Republican Party on the Decline?

[A2SG]

You don't seem to know what conservatives believe.

You'd be surprised, actually. But I am very much aware of their actions.

Conservatives have rarely ever been against birth control.

Those who support the Hobby Lobby ruling would indicate otherwise.

There are a lot of Catholics who are.

And a lot of catholics who aren't. As someone who grew up catholic, I know first hand that many who still consider themselves catholic, even attend mass on a regular basis, do not agree with every single opinion put forth by the catholic leadership. ESPECIALLY as regards birth control.

There is nothing wrong with a pill that delays ovulation. There is, however a big problem with telling me that my tax money has to go to someone else's birth control. You say you don't believe the government should support everybody- why should I pay for someone else's birth control? Why should I have to pay for their healthcare, or even be forced to have healthcare myself?

Since that isn't the subject of this particular thread, I won't address the issue...but if your point is that I was wrong about the conservative stance on birth control, well, you might want to consider a different tactic than proving me correct.

As for same sex marriage.....

I'll clip this, if you don't mind; suffice to say you've made it clear that I was correct in my estimation about conservative views on this subject as well.

As for the founding fathers, they used problematic wording.

If you're going to appeal to what the founding fathers said about an issue, it would help if you didn't attempt to discredit it in your follow-up.

They said they were about freedom of religion but they meant denomination....

You're free to interpret their words however you like, and I'll leave you to your interpretation without comment.

The fact remains: many conservatives do advocate the use of religion or religious doctrine as the basis for secular law. The above mentioned issues of birth control coverage in health insurance and same sex marriage bear this out.

You would be surprised at how many republicans and Tea partiers have no religion.

I probably would be, though there is always a fringe element to any group. Given the policies favored by the GOP and the tea party, however, to say that religion isn't a major part of either party is simply fallacious.

-- A2SG, but, if you feel differently, you are more than free to provoide evidence supporting your case....

 

[HonestTruth]

You don't seem to know what conservatives believe.

Michael Savage is a popular conservative spokesman who is well known for his hate and treason.

Here, he attacks veterans:


Conservative loon Michael Savage attacks veterans with PTSD: ‘Boo-hoo-hoo!’


Conservative talk radio host Michael Savage said last week that veterans with PTSD are a bunch of crybabies who should act like men and stop complaining because they’re bringing the entire country down.


How anyone can listen to his hate filled shows and support him in any way is shameful.

 

[HonestTruth]

As I mentioned earlier, I do not see the Republican party on the decline though it should be because of its shameful greediness and anti-Christian teachings and actions. Consider this:


Republicans Have Sold the Soul of the American Worker to the Devil Known as Corporate Greed


corporate welfare
tax shelters for the rich
trickle down "theory" is a total sham


Republicans Have Sold the Soul of the American Worker to the Devil Known as Corporate Greed



Jesus repeatedly taught about the evils of the wealthy. The Book of Amos tells what happens to a nation that succumbs to wealthy elitism. People in the USA claim this is a Christian nation and it is time to actually live by that ideal rather than succumb to wealthy elitism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The incredibly low voter turnout we've seen lately is a good indicator that both parties are on the decline if you want my honest opinion.

The Democrats have a slight leg up at the moment simply due to the age demographic makeup of our current population & voter base. (The 18-25 age range has always leaned left as a whole)

Only 54% of eligible voters actually voted in 2012 (a decline from 2008)...that tells me that half the people in this nation don't care for either party.

There was a slight hike in turnout in 2008 due to some sparked interest in Obama breaking the mold (minority turnout was increased due to them wanting to support the making of history), however, it went right back down in 2012 once the hype wore off.

Republicans attempting to move toward the Democrats in order to gain more support is a short-sighted strategy, what really needs to happen is for a 3rd party to emerge.

I think there are enough people with a libertarian mindset that if they took an honest look at their own stances on things, they'd find that they actually have more in common with libertarians than they do with their own party. (that goes for democrats and republicans). I know plenty of republicans who couldn't care less about marriage and abortion...and I also know plenty of democrats who couldn't care less about gun control and universal healthcare.

Republicans becoming more like Democrats is the last thing we would want to have happen...Most everyone I talk to (liberals and conservatives) dislike the two party system, makes me wonder how they'd feel about a 1-party system...because that's what we'd end up with. Instead of having choices, we'd just end up with 1 party that none of us were particularly happy with.

