The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[Jludo]

No. I'm saying they arrived at the wrong conclusion because they used the wrong process by which to decide. Their decision was progressive for the sake of progressing. In other words, they legislated from the bench.

Personally I agree that government should not be involved in marriage at all. "Marriage" is a religious construct. If we want government to have some mechanism to administer rights and privileges that are inherent to people living in common, such as rights of surviorship, common property, combined taxes, etcetera, we should make that construct a civil union. And the civil union should have nothing to do with the type of relationship. Civil unions can be married, they can be siblings, platonic friends, whatever relationship is not the business of government. If you want to be married in the eyes of your God then go to your church/synagogue/mosque/temple/alter/beachfront/whatever and abide by your religion's view of marriage.

But that's not the state of things and that desirable state of things is not a realistic goal we can achieve. So, within what is possible, let's not create a precedence for an unlimited progression of who or what can be defined as "married". I think that's what the scotus ruling did wrong.

I still don't follow, you're ok with the state getting out of the marriage business and letting people marry whoever they want but you aren't ok with the state allowing gay marriage as it opens the door to people marry whoever they want? The state shouldn't be involved, but like you said that's unrealistic, so what's wrong as expansive and inclusive a definition of marriage as possibly?

 

[jamil]

The GOP has been attempting to push itself to the right for the last couple of decades. The Tea Party brought chaos. Religious fundamentalism as a requirement to be labeled a "conservative" further decimated the party. Hatred of Obama and a do nothing Congress. Is it any wonder you ended up with Trump? No one is "pure" enough for your standards, so you end up with a red-headed stepchild.

It would be funny except he might win the presidency.....

That seems like the average "east coast" collectivist perception.

People who live in rural areas, the people who tend to be individualists, have had the same values for as long as I can remember. As the nation becomes even more urban the more diverse and collectivist minded people are influencing American values more and more, especially in the laws passed.

What we're seeing is the more rural areas becoming more vocal as they fight that change. Used to be that the rural people didn't get involved much with all that. It's not just that the right is getting further right. The nation has gotten lefter with each generation and the perception that the right is getting righter, is largely that they're just getting louder.

Same with the Christians. They've always been religious and didn't make much noise about the laws years ago because the laws were more to their liking (I know you're old enough to remember the blue laws). But as society has moved away from Christianity based laws, the more loudly Christians have protested. So the TEA Party types, the genuine Taxed Enough Already crowd, and the Evangelical wing of that, are not really any further to the right. They're just angrier and louder. And they've put up with the GOPe through the decades until recently.

 

[chipbennett]

That seems like the average "east coast" collectivist perception.

People who live in rural areas, the people who tend to be individualists, have had the same values for as long as I can remember. As the nation becomes even more urban the more diverse and collectivist minded people are influencing American values more and more, especially in the laws passed.

What we're seeing is the more rural areas becoming more vocal as they fight that change. Used to be that the rural people didn't get involved much with all that. It's not just that the right is getting further right. The nation has gotten lefter with each generation and the perception that the right is getting righter, is largely that they're just getting louder.

Same with the Christians. They've always been religious and didn't make much noise about the laws years ago because the laws were more to their liking (I know you're old enough to remember the blue laws). But as society has moved away from Christianity based laws, the more loudly Christians have protested. So the TEA Party types, the genuine Taxed Enough Already crowd, and the Evangelical wing of that, are not really any further to the right. They're just angrier and louder. And they've put up with the GOPe through the decades until recently.

I'm rural, I'm a Christian, I've voted every election since I've been of-age, and I oppose Blue Laws.

(And I don't believe that the grassroots, rank-and-file of the country have moved left, or otherwise left their historically center-right leanings.)

 

[jamil]

I still don't follow, you're ok with the state getting out of the marriage business and letting people marry whoever they want but you aren't ok with the state allowing gay marriage as it opens the door to people marry whoever they want? The state shouldn't be involved, but like you said that's unrealistic, so what's wrong as expansive and inclusive a definition of marriage as possibly?

That's not what I'm saying. I think I said what I'm saying in the thread where this was debated over and over. I'm not going to rehash it here.

