Conservative

[SolaSaint]

Hi all,

I'm confused about our conservatisim in America. Look at any statistics about politics and you will find that around 60% of Americans claim to be conservative, lees than 40% are democrat. Look at the nightly TV ratings to see who is tuning into politics and overwhelmingly conservative shows over double and in some cases triple the number of watchers. Around 80% of Americans are pro life and pro marriage. I could go on and on.

So with this in mind how do we elect a radical communist leaning Marxist who even told us he was a socialist? And even now after showing us how socialy and fiscally liberal he is, Americans still favor him over a conservative candidate?

Either our polls are whacked or our conservatives are too lasy to vote. Again, I'm confused.

 

[preachinjesus]

Hi all,

:wavey:

I'm confused about our conservatisim in America. Look at any statistics about politics and you will find that around 60% of Americans claim to be conservative, lees than 40% are democrat. Look at the nightly TV ratings to see who is tuning into politics and overwhelmingly conservative shows over double and in some cases triple the number of watchers. Around 80% of Americans are pro life and pro marriage. I could go on and on.

I would challenge these stats...particularly the 80% are pro-life part.

So with this in mind how do we elect a radical communist leaning Marxist who even told us he was a socialist? And even now after showing us how socialy and fiscally liberal he is, Americans still favor him over a conservative candidate?

Either our polls are whacked or our conservatives are too lasy to vote. Again, I'm confused.

Well one point is that most Americans don't weigh their values when they go and vote. Most Americans who vote simply take whatever is given to them in press, run it through their coherentist/pragmatist epistemology, and then see who appeals to them the most. Well...I should say this, the 20% of Americans who actually decide elections, this applies to them.

The 40% Democrat and 40% Republican who vote that way always don't really matter to this conversation do they? So its the 20% we need to consider.

Since I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, I can say that the candidates I support are carefully weighed. Yet when I talk to my fellow independents, I often see them evaluating candidates by purely ad hoc rationale that makes to sense. But that is how they make most decisions.

So I guess my essential appeal here is to not try to understand this through a logical system...because electoral politics are anything but logical. Then consider the upcoming general election. After about $1 billion being spent this is the outcome: four more years of President Obama. Romney, the RNC nominee, will be trounced because he's got nothing to offer. The House will stay Republican, the Senate will stay Democrat but gain some Republican seats. So after billions of dollars of campaigning (that could be spent better elsewhere) we'll essentially have what we have right now. Why? Because the American public has no clue what they're doing in life or in making decisions. It isn't logical but it is our system.

So, now that I've been a deputy downer...let me leave you in peace...:thumbs:

 

[SolaSaint]

Your probably right except it won't be Romney.

 

[J.D.]

Hi all,

I'm confused about our conservatisim in America. Look at any statistics about politics and you will find that around 60% of Americans claim to be conservative, lees than 40% are democrat. Look at the nightly TV ratings to see who is tuning into politics and overwhelmingly conservative shows over double and in some cases triple the number of watchers. Around 80% of Americans are pro life and pro marriage. I could go on and on.

So with this in mind how do we elect a radical communist leaning Marxist who even told us he was a socialist? And even now after showing us how socialy and fiscally liberal he is, Americans still favor him over a conservative candidate?

Either our polls are whacked or our conservatives are too lasy to vote. Again, I'm confused.

The problem is that the republican party always rigs the primaries so that only the establishment (liberal) candidate gets nominated. Then conservatives stay home on the first Tuesday in November.

The solution is to split the republican party so we conservatives will have someone we can vote for. What's left of the establishment after the split would eventually dissolve and be absorbed by the democrats because liberals of a feather should flock together.

 

[glfredrick]

There are all sorts of issues that crop up when speaking about the populace in general concerning conservative/liberal political issues.

Much of the vote is led by the national media who are psychological experts at manipulating public opinion. They do it every year when they help the Republical Party elect at best a moderate and if possible a McCain, Romney, etc. (we must bear in mind that Romney could not even outclass McCain last time, yet now he is the heir apparent?).

I've shown people newspaper treatments of candidates. Once pointed out, they are shocked at the blatant aspects of the spin applied to any given candidate. We saw a little dose of that applied last cycle to Hillary when the media decided that Obama was their man. Even SHE was shocked at the treatment, but she should have known better. She and Bill perfected the product.

Then there is the meme that stipulates that candidates are all alike anyway, which is also patently false. I wrote this in response to billwald in another thread:

Have you never studied the Federalist Papers and do you not understand the relationship the Founders and Framers had with both Locke and Montesquieu who both argued contra the utopians that the natural state of affairs among men is freedom and that they will select a government that best represents them in that quest to continue in their unalienable rights?

