Electoral Votes

[G26ster]

Analysts say 3 million fewer Republicans showed up Tuesday than did in '08. Mostly Seniors. Obama was leading by less than 3 million votes as of this afternoon. So fewer voted for Romney than McCain. Might not have made a difference in the Electorial College, but still significant IMHO. if just a few more republicans turned out this year than they did for McCain, the results might have been different. Republicans have got to have a charismatic nominee to win. Lot's of people vote on charisma before issues.

[donkey]

If the 2016 election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: breathing and with a pulse

I will vote Republican

Ayy, I understand. But a Republican Party in the above condition will accomplish nothing while the liberal left-wingers gain vote after vote...

It seems to me, and perhaps myself included, a lot of voters don't understand tax code, economics, or business models. What they DO understand is social rights (using the word 'right' loosely here for simplicity purposes). This is how Obama got back in office. If we were all savvy and on the up-and-up on economics and whatnot, I doubt a democrat anywhere would be holding onto their seat. But they talk a good economic game while promoting themselves to the undecided swingers, young men, women, and minorities simply by being tolerant of the change in social and moral values.

Even if the Republicans put forth a pro choice, pro gay marriage candidate it is unlikely that they would fare any better in an election. They would lose votes on the far right and would be unlikely to gain many votes from the center/center left. The Democratic party stays in power because they promise to give voter more "free" benefits/entitlements/handouts. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always get Paul's vote. American is adding more and more Pauls while having fewer Peters. The Republican Party needs to carefully consider sacrificing "social rights" for fiscal responsibility because fiscal responsibility doesn't seem to be a top priority to the majority of swing voters or Americans in general. Look at the credit card debt of the average American. Look at the government spending that voters have allowed over the past several decades. Most Americans don't care about small government or fiscal responsibility.

[packa45]

Has anyone gotten their free phone, puppy, unicorn, or anything besides a migraine and/or ulcers since the election????

[longhorn_92]

America is on the precipice today...the "shining city on the hill" is in danger of following in the footsteps of other countries like Greece because too many of her citizens have lost the traits that made America great. They no longer ask "what can I do for my country;" instead, they ask "what is my country going to give me today." They want a handout, not a hand up.

The entrepreneurial spirit and will to succeed is vanishing, replaced by an entitlement society that drains the financial resources of those still willing to fight for the American dream.

[Purplehood]

I guess this all begs the question: What makes any of us culpable for someone's decision to participate in pro-choice/pro gay-marriage acts?

If the 2016 Election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: Pro-Choice, Anti-Handout, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Gun

I would vote Republican still, in a heartbeat. Why? I'm getting what I WANT while letting what I cant fight happen. There is no way that a Republican President is going to be elected again while maintaining a strict anti-choice/anti-gay marriage platform. Too many younger conservatives like me who are willing to sacrifice "bedroom issues" in order to maintain a fiscally conservative government that stays out of everyone's business.

It's not that I support Pro-Choice candidates... never have, never will. Nor Do I support gay-marriage. At least not from a moral perspective. Still, far be it from me to thumb my nose at a gay man who wants to marry his boyfriend. Heck, 50 years ago I would have been frowned down on by ultra-conservatives for marrying an Asian woman. "Gosh no, Sonny! You can't marry a... minority".....

Times are changing. What seems like an unforgivable, morally compromising decision now will be a non-issue in ten years to most folks. So how can I, a christian male, agree to sign off on a candidate who is pro-choice/pro gay-marriage? Simply put, i'm not responsible for other peoples actions. Going out and drinking till unconsciousness is morally wrong, sinful, stupid, and often gets people killed. But it's legal, and none of us feel culpable for those idiots, do we? In the 1920's they did... and we know how prohibition worked out.

I picked my fights. I can't baby-sit the United States. I'm not responsible for someone else's stupid decision. A pro choice/pro gay-marriage Republican President wouldn't be responsible for it either. That's between the person who chooses to do those things and God.

So here I sit... in bed next to my beautiful wife after going to Mass this evening. Tonight we will pray that the Republican party starts to realize that social-conservatism is going to bury the Republican party .. and has been since 2008. We pray that God gives us a candidate who is willing to sacrifice some conservative social stances so that he or she can have a leg to stand on come election time, so that America can start to get back on track to a country where we aren't afraid to have children in.

There it is!

