Posted on 01/12/2012 4:55:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
About 71% of the non-religious people voted for Obama. Like I said, I'm glad you aren't a democrat, but the overwhelming percentage of people who share your anti-social conservatism, are liberal democrats. For you to be attacking our most conservative voters is not conservative.
I haven't attacked anyone. I've made some observations about the validity of some arguments, but I haven't made any personal attacks.
Alinsky also talked about accusing your opponent of what ever it is you're doing.
It doesn't get any more infantile than that. A guy that thinks that doesn't know anything about the electorate.
The post that answered it wasn't any good either, and you can't make a bad argument good by going to church more often,
Throughout the primary election season there's been a group unfairly villainized by the rest of the Republicans. Not the establishment (they can't be villainized enough for giving us McCain and trying to keep folks like Rand Paul from getting elected in 2010) -- I mean libertarians.
C'mon. Go to blog.lewrockwell.com. Some libertarians are positively vicious when it comes to the Republican Party, and they take that all the way back to 1860.
You can't make out that they've been victimized or excluded by Republicans. They'd just as soon see the party destroyed. Not all libertarians are like that, of course. Some have been pretty snide about social conservatives and Evangelicals, though.
The "GOP Establishment" nowadays is mostly composed of conservatives who've had some success in Washington, or just people who chose one bad candidate over the others because they thought he stood a better chance. It's been unfair to paint them as "Rockefeller Republicans," but they'll survive.
For a really provocative move, though, she could have put in a good word for GOP moderates, a different group who really are today's Rockefeller Republicans and who are pretty rare nowadays. Rule and Ruin, a new book takes up their case. The author's been praised by liberals and really doesn't like today's conservatives and Republicans, but he does recapture a moment of history and make an argument for a group that wasn't all bad and has all but disappeared. You can be glad they lost but still see overkill in some of the attacks on their remains.
Love him or hate him -- which seem to be the only two options -- I'd like to believe that everyone on the right can admit that Ron Paul has brought the mainstream of the far right a little closer to libertarian beliefs. Without Ron Paul, you wouldn't have candidates like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum pushing for trillions of dollars in spending cuts, nor would they be promising to outright eliminate regulatory agencies.
I guess, but without Ron Paul, you'd have had Gary Johnson or Steve Forbes or some other libertarian-type candidate. Indeed, without Paul's baggage, another quasi-libertarian contender might have stood a good shot of shaping the platform and the future, if not winning the nomination.
I tried to explain something to you about the way the electorate breaks down, but it seems hopeless.
You tried to get me to make assumptions about people based on some statistics you found.
I pointed out why your assumption is so incredibly bizarre, you have the opposite assumptions from the reality of the electorate and social conservative voters/and social liberal voters.
I didn’t make any assumptions. My sin is refusing to make them.
Your assumptions are ridiculous, you think that the most conservative voting block in America is liberal, that is incredible.
I’m not given to taking advice from people who claim the ability to read minds.
Larry Elder used to call himself a small “l” libertarian
Then changed to Republitarian, when he registered with GOP, as the best available option with chance to win, iow recognizing the futility of 3rd party nonsense.
Anyone at a conservative political site, who is so confused as to think that the most conservative voters are liberals is willfully blind.
Anyone who lets someone else tell them what they’re thinking is an idiot.
That doesn’t even make sense, but it is in keeping with you refusing to learn from studies of how people vote, and actual voting results.
To win elections it helps to know who the voters are, and it sure helps a party to know who their core voters are, who their base is.
Willful ignorance because you have an anti-conservative bias is just keeping yourself in the dark.
I’m sure you’ll win lots of elections by reducing the “conservatives” to only those people who go to church often enough to suit you. That sounds like a really good plan.
How often do you figure Mitt Romney goes to church?
It was you that called our biggest, conservative voting block “liberal”.
You made a ridiculous statement and seem incapable of learning, or admitting that you were wrong.
Social liberals are the liberal base, social conservatives are the conservative base.
Where?
If you recognize that social conservatives are the conservative base and are overwhelmingly conservative, and that social liberals are overwhelmingly liberal voters, then we are in agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.