 

[Albion]

Actually, this (below) is the reason for the Republican struggles at the polls.

As our forefathers said, an "informed" electorate is necessary for the maintenance of a Republic.

But today, anyone who can memorize the latest slogan created by some ad man can cancel out the vote of the most thoughtful of electors.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not see the Republican party on the decline though it should be because of its shameful greediness and anti-Christian teachings and actions. Consider this:


Republicans Have Sold the Soul of the American Worker to the Devil Known as Corporate Greed


corporate welfare
tax shelters for the rich
trickle down "theory" is a total sham


Republicans Have Sold the Soul of the American Worker to the Devil Known as Corporate Greed



Jesus repeatedly taught about the evils of the wealthy. The Book of Amos tells what happens to a nation that succumbs to wealthy elitism. People in the USA claim this is a Christian nation and it is time to actually live by that ideal rather than succumb to wealthy elitism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

corporate welfare
tax shelters for the rich
trickle down "theory" is a total sham

While those things might be a sham...

Regular Welfare
Over-taxation
Minimum Wage
Public Sector Unions
Social Security

...are also a sham.

The notion that a handout will pull someone out of poverty is false
The notion that you can fix the ills of society by taking 20-30% of someone's income is false
The fact that public sector unions (and thus their union dues) are funded from taxpayer money, and that money being used to endorse specific candidates is a travesty and completely undermines how our political process is supposed to work.
The fact that an additional tax is being levied against us under the guise that "it's money we're setting aside for your future" is both dishonest and a sham.

 

[The Outlier]

Michael Savage is a popular conservative spokesman who is well known for his hate and treason.

Here, he attacks veterans:


Conservative loon Michael Savage attacks veterans with PTSD: ‘Boo-hoo-hoo!’


Conservative talk radio host Michael Savage said last week that veterans with PTSD are a bunch of crybabies who should act like men and stop complaining because they’re bringing the entire country down.


How anyone can listen to his hate filled shows and support him in any way is shameful.

Yes there are conservatives out there who are haters. Its good to know that someone else acknowledges the obvious.

 

[The Outlier]

You'd be surprised, actually. But I am very much aware of their actions.

Those who support the Hobby Lobby ruling would indicate otherwise.

Those who support the hobby lobbly ruling support their right to oppose birth control, not necessarily their opposition to birth control. I support the right of anyone to believe in Global warming and vote democrat. That doesn't mean I agree with them; it means America is a country where you are allowed to believe whatever you want.

And a lot of catholics who aren't. As someone who grew up catholic, I know first hand that many who still consider themselves catholic, even attend mass on a regular basis, do not agree with every single opinion put forth by the catholic leadership. ESPECIALLY as regards birth control.

Correct- and I do not agree with about 20% of what Baptists believe.

Since that isn't the subject of this particular thread, I won't address the issue...but if your point is that I was wrong about the conservative stance on birth control, well, you might want to consider a different tactic than proving me correct.

I'll clip this, if you don't mind; suffice to say you've made it clear that I was correct in my estimation about conservative views on this subject as well.

Conservatives believe you are free to believe anything you want; just not to do everything you want. A lot of conservatives even oppose a piece of paper saying that 2 gays are married. They think the legalization of anything related to homosexuality is an affront to God. Homosexuality may be. Allowing people a certain amount of freedom to sin is not, in my opinion. Its about as pointless as jailing people who have affairs or jailing teenage girls who get pregnant. People who have affairs or get pregnant out of wedlock already have their own consequences. They already know what they did wrong 9 times out of 10. I would take exception to abortion, because that's the taking of an innocent life in a world where there are plenty of other ways to take care of both the mother and the baby. I'm not against churches or charities having a free baby-sitting ministry, donating money to help them pay bills, ect. or donating clothes to pregnant mothers- as long as you don't force churches to do it. Its better to give them a tax break for doing it.

If you're going to appeal to what the founding fathers said about an issue, it would help if you didn't attempt to discredit it in your follow-up.

It doesn't work that way. What I said was not an attack on my own position. It was saying the founding fathers weren't perfect.

The fact remains: many conservatives do advocate the use of religion or religious doctrine as the basis for secular law. The above mentioned issues of birth control coverage in health insurance and same sex marriage bear this out.