[sjfcontrol]

Just a couple of quick points. Firstly, why should a woman be able to "choose" what to do with her body? Nobody gets that "right". For example you can't use your body to rob a convenience store. Now, you say that's because if affects the rights of others, but the right to "choose" also affects the rights of others, mainly the baby, but also the other family members. Perhaps a more on-point example would be that you aren't allowed to put illegal chemicals in "your body". So the government put all sorts of restrictions with what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

Secondly, for those that claim that gay marriage, etc. is fine with them as long as they don't get the bill -- well there is a bill, and in some cases they ARE paying it (or will be). Benefits are payable to public employee's families. Medical insurance and other benefits accrue to the spouse of the employee, and those benefits are paid by tax receipts paid by YOU. When the definition of "marriage" is expanded to include same-sex couples, those new spouses then become eligible to collect on those benefits. The same thing occurs when the benefits are expanded to include "partners" (in addition to spouses) of the employee.

Well, my company expanded it to partners and same sex spouses and my rates never went up. I'd also imagine rates for a married couple is lower than the rates for two single employees. And honestly, there is nothing we can do to keep the fed from spending our tax dollars on it.

I was speaking for PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, where the expense is paid by tax revenues. But even for private employees, if more people are insured, the costs are increased. If your didn't see any change in rates, the perhaps your employer picked up the difference? Leaving less for raises? Or perhaps otherwise you would have seen a small decrease in rates? Just because you didn't see a rate change doesn't mean it had no effect. And, unless both of you work for the same company, the "couples cheaper" argument is a false comparison. It would actually be comparing the expense of a single person (employee without a spouse, because "partners" aren't counted) to the expense of an employee with a spouse/partner.

I want to ensure I tread lightly on your first comment as I do not want to violate any forum rules. We're having a good, civil discussion here, and I've enjoyed it. I'll first say I am very much pro-life, and I don't agree with the "a" word at all. But I also realize it is not my choice, and it's something a woman (and sometimes spouse) have to decide upon. It's on them to live with. I would rather see adoption, but sometimes people don't have that option. But I go back to it being none of my business. I know people wonder how one can be pro-life and pro-choice, but I am.

My first argument was not actually a direct argument against abortion -- assuming that's what you meant by "a" word -- but rather a rebuttal for the argument often used to support it. Also, there is nothing in the forum rules that prohibit such reasoned discussions that I can find. That being said, you cannot possibly be both pro-life AND pro-choice, as they are opposing views. The closest you could come to that would be to say you don't care one way or the other -- you're neutral.

I will say I am not a religious person, but I understand the POV. I grew up Roman Catholic. I remember hearing birth control was frowned upon!

And great post snatchel!

[anygunanywhere]

I understand you may not like the idea of being required to purchase health insurance...I don't either...but to say that it violates your religious freedom seems like quite a stretch.

You obviously do not understand the facts of the HHS mandate and the effect it has on organizations and even businesses that do not want to pay for abortions. I will not delve into this further here.

I will ask another question.

It seems that this thread is about the republican party changing platforms, actually changing core beliefs to suit the lefties so that a GOP candidate can pass muster and get elected.

How about the GOP adopting the anti-gun stance and even push for assault weapons ban and a $1.00 tax on each round of ammo?

That would show the lefties we are willing to find more "common ground". This common ground is now the buzzword in DC and really means we give up our beliefs and they continue to take our rights.

In my world, there is no common ground.

I do not give up my beliefs. I do not change just to suit someone else and make them like me.

Choose what you give up very carefully because whatever you give up, be it marriage, second amendment, it does not matter, the lefties will continue to tear it to pieces and subvert everything into the lowest common denominator.

Anygunanywhere

[Kythas]

I guess this all begs the question: What makes any of us culpable for someone's decision to participate in pro-choice/pro gay-marriage acts?

If the 2016 Election looked like this:

Democrat: Pro-Choice, Pro-Handouts, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gun
Republican: Pro-Choice, Anti-Handout, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Gun

I would vote Republican still, in a heartbeat. Why? I'm getting what I WANT while letting what I cant fight happen. There is no way that a Republican President is going to be elected again while maintaining a strict anti-choice/anti-gay marriage platform. Too many younger conservatives like me who are willing to sacrifice "bedroom issues" in order to maintain a fiscally conservative government that stays out of everyone's business.

