Posted on 11/20/2012 8:42:54 AM PST by Scooter100
I am wondering about the structure of a third "Constitutional" party. Would it be better to form a party exclusively on a fiscal issues basis? What would be the pros and cons of taking social issues completely off the table? I mean, are there really enough "social issues" in the text of the Constitution itself to warrant making them a permanent policy of a new party and subsequently risking vicious debate and division? I guess I am thinking of the inevitability of Conservatives locking antlers with the "socially" left wing of the Libertarians", who are otherwise fiscally right wing. Shouldn't social issues be contained closer to the people, i.e., at the state/local levels?
Brilliant.
You are claiming something that flies in the face of everything that we know about politics and voting in America, including the 2012 election.
You are claiming that in W. Virginia, that the Evangelicals and social conservatives are the liberal democrat voters, which seems to imply that the anti-Christians, like you, are voting majority republican.
I would like to see your evidence to support your bizarre claim, where are your exit polls?
Is a discussion that needs to happen....
Agree 100%. This is the most popular topic of discussion going on in my house in recent weeks, and of great interest. Maybe the fiscally conservative socially moderate combo was rare at one time, but I really believe it's growing substantially - especially among the young.
I don't see rigid old school social conservatism getting stronger - just the opposite. I don't see adherence to it, putting it above strong support for limited government and individual rights & responsibilities, winning many converts in the future.
My argument is that a huge central government is the overriding issue - not social issues. If the government gets too much power (which it already has, so this entire discussion is probably moot), social issues won't matter. They'll simply be dictated by the regime in power. We're seeing that already per the hard left Dems + soft left GOPe elitists running our lives.
I think the Republican party is dead as a brand. Even content-wise it's rushing to become Dem-lib lite. Who cares. I wasted my vote and contributions YET again this year on R's - to keep from "splitting the vote." But based upon recent voting trends, I think it's clear there's not enough non-parasite vote to worry about splitting anymore. May as well vote my conscience from here on out and go with a third party. R's aren't going to win ever again anyway. Time to weather a few ultra-lib Dem election wins (like we have any choice anyway?) and start to get rid of this corrupt two-party system to grow some third parties while the Dem-libs run everything in the ground. Unless of course the entire system collapses in the interim and voting is pointless - which is much more likely based upon where we're at as a nation right now.
IMHO, the parasites & looters are now in full control. Only hope I see is balkanization of the corrupt American two-party dominated political system into multiple smaller parties that form ruling coalitions, as is the case in some other countries. If it starts happening to the dying traditional GOPe adherents that are becoming more & more incompatible to try and keep together, and is recognized as such by many, I think it will happen soon after to the always-on-the-edge-of-chaos-and-mutiny traditional Dem factions as well. If we can get to 4 or 5 substantive political parties organized around actual ideology rather than the D vs. R high school football rivalry mentality where ideology and real issues don't even matter to most, the landscape will change and there may be hope. I'm tired of beating the dead Republican horse. I got off it when they nominated McNasty and made the mistake of jumping on at the last second both the last two presidential elections. No more.
West Virginia votes in liberal Democrats for governor, statewide offices, state legislators (and one RINO in Congress) over and over and over and over and over again. If you think that is because they are agnostics and libertarians, you don't know the state, period.
The question is, who gets to decide what’s a “big rock” that has to go in first, and what’s “rice” that will fit in later if there’s room for it? One man’s “rice” may be another man’s “rock”.
In 2008, the most social conservative voting (Evangelical) block voted 66% for McCain/Palin.
We know that the democrats won the social libera/anti-christian vote, the left always does.
Face it, both social and fiscal conservatism is dead in this country.
Not that conservatives are literally dead; but they are no longer the majority.
The hands out, gimme’s have won. And it didn't happen just in the USA. Sarkozy in France lost earlier to the same coalition of parasites.
With four more years of Obama I don't see things getting better at all... Yet they'll keep blaming us for all the problems. We're not giving fast enough...
Here's what you need to read. And fortunately, they've got some good free excerpts from the book that might open your mind a little.
Excerpts from "Why Free Trade Doesn't Work, What to Replace it with and Why"
the most social conservative voting (Evangelical) block voted 66% for McCain/Palin.
Which if my math is right, means evangelicals can demand a platform which is precisely tailored to their views - and win - if they make up at least three-fourths of the electorate. By all means, have a go at that if you care to try.
The only way to win the Hispanic vote and make it conservative, is social conservatism, Protestants have already demonstrated this with Hispanics.
Protestant Hispanics voted 44% GOP in 2000, 56% in 2004, and 48% GOP in 2008, Protestants (I suppose Evangelicals) reached them, penetrated to something inside of them that opened their eyes and enabled them to see the left as it is, and where good people belong.
But it's NOT a cure for the massive overleveraging of the last twenty years, nor is it a cure for the Ponzi-esqe structures of Medicare and Social Security.
It's completely disingenuous to claim that there is a quick or painless fix for where we have gotten ourselves. A healthy dose of austerity is in our future even if we do all the correct things.
You are selling anti-conservative, anti-Christian trash.
Socail conservatives are the most conservative voters in you state, yet you lie and attack them as the liberal voters.
Your block, the non/anti-religious, are the most liberal voters in your state, and you want more of them.
In 2004, in West Virginia, Bush got 66% of the Evangelical vote, and 36% of the noreligion vote, your anti-God group needs fixing.
We see the message over and over, social conservatives are the conservatives in america.
You’re demonstrating that if a place is made for social conservative issues on the table, they’re going to claim ownwership of and exclusive rights to the entire table.
Where SoCons want to not fund abortion or sexual practice related expenses, they are being conservative, keeping government out of our private lives and religion.
Where SoCons want government to regulate abortion and sexual practice, they are not being conservative, inviting government to regulate our lives based on their religion.
What do you mean?
W. Virginia is pretty obscure and hard to get data for, how does Texas and California fit in to your statement?
Christian conservatives here on FR go purple in the face when contemplating the existence of atheists and agnostics who vote conservative, despite their contention that it's a tiny minority. They keep trying to read me out of the movement, and I resolutely refuse to be read out.
At the same time, the millions of Protestants and Catholics who are out there voting Democrat again and again don't seem to give them much cause for concern.
I have to think that it's because I'm "inside the tent" so to speak, and my existence here as a conservative non-believer is a much greater offence to their world view than are the opinions of the liberal believers, who are not to be found on FR or any of the other conservative circles they frequent.
Abortion has to be against the law, that is a life and death fact, not religion, and people aren't saying that you and your boyfriend can't have sex, they are saying that we already have defined marriage, and that definition stands, and you can't force homosexuality onto the military and Boy Scouts.
Only liberals believe that people can be made virtuous via legislative enactment.
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.