telling me I have to buy abortificants for my employees. I don't want the government to be telling me I have to bake a cake for a gay wedding or deliver flowers to a gay wedding. I'm not telling you what you can do, I just don't want you telling me what I must do or accept.
                    I understand your position on this, the reasoning seems sound from a social conservative point of view. But, the numbers suggest political discourse has other implications of that understanding.

                    As I said, we would be having an entirely different conversation if this was taking place even 20 years ago but things have changed enough since then to effect how people vote.

                    image.jpg

                    What you cannot escape is at the end of the day social liberalism has had more success bring people to their understanding than social conservatism has had using your understanding.

                    Again, as I said there is plenty we can discuss in blame but we are here now. For a social conservative to win today it will take handling that political discourse a new way. Evidence suggests that how that has been handled to date pushes people away from the GOP. That is not me making that up, the numbers support the notion. If I went and found a poll on Gay marriage for example, social conservatism is losing ground. If I went and found a poll on the role of women and men, social conservatism already lost that debate.

                    There is a real reason why perception suggests the GOP is the party of older white men while their opposition looks like America. Perception suggests social conservatism is moral code dictation. That is what political discourse has handed the GOP today, again not something I made up.

                    For things to change for the GOP they are going to have to figure out a way to handle social matters without alienation of voters. And that group is growing, enough to effect results when the GOP gets baited into talking about social matters. That is one hell of a challenge for the GOP but is a truth given what the numbers tell us today on matters of social importance.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                      Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                      I understand your position on this, the reasoning seems sound from a social conservative point of view. But, the numbers suggest political discourse has other implications of that understanding.

                      As I said, we would be having an entirely different conversation if this was taking place even 20 years ago but things have changed enough since then to effect how people vote.

                      [ATTACH]15383[/ATTACH]

                      What you cannot escape is at the end of the day social liberalism has had more success bring people to their understanding than social conservatism has had using your understanding.

                      Again, as I said there is plenty we can discuss in blame but we are here now. For a social conservative to win today it will take handling that political discourse a new way. Evidence suggests that how that has been handled to date pushes people away from the GOP. That is not me making that up, the numbers support the notion. If I went and found a poll on Gay marriage for example, social conservatism is losing ground. If I went and found a poll on the role of women and men, social conservatism already lost that debate.

                      There is a real reason why perception suggests the GOP is the party of older white men while their opposition looks like America. Perception suggests social conservatism is moral code dictation. That is what political discourse has handed the GOP today, again not something I made up.

                      For things to change for the GOP they are going to have to figure out a way to handle social matters without alienation of voters. And that group is growing, enough to effect results when the GOP gets baited into talking about social matters. That is one hell of a challenge for the GOP but is a truth given what the numbers tell us today on matters of social importance.
                      Much of that perception is generated by a liberal MSM which has a political agenda and creates beliefs in people's minds that social conservatives want to rule their lives. It is not the case but it is the propaganda pushed by the MSM to achieve their liberal agenda.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                        Where did I say they needed to pander to the poor or immigrant's?
                        Republicans need to learn that they can be tough on both without being rude or dismissive. You can cut spending and limit benefits and communicate this message to people so they know why the purse strings are bei g tightened by not at the same time giving huge tax breaks to the rich while the poor and middle class are asked to contribute more and more.

                        Things like the famous "I like firing people" at a time when millions were indeed being fired are going to continue to cost you elections.
                        Seeing a hugely wealthy guy say that is not good.
                        These precariously United States of North America have taken on the structure/organization of a rigid hierarchy - may not have started out this way ... however in the present day, this is what we have become. Having a rigid hierarchical structure, there are many 'convenient fictions' which allow or 'pave the way' for its continuance in the present form.