It's not that I support Pro-Choice candidates... never have, never will. Nor Do I support gay-marriage. At least not from a moral perspective. Still, far be it from me to thumb my nose at a gay man who wants to marry his boyfriend. Heck, 50 years ago I would have been frowned down on by ultra-conservatives for marrying an Asian woman. "Gosh no, Sonny! You can't marry a... minority".....

Times are changing. What seems like an unforgivable, morally compromising decision now will be a non-issue in ten years to most folks. So how can I, a christian male, agree to sign off on a candidate who is pro-choice/pro gay-marriage? Simply put, i'm not responsible for other peoples actions. Going out and drinking till unconsciousness is morally wrong, sinful, stupid, and often gets people killed. But it's legal, and none of us feel culpable for those idiots, do we? In the 1920's they did... and we know how prohibition worked out.

I picked my fights. I can't baby-sit the United States. I'm not responsible for someone else's stupid decision. A pro choice/pro gay-marriage Republican President wouldn't be responsible for it either. That's between the person who chooses to do those things and God.

So here I sit... in bed next to my beautiful wife after going to Mass this evening. Tonight we will pray that the Republican party starts to realize that social-conservatism is going to bury the Republican party .. and has been since 2008. We pray that God gives us a candidate who is willing to sacrifice some conservative social stances so that he or she can have a leg to stand on come election time, so that America can start to get back on track to a country where we aren't afraid to have children in.

And this is how the majority of America voted this week. People voted for "which party is offering me what I want?"

Obama's campaign basically consisted of "If you vote for Romney, he'll take away your food stamps, or your welfare, or your Medicare, or your <<insert government entitlement here>>". Romney was honest and said "Yes, if I'm elected, we will have to cut those programs or, in some cases, eliminate them." People voted with their wallets and said "Hey, I get that stuff and I don't want it taken away!"

We now live in a country where over 50% of the households in this country receive means-based government assistance in some form. Add in Social Security and Medicare and that number jumps to 75%. As long as this is the case, and as long as Democrats promise to keep protecting these programs, they will defeat anyone who says they must be reduced or eliminated. For this reason, I believe we have just become a one-party country. The best we can hope for is to keep another party relevant enough to provide a check on the Democrats in Congress.

[apostate]

How about the GOP adopting the anti-gun stance and even push for assault weapons ban and a $1.00 tax on each round of ammo?

George Bush put an assault weapons [sic] ban in place that didn't sunset. Furthermore, when both the President and the majority of Congress were Republicans, they did not repeal The Gun Control Act and The National Firearms Act. From moral, ethical, and Constitutional standpoints, GCA and NFA are not fundamentally different from what you propose.

Choose what you give up very carefully because whatever you give up, be it marriage, second amendment, it does not matter, the lefties will continue to tear it to pieces and subvert everything into the lowest common denominator.

I think you're missing the point that many of us aren't giving up anything. We honestly don't care if our neighbor marries a woman or a man, if they carry a Ruger or S&W, if they worship at a church or synagogue... or even if they drive a Ford or Chevy.

[talltex]

I understand you may not like the idea of being required to purchase health insurance...I don't either...but to say that it violates your religious freedom seems like quite a stretch.

You obviously do not understand the facts of the HHS mandate and the effect it has on organizations and even businesses that do not want to pay for abortions. I will not delve into this further here.

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.

I will ask another question.

It seems that this thread is about the republican party changing platforms, actually changing core beliefs to suit the lefties so that a GOP candidate can pass muster and get elected.

The Republican party is made up of millions of people....some of whom share your "core beliefs" concerning specific moral issues and some who don't. My argument is not about those specific issues themselves, but about whether or not they should be part of the party platform, and if any candidate can be elected on a national scale if they are. Let each individual decide those issues as it suits them and leave it outside the political arena

How about the GOP adopting the anti-gun stance and even push for assault weapons ban and a $1.00 tax on each round of ammo?
That would show the lefties we are willing to find more "common ground". This common ground is now the buzzword in DC and really means we give up our beliefs and they continue to take our rights.

You know that anti-gun issues are not what this discussion is about, and just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs 100% doesn't make them a "leftie".

In my world, there is no common ground.

Therein lies the problem.

[anygunanywhere]

George Bush put an assault weapons [sic] ban in place that didn't sunset. Furthermore, when both the President and the majority of Congress were Republicans, they did not repeal The Gun Control Act and The National Firearms Act. From moral, ethical, and Constitutional standpoints, GCA and NFA are not fundamentally different from what you propose.