Utopians eternal quest is to place in power a tyranny powerful enough to impliment centralized planning and thus control ALL the populace so as to usher in a peacable world. Obama is example #1 of the utopian mindset. He doesn't care a whit what gets broken in his quest to finally centralize EVERYTHING so that FINALLY we can have peace and prosperity.

That, in and of itself, is the major dividing line between a Democrat (or RINO) and a true conservative Republican. Sadly, most Americans, and likely you as well by the tenor of your argument, have little understanding of what is being done to us and why, so they therefore can easily stipulate that there is no real difference between the candidates. They are WRONG.

There is a difference and the difference is in the CORE PHILOSOPHY of the candidate, not in their position, stance, party platform, etc., though those issues will generally follow their worldview.

We have become such an ignoramt electorate -- and that on purpose because the teachers union will not allow teachers to actually teach historically accurate civics. We are now almost born socialists and don't even realize it, until as Locke argued, tyranny finally is noted in the populace, who have long-suffererd the evils of their government in benevolence toward the status quo, until such time as they raise up and set in place a new government of, by, and for the people once again.

WE ARE THERE...

 

[InTheLight]

The problem is that the republican party always rigs the primaries so that only the establishment (liberal) candidate gets nominated. Then conservatives stay home on the first Tuesday in November.

Really? What about:
Nineteen Fifty-Two
Nineteen Sixty-Four
Nineteen Eighty
Nineteen Eighty-Four

 

[Salty]

Around 80% of Americans are pro life

But many would say, "I am personally oppose to abortion, but it should be left up to the individual."

 

[Alcott]

Look at any statistics about politics and you will find that around 60% of Americans claim to be conservative, lees than 40% are democrat. Look at the nightly TV ratings to see who is tuning into politics and overwhelmingly conservative shows over double and in some cases triple the number of watchers. Around 80% of Americans are pro life and pro marriage.

Those percentages are really worthless. And I don't think "any statistics" show similar numbers, anyway. Opinion polls are dependent on the way the questions are worded. Assuming the numbers you state do come from some opinion poll, they can be explained like this: the questions may have been worded like "Do you think our present system of national, state, and local governments are worth conserving as they are now?" Most Americans would probably answer 'yes' or 'yes with minor changes,' and would then be labeled "conservative" by that answer. But the question says virtually nothing about the role of government at its various levels, which is a much greater divider between conservative and liberal, and has been for more than half a century. And the 'pro-life' and 'pro-marriage' number is easier than that to explain. If you simply ask a person at random, "Are you 'pro-life?'" what would you expect the compilation of answers to be? If the question is really "Are you for or against legal abortions?" it would not be anywhere close to 80% either way. But 'pro-life' can be understood to mean no abortions, no death penalty, no military action, or the best quality of life to anyone. And 'pro-marriage'-- wow, few people would say otherwise to that; but "gays" would say they are 'pro-marriage' because they want same-sex marriage, while those opposed to that would also say they are 'pro-marriage' because they support only one man/one woman marriage. You see? 80% even seems low for that question.

 

[J.D.]

Really? What about:
Nineteen Fifty-Two
Nineteen Sixty-Four
Nineteen Eighty
Nineteen Eighty-Four

1952: Eisenhower a conservative? :laugh: From Wikipedia:

He was a moderate conservative who continued New Deal agencies, expanded Social Security and launched the Interstate Highway System.

1964: Goldwater - let's see, why didn't he win? Could it be, as Wikipedia says, "The Republican candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, suffered from a lack of support from his own party"

1980: Reagan might be the one exception. He certainly wasn't the choice of the country clubbers. But even with Reagan's success, the question remains, why did the government expand during his administration?

1984: Reagan the incumbant.

Now, can you come up with anything the republicans have done to further the conservative cause since 1984?

 

[InTheLight]

1952: Eisenhower a conservative? :laugh:

You said:

The problem is that the republican party always rigs the primaries so that only the establishment (liberal) candidate gets nominated.

Eisenhower was not the establishment candidate, nor was he liberal. Thomas E. Dewey was the eastern GOP establishment liberal candidate and he didn't get the nomination. My point stands.

1964: Goldwater - let's see, why didn't he win? Could it be, as Wikipedia says, "The Republican candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, suffered from a lack of support from his own party"

Goldwater was not the establishment liberal candidate and he got the nomination. My point stands.

Now, can you come up with anything the republicans have done to further the conservative cause since 1984?

Contract with America, 1994. Welfare reform, 1996. Asked and answered.

 

[righteousdude2]

Conservatives Are Intimidated...

...and are voting for, that radical communist leaning Marxist who even told us he was a socialist, in order to be more politically correct in an outward attempt to reflect their leanings and support of tolerance. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[J.D.]

You said:



Eisenhower was not the establishment candidate, nor was he liberal. Thomas E. Dewey was the eastern GOP establishment liberal candidate and he didn't get the nomination. My point stands.