                        Those at the very top of the hierarchy are surrounded by 'gate keepers' & 'yes men' - very few seem to question the orders from above. Those at the top are isolated from actual work situations & remain comfortably numb.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                          Many seem to believe that social conservatives want to dictate what you can do or not do. That is not the case. What I want is not to be told what I need to accept because it is politically correct. I don't want my children to be taught that abortion and gay marriage are right and acceptable. I don't want my children to be taught that homosexual behavior is right. I want to be able to believe and observe my moral and religious values and not have government subvert those values. I don't want government telling me I have to buy abortificants for my employees. I don't want the government to be telling me I have to bake a cake for a gay wedding or deliver flowers to a gay wedding. I'm not telling you what you can do, I just don't want you telling me what I must do or accept.
                          Well, they certainly want to dictate what one may consume legally. They want their values imposed by force and incarceration upon the rest of society. And not only in this area, but in other areas as well. I mean, that is the common perception that has some truth in it.

                          Yet at the end of the day, the social conservatives will have to step back and live with those that don't share their same view, as they leave personal behavior of others up to others, instead of trying to impose by law their own views of the "good". Given the diversity of this nation these days, gov't has to be purely secular, and then religious and moral beliefs will be a very personal thing, what one does on one's own time, without interfering in the lives of others. That this really is untenable for many social conservatives will continue to hurt them, for they believe yielding is surrender and a sort of war mentality manifests.

                          I am afraid that Sodom and Gomorrah has no place going into the future for social conservatives, for the winds of change arrived. But as I mentioned earlier, the changing demographics, with us becoming a more catholic nation could affect the viability of social conservatism. This may be a thorn in the side of the atheistic left, so the war may not be over, and there may be some light for social conservatives, just depending upon the future relationship of the republican party with the Hispanic catholics. Since most that have come here, and will continue to come here are not really educated people, but of that class that have always tended to be religious, they are a group to contend with a few decades from now. The social cons have been gifted with this, but I doubt they will use it as they could, and their attitudes towards these people will send them scurrying to the liberal dems instead.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                            Much of that perception is generated by a liberal MSM which has a political agenda and creates beliefs in people's minds that social conservatives want to rule their lives. It is not the case but it is the propaganda pushed by the MSM to achieve their liberal agenda.
                            That very well may be the part of the case, but it takes us right back to the same point time and time again. Political discourse (and the media if it makes you feel better) has handed the GOP several image problems they will have to contend with one way or another. You can tell me until you are blue in the face they are all wrong but I'll note I keep pulling up numbers while you refer to your own understandings.

                            The interesting part of all of this is we are talking about strikingly small percentages of the population having a seat at the table of discussion on a social matters. But the nature of the discussion seems to appeal to an increasing voter demographic.

                            image.jpg

                            Even just the gay marriage debate we have seen quite a shift in very short order that honestly effects very few people. But that is the point is it not? We are not talking about some massive behavioral change, just a point of acceptance. An attitude that is incompatible with today's social conservatives who appear to be appealing to less voters because of. If it were otherwise, the masses would drown out the media. If it were otherwise, running on a "family values" platform would secure the votes of the majority of the nation. If it were otherwise, a Senator could get away with more social conservative stump time. But, it appears that social liberalism appeals to more voters today, for a host of reasons. While the GOP speaks and ends up alienating voters. It is just truth.

                            The overall results speak for themselves but present a real problem for "social conservatism" to be a plausible path to the WH. It could happen under some circumstances, but appears less likely the further we go given what the numbers tell us.

                            image.jpg

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Social conservatives will insure a republican will never be elected to the oval office

                              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                              Where did I say they needed to pander to the poor or immigrant's?
                              All the "immingrants" i.e. illegal aliens and supporters want is a cheap and easy ride to citizenship... well cheap and easy benefits of citizenship.

                              "I like to fire people" came from an outsourcing piece of crap who may pretend to be a conservative but is nthing of the sort beyond his personal views of his favorite invisible man in the sky. Social conservatism is meaningless if not coupled with fiscal and ethical conservatism.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X