They advocate setting rules and agreeing with a certain set of moral concepts. You can run a country without agreeing on one set of rules. Otherwise you have anarchy. Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, ect. should all be free to live here. That doesn't mean we can make a wishy-washy set of rules to make every religion happy. That's not how to run a country. How would you go about enforcing rules that are not absolute?

I probably would be, though there is always a fringe element to any group. Given the policies favored by the GOP and the tea party, however, to say that religion isn't a major part of either party is simply fallacious.

Correct. Religion is part of the democratic party and liberalism as well. I assume you would agree that there is a difference between "liberal" and democrat"? Truman was a Democrat, but not a liberal.

 

[HonestTruth]

Actually, this (below) is the reason for the Republican struggles at the polls.

As our forefathers said, an "informed" electorate is necessary for the maintenance of a Republic.

But today, anyone who can memorize the latest slogan created by some ad man can cancel out the vote of the most thoughtful of electors.

Unfortunately, it is true that people can readily succumb to the lies of ad men - just consider how many were fooled into thinking that people walked out on President Obama during a rally in Maryland when they did not. And also consider how Republicans lead in the pre-election poll despite their lies and the lunacy of trickle down economics that only gives further wealth to the elites.

 

[HonestTruth]

While those things might be a sham...

Regular Welfare
Over-taxation
Minimum Wage
Public Sector Unions
Social Security

...are also a sham.

The notion that a handout will pull someone out of poverty is false
The notion that you can fix the ills of society by taking 20-30% of someone's income is false
The fact that public sector unions (and thus their union dues) are funded from taxpayer money, and that money being used to endorse specific candidates is a travesty and completely undermines how our political process is supposed to work.
The fact that an additional tax is being levied against us under the guise that "it's money we're setting aside for your future" is both dishonest and a sham.

Corporations get bigger handouts than anyone.
The notion that you can fix anything via tax cuts for the wealthy is false.
Police unions are the biggest menace to a free society and they should be forced to pay the damages when innocents are released after police abuses are found.
Overseas tax shelters that allow elites to go tax free for decades is a shame and crime against humanity.



As for government providing for the needs of the citizenry in times of want, that was done in Old Testament times - see Genesis 47. In the New Testament the wealthy were required to give all they have to the poor. Nobody would demand any form of welfare if the rich did that today.

 

[A2SG]

Those who support the hobby lobbly ruling support their right to oppose birth control, not necessarily their opposition to birth control.

A distinction without much difference. The point of the argument is to limit the availability of birth control via health insurance.

The point being, unlike your characterization of liberals, it is the conservatives who are trying to tell others how to live, in this case as regards availability of birth control coverage in their health insurance.

I support the right of anyone to believe in Global warming and vote democrat. That doesn't mean I agree with them; it means America is a country where you are allowed to believe whatever you want.

No one ever said otherwise. Especially not liberals.

Correct- and I do not agree with about 20% of what Baptists believe.

Um...okay. You did get the point, didn't you, that it isn't catholics as a whole who are objecting to birth control as part of health insurance but conservatives...some of whom are catholic, and some who aren't, but are more than happy to use catholic ideology to further their own agenda.

Either way, it isn't liberals who are trying to tell people how to live or pushing religion or religious doctrine on others.

Conservatives believe you are free to believe anything you want; just not to do everything you want. A lot of conservatives even oppose a piece of paper saying that 2 gays are married. They think the legalization of anything related to homosexuality is an affront to God. Homosexuality may be. Allowing people a certain amount of freedom to sin is not, in my opinion. Its about as pointless as jailing people who have affairs or jailing teenage girls who get pregnant. People who have affairs or get pregnant out of wedlock already have their own consequences. They already know what they did wrong 9 times out of 10. I would take exception to abortion, because that's the taking of an innocent life in a world where there are plenty of other ways to take care of both the mother and the baby. I'm not against churches or charities having a free baby-sitting ministry, donating money to help them pay bills, ect. or donating clothes to pregnant mothers- as long as you don't force churches to do it. Its better to give them a tax break for doing it.

In other words, conservatives are telling other people how to live, and are forcing their religious beliefs and religious doctrine on others.

Thanks, that's what I was saying!

It doesn't work that way. What I said was not an attack on my own position. It was saying the founding fathers weren't perfect.