 

[JTScribe]

I still don't follow, you're ok with the state getting out of the marriage business and letting people marry whoever they want but you aren't ok with the state allowing gay marriage as it opens the door to people marry whoever they want? The state shouldn't be involved, but like you said that's unrealistic, so what's wrong as expansive and inclusive a definition of marriage as possibly?

He's basically talking about contract law, which is already legislated, IMO. Rights of inheritance and power of attorney could resolve all the issues that supposedly necessitated the judicial approval of gay marriage if government was just out of it entirely.

 

[T.Lex]

Careful, now; we're still trying to avoid the apocalypse. (I also agree that the national GOP needs to be philosophically destroyed, because it no longer respects, much less reflects, the grassroots of the party.)

To echo what was said upthread about the apocalypse, bring it.

At a local and state level (generally), the Republican Party suits me. At least, where I thought it was going. Indeed, where I thought the national party was going, too.

This cycle is... just... maddening.

This is a defining moment of the party, and it is changing. Some people will fall off the back to make room for others. I say it's about damn time.

If Trump is the nominee they will not have made the tent bigger, they will have picked up the tent poles and moved it to a different location. A lot of the people who were standing in that tent will be no longer.

Both of these are just a matter of perspective. And, maybe this day has been coming - that the GOPn (national) is moving away from conservativism. I'd been hoping - and somewhat working - towards including MORE conservative values. But, that does not appear to be the correct direction.

The GOP has been attempting to push itself to the right for the last couple of decades. The Tea Party brought chaos. Religious fundamentalism as a requirement to be labeled a "conservative" further decimated the party.

I do not understand this assertion. My understanding of conservativism is religious-fundamentalist-neutral (except, of course for islamofascism). I don't care what religion someone is - either as a voter or candidate. I care that they have principles. I don't think that makes me a religious fundamentalist.

 

[jamil]

I'm rural, I'm a Christian, I've voted every election since I've been of-age, and I oppose Blue Laws.

(And I don't believe that the grassroots, rank-and-file of the country have moved left, or otherwise left their historically center-right leanings.)

The previous generation of Christians wept and gnashed their teeth at the demise of Blue laws. I remember back in Michigan when the opening of Meijer Thrifty Acres on Sunday would surely mark the sign of the end times and the soon coming of Jesus.

The point was, the right really isn't getting "righter". The nation, as a whole, is far lefter than it was when I was young. You even admitted that you oppose blue laws, which is a less conservative position than the generations who created the blue laws. And if you don't recognize that the nation is getting lefter, perhaps you need to spend more time in the city.

Out in the country I'm around more people who think like I do. If that's all I had I'd think everyone thinks like me. But then I go into the city for work, and am reminded that I'm one of a very few people who thinks like me. The US is getting more urban. Most immigrants, legal or otherwise, are more collectivist minded.

Individualism is dying as more people live in the cities. We are a nation of two worlds. And the other world is getting bigger. You probably think there is a "moral majority" that will save you from the progressives. There isn't.

 

[Route 45]

If Trump is the nominee they will not have made the tent bigger, they will have picked up the tent poles and moved it to a different location. A lot of the people who were standing in that tent will be no longer.

Bye.

Trump passes Romney?s popular vote total, likely to break GOP record - POLITICO

 

[Alpo]

The Moral Majority has been around since 1979 and we continue to have republican candidates (particularly Cruz, but lets not forget all of the other GOP members who ran and dropped out) put their religion in the forefront of their campaign. I don't think "urbanization" has anything to do with the move of the Overton Window to the left. Baby Boomers are pretty well set in their party affiliation at this point. X'ers and Millenials reject much of what the religious right has co-opted from the true conservatives.

Your continuing pejorative reference to "east coast" and "collectivism" shows how seriously out of touch the GOP has become. Observation: Trump.

The defense rests.

 

[MisterChester]

I want a Republican Party that is focused on economic principles and not social ones. If they decided to stay out of the bedroom, out of our bodies, out of our choices as individuals, I'd sign up. The democrats mostly give me that but the collectivist economic practices don't sit well with me. And I don't buy the "open borders" bridge the libertarians try to sell us either.