Goldwater was not the establishment liberal candidate and he got the nomination. My point stands.




Contract with America, 1994. Welfare reform, 1996. Asked and answered.

Okay, you win. One conservative nomination FIFTY years ago and one weak reform SEVENTEEN years ago (welfare reform was part of the contract, so you don't get credit for two). I guess conservatives are winning after all.

Oh, I just remembered - the nineties - that was the era of liberal Bush #1 and life-long country clubber Bob Dole who couldn't get elected in spite of the Republican Revolution in congress. (You have to remember that the presence of conservative republicans in congress does not mean the PARTY is conservative.)

 

[Salty]

1964: Goldwater - let's see, why didn't he win? Could it be, as Wikipedia says, "The Republican candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, suffered from a lack of support from his own party"

Dont know your age in '64 but the Libs had all seniors believing that Goldwater was going to end Social Security. Their big ad was showing a SS card being cut up with a pair of siccors. For a link, click here

 

[Crabtownboy]

Hi all,

I'm confused about our conservatisim in America. Look at any statistics about politics and you will find that around 60% of Americans claim to be conservative, lees than 40% are democrat. Look at the nightly TV ratings to see who is tuning into politics and overwhelmingly conservative shows over double and in some cases triple the number of watchers. Around 80% of Americans are pro life and pro marriage. I could go on and on.

So with this in mind how do we elect a radical communist leaning Marxist who even told us he was a socialist? And even now after showing us how socialy and fiscally liberal he is, Americans still favor him over a conservative candidate?

Either our polls are whacked or our conservatives are too lasy to vote. Again, I'm confused.

It is because the brand of conservatives we have in Congress now come across as pernicious and mean spirited, interested in only themselves and their money and more interested in non-cooperation with Obama than with the good of the country.

 

[InTheLight]

Okay, you win. One conservative nomination FIFTY years ago and one weak reform SEVENTEEN years ago (welfare reform was part of the contract, so you don't get credit for two). I guess conservatives are winning after all.

Stop moving the goalposts. You stated that the Republican establishment always rigs the primaries to nominate an establishment liberal as the candidate. That is the issue. You keep trying to change the argument, which is annoying.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hi all,

I'm confused about our conservatisim in America. Look at any statistics about politics and you will find that around 60% of Americans claim to be conservative, lees than 40% are democrat. Look at the nightly TV ratings to see who is tuning into politics and overwhelmingly conservative shows over double and in some cases triple the number of watchers. Around 80% of Americans are pro life and pro marriage. I could go on and on.

So with this in mind how do we elect a radical communist leaning Marxist who even told us he was a socialist? And even now after showing us how socialy and fiscally liberal he is, Americans still favor him over a conservative candidate?

Either our polls are whacked or our conservatives are too lasy to vote. Again, I'm confused.

It's simple really. Bottom line is that Americans vote their pocket books, regardless of what else they may claim. McCain was ahead in the polls until the economy crashed in the Fall of '08. Whereupon the people fell for the silver-tongued Marxist Obama and swept him into office.

It will happen again if there's even a slight improvement in the economy -- real, or manufactured by the media.

 

[Salty]

Sometimes I wonder if the old fashion of nominating a candidate the old fashion way - in a smoke-filled room.

And remember - many primaries are decided by non-party members has States or Commonwealths have "open" primaries.

And one other thing. The first primary was over a month ago. How many people would have voted for a different candidate today then they did last month?

 

[glfredrick]

Stop moving the goalposts. You stated that the Republican establishment always rigs the primaries to nominate an establishment liberal as the candidate. That is the issue. You keep trying to change the argument, which is annoying.

They do... Sometimes, in spite of their efforts a more conservative non-establishment candidate arrives. That does not necessarily mean that the candidate that beats the establishment is the most possible conservative of candidates. It does mean that in some cases the establishment candidate does not gain the nomination.

I HIGHLY recommend a book that explains the difference:

"Upstream" by Alfred Regnery. It is a great cited documentary of the condition of candidates to about the 1950s and whom it was that supported them.

 

[glfredrick]

Sometimes I wonder if the old fashion of nominating a candidate the old fashion way - in a smoke-filled room.

And remember - many primaries are decided by non-party members has States or Commonwealths have "open" primaries.

And one other thing. The first primary was over a month ago. How many people would have voted for a different candidate today then they did last month?

Santorum is now leading Romney in most polls by double digits. That signals a sea-change shift -- AND -- we're in the voting season, not just the posturing season.

 

[DaChaser1]

Santorum is now leading Romney in most polls by double digits. That signals a sea-change shift -- AND -- we're in the voting season, not just the posturing season.

Currently running 4 points ahead of Mitt here in the Mittsters home state!

the Christinas and social conservatives here rallying wound Rick , due tohis strong family catholic values, those into economy supporting Mittstir, good Morman!