Can't recall anyone saying they were. But you did try to use what they said to bolster your beliefs about modern day conservatives. It didn't work.

They advocate setting rules and agreeing with a certain set of moral concepts. You can run a country without agreeing on one set of rules. Otherwise you have anarchy. Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, ect. should all be free to live here. That doesn't mean we can make a wishy-washy set of rules to make every religion happy. That's not how to run a country.

Thank you again for making my point for me.

Saves me work!

How would you go about enforcing rules that are not absolute?

Same we we do it now. None of our laws are absolute, which is why we have a judicial system that not only tries to determine if the accused did commit the crime in question, but also whether or not mitigating factors affect the situation, and how the specific situation affects the way the law is applied as regards sentencing.

US law is many things, but it isn't absolute. Far from it.

Correct. Religion is part of the democratic party and liberalism as well.

Only in the sense that many democrats and many liberals practice religion of some sort in one way or another. But religion or religious doctrine is not the basis for their political stance on any specific issue, nor do they try to use religion or religious doctrine as the sole basis for secular law.

I assume you would agree that there is a difference between "liberal" and democrat"? Truman was a Democrat, but not a liberal.

And he isn't the only one.

Of course there's a difference. One's an ideology, the other is an officially recognized political party.

Not sure what point you think you're making by stating that rather obvious fact, but given how much you've been making my own case for me, I won't make too big a deal about it.

-- A2SG, but your help is very much appreciated!

 

[The Outlier]

A distinction without much difference. The point of the argument is to limit the availability of birth control via health insurance.

The point being, unlike your characterization of liberals, it is the conservatives who are trying to tell others how to live, in this case as regards availability of birth control coverage in their health insurance.

No one ever said otherwise. Especially not liberals.

Its a huge difference. Its freedom vs rules- the exact thing you say conservatives are against. The interesting thing that separates American conservatives vs conservatives anywhere else is their tendency towards freedoms vs rules. The founding fathers were so much about freedom that they allowed for the very dilemma we are facing today in politics- the decisions over which religion's rules apply. One reason I am a moderate republican and not at all part of the tea party is because they seem to ignore what the Bible says about respecting authority. A typical logical fallacy in most debates is trying to push your opponent to their own extreme when they are not really at an extreme, they just disagree with you. Most conservatives you talk to would call me a moderate. You can check back to all the posts where I supported Immigration reform and the children on the border. You can also see the post about not knowing where I stand on Islam/violence.

Um...okay. You did get the point, didn't you, that it isn't catholics as a whole who are objecting to birth control as part of health insurance but conservatives...some of whom are catholic, and some who aren't, but are more than happy to use catholic ideology to further their own agenda.

Either way, it isn't liberals who are trying to tell people how to live or pushing religion or religious doctrine on others.

Um....ok you did get the point that I made a distinction between conservatives who are against birth control and conservatives who aren't by referring to Catholics. I never said all Catholics were against birth control.

In other words, conservatives are telling other people how to live, and are forcing their religious beliefs and religious doctrine on others.

Thanks, that's what I was saying!

In other words, the religion here at the beginning of our existence was Christianity so it was the religion that made the rules. Half of those rules were rules about what freedoms were to be protected.

Can't recall anyone saying they were. But you did try to use what they said to bolster your beliefs about modern day conservatives. It didn't work.

Still not a logical fallacy. It would actually be a logical fallacy if I said they were perfect.

Thank you again for making my point for me.

Saves me work!

I try to keep it interesting.

Same we we do it now. None of our laws are absolute, which is why we have a judicial system that not only tries to determine if the accused did commit the crime in question, but also whether or not mitigating factors affect the situation, and how the specific situation affects the way the law is applied as regards sentencing.

US law is many things, but it isn't absolute. Far from it.

I agree with most of what you said here. The problem is one can't make something illegal for one religion and legal for another.

Only in the sense that many democrats and many liberals practice religion of some sort in one way or another. But religion or religious doctrine is not the basis for their political stance on any specific issue, nor do they try to use religion or religious doctrine as the sole basis for secular law.

This was not a point of disagreement that I recall, so no rebuttle.

And he isn't the only one.

Of course there's a difference. One's an ideology, the other is an officially recognized political party.

Not sure what point you think you're making by stating that rather obvious fact, but given how much you've been making my own case for me, I won't make too big a deal about it.