Many Americans such as myself have grown more complicated, politically. It's hard to really identify with a party. Before the Internet people had views that copied their parents. Now it's near impossible to grow the tent, you either stretch the fabric or you move the poles.

 

[Route 45]

The previous generation of Christians wept and gnashed their teeth at the demise of Blue laws. I remember back in Michigan when the opening of Meijer Thrifty Acres on Sunday would surely mark the sign of the end times and the soon coming of Jesus.

This isn't individualism, nor is it conservatism. This is lunacy.
Goldwater was right.

 

[Alpo]

Who'd a thunk Barry Goldwater would sound like a collectivist? LOL

 

[MisterChester]

Both of these are just a matter of perspective. And, maybe this day has been coming - that the GOPn (national) is moving away from conservativism. I'd been hoping - and somewhat working - towards including MORE conservative values. But, that does not appear to be the correct direction.



I do not understand this assertion. My understanding of conservativism is religious-fundamentalist-neutral (except, of course for islamofascism). I don't care what religion someone is - either as a voter or candidate. I care that they have principles. I don't think that makes me a religious fundamentalist.

Conservatism means different things to different people.

I certainly do wish that many conservatives of this country had your opinion on the matter of religion and conservatism. We are still a country that has many backwards folk that think you must have a religion to be a principled person. They've just never met a conservative atheist.

 

[MisterChester]

This isn't individualism, nor is it conservatism. This is lunacy.
Goldwater was right.

[video=youtube_share;PAswVl_KZVU]http://youtu.be/PAswVl_KZVU[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

As a GenXer, I came of age during Falwell and those other preacher dudes. While they have a right to participate in the process, I want nothing from them in terms of political policy.

I thought that was conservativism.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The previous generation of Christians wept and gnashed their teeth at the demise of Blue laws. I remember back in Michigan when the opening of Meijer Thrifty Acres on Sunday would surely mark the sign of the end times and the soon coming of Jesus.

The point was, the right really isn't getting "righter". The nation, as a whole, is far lefter than it was when I was young. You even admitted that you oppose blue laws, which is a less conservative position than the generations who created the blue laws. And if you don't recognize that the nation is getting lefter, perhaps you need to spend more time in the city.

Out in the country I'm around more people who think like I do. If that's all I had I'd think everyone thinks like me. But then I go into the city for work, and am reminded that I'm one of a very few people who thinks like me. The US is getting more urban. Most immigrants, legal or otherwise, are more collectivist minded.

Individualism is dying as more people live in the cities. We are a nation of two worlds. And the other world is getting bigger. You probably think there is a "moral majority" that will save you from the progressives. There isn't.

I agree. Could JFK get elected as being pro-life, NRA member, and reducing taxes in the Democrat Party today? The family farms are folding where people took it upon themselves to make sure they were provided for and more or less wanted to be left alone by the government. A lot of those people have moved into the cities for work where they depend on government services.

Today, that divide has vanished. The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either -- virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it's abouthow people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy -- or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants.

Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America - The Atlantic

 

[chipbennett]

As a GenXer, I came of age during Falwell and those other preacher dudes. While they have a right to participate in the process, I want nothing from them in terms of political policy.

I thought that was conservativism.

In my opinion, "conservatism" is an ideology that regards the degree to which individual liberty and state control interact/intersect. The ideology lies on a spectrum, at the opposite end of which is "statism". Conservatism, IMHO, is articulated most eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, and favors individual liberty over state control, while recognizing that certain, limited state is required to ensure that individuals can maintain a civil society.

 

[T.Lex]

I would also allow that "conservativism" is a spectrum unto itself. Like "violet" covers portions of the light spectrum - visible and invisible.

But, as noted above, perhaps the commonly accepted range has shifted considerably away from my own. And this is even excepting social issues.

 

[tbhausen]

So you're okay with sitting out and facilitating the potential election of Hilary Clinton?

It is people like that who allowed the election and re-election of Barack Obama. And I blame such people for everything he has wrought.

Gets it... Rep inbound.

 

[T.Lex]

So... speculation abounding that Carly Fiorina will be Cruz's running mate. I suspect it'll just be an endorsement.