Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know, the best comparison I can give. Is its like I need a car to get to work. My car was stolen/wrecked/broke down, etc...
I go to a car dealership. I NEED a car to support my family and more, but I am focusing primarily on what color the car is. Rather then is it a good car I can afford? Yes the color is important, but in the list of priorities it should be. Can I afford it? Is it a good car for me(big enough, reliable, etc...) then I can focus on frills like the color.
I don't know, the best comparison I can give. Is its like I need a car to get to work. My car was stolen/wrecked/broke down, etc...
I go to a car dealership. I NEED a car to support my family and more, but I am focusing primarily on what color the car is. Rather then is it a good car I can afford? Yes the color is important, but in the list of priorities it should be. Can I afford it? Is it a good car for me(big enough, reliable, etc...) then I can focus on frills like the color.
This is a great analogy and simple enough for anyone to understand. As we have seen, if you make something to difficult, most will choose to focus on something simpler.
The trend is for candidates to focus on social issues when they don't have a positive record to run on. They energize the base and turn out the numbers, which is really all a candidate needs.
Now that is the best excuse for the GOP's complete disdain for women, minorities and pretty much everyone else who cares about those people that I've ever read! Awesome!
Now that is the best excuse for the GOP's complete disdain for women, minorities and pretty much everyone else who cares about those people that I've ever read! Awesome!
The faux disdain was created by Ds so people wouldn't vote on the real issues or Obamas dispicable record.
In the meantime, everyone who is affected by those social issues can just suck it up, right? Yup, colder than hell.
Frankly yes. Priorities people. What's more important, federal gay marriage legislation, a federal abortion amendment, or simply getting the federal government to be fiscally responsible? Leave the social issues to the states. The Feds can't even be trusted to put a frigging BUDGET together, or properly pay the bills they decide to incur. If these social issues are so important to you why are you entrusting them to the circus in Washington?
Frankly yes. Priorities people. What's more important, federal gay marriage legislation, a federal abortion amendment, or simply getting the federal government to be fiscally responsible? Leave the social issues to the states. The Feds can't even be trusted to put a frigging BUDGET together, or properly pay the bills they decide to incur. If these social issues are so important to you why are you entrusting them to the circus in Washington?
Because we now have a generation or two of adults that were brought up thinking government involvement is the only way to achieve "Utopia" in America and that social issues are the topmost priorities.
Personhood legislation, proposed in almost 30 states and on a federal level by folks like Paul Ryan and Todd Akin, define human life at the moment of conception. Since birth control methods like the IUD and sometimes the pill work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, it would make them illegal. Oklahoma almost passed this last year. When they didn't, they primary challenged the moderate R's who opposed it, and replaced them with evangelical conservatives. There's a very good shot of it going through this year--the goal is to create a Supreme Court challenge that works around the edges of Roe v. Wade. Groups like ALEC--the American Legislative Exchange Council--are coordinating efforts with far right law makers across the country to get things like this passed. It's an organized efforts by the radical end of the R base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
In 2012 it was the Dems pushing the social issues and it got Obama re-elected. Republicans weren't talking much about them this time. It wasn't 2004 when I would agree Bush ran on social issues. The trend is for candidates to focus on social issues when they don't have a positive record to run on. They energize the base and turn out the numbers, which is really all a candidate needs.
If I recall, we didn't hear any specifics out of the Romney camp regarding the economy this round, except to say that they'd follow the Ryan plan, and then to deny that they were going to follow the Ryan plan. Why don't you actually look at what R's have proposed in Congress over the last four years, as well as statehouses across the country, and then we'll talk. You know--trans vaginal ultra sounds in Virginia, personhood legislation in statehouses all across the country and DC, and countless attempts to pass federal legislation banning abortion that they knew wasn't going to go anywhere, but they did it to fire up the extremist end of the R base. Just exactly WHO was playing social issues for the election again? Then you get ticked off when people oppose it. Unbelievable. Paul Ryan Cosponsored All the Most Extreme Anti-Abortion Bills | Mother Jones
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseyt719
I hate to tell you this, it's your side that puts out there that the "evil righties are trying to do away with" xyz, infringing on your social rights. And you guys buy it hook, line, and sinker. Look around, social issues are decided by the states, not the feds. When voting in a national election, it is simply about how your tax dollars will be spent and the state of our economy. PERIOD. Socially, what's good for North Dakota may not work in South Carolina. They decide those things individually. In our country and as a country, we have much larger fish to fry than gay marriage. Who gives a crap? We need jobs for Americans, we need our country to be able to keep our heads above water.
I did not hear one person that was given the time of day claim that they would do anything to take away social rights. Read carefully now, "given the time of day". Hell, most on the right side don't even want to touch those things with a ten foot pole and would much rather that the states decide their social rights.
It's your side that puts up the smoke and mirrors and you all fall for it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Yet, we still cannot find a job. Great, everyone can marry who they want, but they just can't afford it.
Everyone needs to vote with their brain and their pocket in national elections and leave their hearts and other parts out of it.
Oh good lord--do you live under a rock? First, you don't know the first thing about "my side." My personal opinion is that there's NOTHING small government or conservative about big, intrusive plans to get in the middle of anyone's personal life choices.
Social issues ARE for the most part decided by the states. What hurts the R BRAND, and that's what this is about--is that more and more people don't trust R's to be sane anymore-- and that these crazy social policy proposals that they're trying to pass on a state wide level are nationally coordinated by the republican party. It's written into the party platform, and national candidates give them lip service to fire up their base, and introduce them on a federal level for the same reason. You guys are getting to the point where people won't vote R on national races because they think you're NUTS. When we do have more moderate, reasonable R's in office, the party challenges them in the primary. Why do you think you lost the women's vote so heavily? A lot of moderate R women crossed over because they think you people are crazy.
Don't lecture me on thinking with my heart vs. my head. I wouldn't call myself a democrat yet, but I voted R for nearly 30 years because the republican party was all about common sense economic policy that supported small business. Not anymore--no common sense economic proposals, and instead they focus on this radical right wing social crap. The bottom line is that I may not agree with the democrats on some issues, but I trust them to at least try to work with the moderates on the conservative side, and to not be INSANE. That's what you have going for you now with the republican reputation--that the right end of the base is totally nuts, and they're the ones calling all the shots.
The faux disdain was created by Ds so people wouldn't vote on the real issues or Obamas dispicable record.
Yeah, because before there were any "Ds" there weren't any folks who fought for social issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now that is the best excuse for the GOP's complete disdain for women, minorities and pretty much everyone else who cares about those people that I've ever read! Awesome!
First, you don't know the first thing about "my side." My personal opinion is that there's NOTHING small government or conservative about big, intrusive plans to get in the middle of anyone's personal life choices. 