-- A2SG, but your help is very much appreciated!

Yes I know there are moderate democrats. I don't remember saying there weren't.

 

[The Outlier]

On a side, note I do think the republican party is on the decline. Public education has a lot to do with that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

On a side, note I do think the republican party is on the decline. Public education has a lot to do with that.

I would think education in general would have a lot to do with that.

 

[A2SG]

Its a huge difference. Its freedom vs rules- the exact thing you say conservatives are against.

Um, I never said they were against rules, only that they were in favor of certain ones that used religion and religious doctrine as their basis, and as such forced those doctrines and rules on those who choose not to believe in them. You claimed it was liberals who did this, I simply pointed out your error.

The interesting thing that separates American conservatives vs conservatives anywhere else.....

Considering this was about your misconceptions about liberals, I'll leave your observations about conservatives to those who may choose to address them.

Um....ok you did get the point that I made a distinction between conservatives who are against birth control and conservatives who aren't by referring to Catholics. I never said all Catholics were against birth control.

Either way, the point remains: it is conservatives, not liberals, who are interested in controlling peoples lives as regards birth control. The fact that some conservatives don't follow in lockstep with all of them doesn't negate that fact.

In other words, the religion here at the beginning of our existence was Christianity so it was the religion that made the rules. Half of those rules were rules about what freedoms were to be protected.

First, christianity came into being centuries after mankind started forming civilizations, but second, and more importantly, it isn't the basis for US law. Conservatives seem confused about that fact, while liberals are not. So it is, once again, not liberals who are using religion and religious doctrine to control the lives of other people.

Still not a logical fallacy. It would actually be a logical fallacy if I said they were perfect.

Um, I never said it was a logical fallacy. I simply said it didn't help you make your case.

I try to keep it interesting.

It was that, I admit.

I agree with most of what you said here. The problem is one can't make something illegal for one religion and legal for another.

True enough. Which is why anti-discrimination laws apply to christians just as much as they apply to everyone else, just as an example.

This was not a point of disagreement that I recall, so no rebuttle.

Well, you did counter the statement that it isn't liberals who are trying to control the actions of others through the law according to their own beliefs by pointing out that liberals can be religious. I pointed out the fact that liberals don't use religion for that purpose, as opposed to conservatives who often do.

Yes I know there are moderate democrats. I don't remember saying there weren't.

Then I guess I'm unclear on the relevance of pointing it out.

-- A2SG, since I was talking about your misconceptions about liberals, not the Democratic Party....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would think education in general would have a lot to do with that.

Well, I can't speak for the other poster, but in terms of public schools creating the next generation of (D) voters, it's a point that holds some water.

Look at what's being taught in high schools in terms of civics and government classes...they'll spend days talking about the "importance" of unions & collectivism, but very seldom do they ever glorify individualism and entrepreneurship.

...and it's not a hard concept to understand, many teachers are very strongly pro-union...so it's benefits them to produce students that will vote in such a way that will keep their institution in place.

 

[Albion]

On a side, note I do think the republican party is on the decline. Public education has a lot to do with that.

Very cute as a comment, I agree. However, you do know that the least informed voters tend towards the Democrats. They rarely get beyond the sloganeering ("Republicans are the part of the rich" and "They'll take away your Social Security" for example). That's why the Democratic Party fights tooth and nail against electoral reform which would eliminate the straight party ballot and/or anything that would reduce vote fraud.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Republicans are about to reclaim the Senate, and folks think the party is in decline?

Hoo-kay. Whatever helps you get through the day I guess.

 

[Albion]

Republicans are about to reclaim the Senate, and folks think the party is in decline?

Actually, "folks" don't exactly think the party is in decline. What the OP said was that it "might be on the decline long term if it doesn't begin to appeal to more moderate voters." That's just speculation and was obviously based upon what the Democrats and the media have been peddling.

BTW, nominating Ben Carson would be a good way of making this kind of prediction come true, however. He's a good man, but would not be a wise choice for the 2016 election.

 

[William67]

The reason Im an independent is that the Republicans have become too wimpy. In all honesty, I would blow my brains out before voting for a liberal. Voting for a liberal would be tatamount to endorsing every vile abomination out there.

But, as a Christian, maybe if we let his world sink into liberalism, then maybe God will take pity on us and finally destroy it.