I think you're missing the point that many of us aren't giving up anything. We honestly don't care if our neighbor marries a woman or a man, if they carry a Ruger or S&W, if they worship at a church or synagogue... or even if they drive a Ford or Chevy.

I don't recall the GCA and NFA repeal possibility ever happening during W's tenure in office. Your examples are essentially straw man arguments.

You claim that you are not giving up anything if so called social engineering progresses to the absurd.

Time will tell. Look back on history at the depravity of societies and then tell me your stance again. Our so called advanced society is not so advanced, just more so in the areas of technology, which gives immediate acces to depravity.

Anygunanywhere

[SQLGeek]

We now live in a country where over 50% of the households in this country receive means-based government assistance in some form. Add in Social Security and Medicare and that number jumps to 75%. As long as this is the case, and as long as Democrats promise to keep protecting these programs, they will defeat anyone who says they must be reduced or eliminated. For this reason, I believe we have just become a one-party country. The best we can hope for is to keep another party relevant enough to provide a check on the Democrats in Congress.

I agree. The idea of reducing entitlements is quickly being marginalized into a concept that only "extremists" hold. Hence my point that we are moving towards being another Western European nation. Entitlements for a vast majority will be de rigeur. The rest will follow, gun rights included. We may see that progression slowed in certain parts of the nation but it will happen sooner or later.

[mamabearCali]

I do understand the HHS mandate and that you are opposed to being required to pay for any insurance that includes coverage for abortion. Personally, I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are used to fund hundreds of programs that I'm opposed to, but that's the law, so I have to do it. I'm also a businessman, and I'm required to provide unemployment insurance, workman's comp insurance, maternity leave, sick pay, paid personal holidays, and so on...I'm not opposed to all of those things , but it wouldn't matter if I was...they are required by law. As I said before, there are religious groups that oppose blood transfusions and any type of surgical intervention...they don't get a pass on religious freedom grounds either.[

There is a vast difference between funding something you disagree and don't like with and being forced to fund something you find so very reprehensible that those who engage in it and propagate its existence are endangering their very souls.

Would you make a Jewish deli serve ham?

[Purplehood]

It seems that this thread is about the republican party changing platforms, actually changing core beliefs to suit the lefties so that a GOP candidate can pass muster and get elected.

How about the GOP adopting the anti-gun stance and even push for assault weapons ban and a $1.00 tax on each round of ammo?

That would show the lefties we are willing to find more "common ground". This common ground is now the buzzword in DC and really means we give up our beliefs and they continue to take our rights.

In my world, there is no common ground.

I do not give up my beliefs. I do not change just to suit someone else and make them like me.

IMHO it is more about the Republican party having lost touch with modern cultural trends. Unfortunately that means that it leaves many (such as those who might be described as White-Christians) feeling disenfranchised.

I know that in my lifetime I have gone from extreme Right-wing Conservative to Closet-Liberal and back again to support for small-government, fiscal responsibility, but with a socially 'progressive' outlook.
I have no interest in giving up or even modifying my gun rights.
What is strange is that when I was a young Conservative and very active with firearms, I never gave a thought to my 2nd Amendment rights and any laws that may infringe on them.
Now I do, though I consider myself a Social Progressive.
So No, I would not be interested in a Gun-ban or a Gun-tax.
I get the impression that some folks believe that if you have no problem with gay-marriage, womens-rights (not just abortion) and other progressive issues, than it can be assumed that you have no problem with banning guns, expanding government and taxes and eroding personal freedom.
Doesn't work that way. I know that I for one, am not an ideological package-deal. My stance on issues may evolve over time...but not because of social pressure, but because of personal growth and conviction.

BTW, I really hate "if, then" fallacies.

[Heartland Patriot]

Nothing will change now until Rome collapses and the "free" stuff stops coming. THAT is what it will take: pain and misery. Plain talk and common sense have no place with people who scream for "Obamaphone" or LIE on TV about how much money they spent on birth control just so they can not spend ANYTHING on birth control, or with the type of man who wishes to spend his ADULT life acting like a baby while getting "disability"...as long as "free" stuff is offered, people will take it. But what they don't realize (or don't care about) is they ARE paying for it...with their liberties.