Conquer Club

Seriously.

Three states legalized some form of marijuana use, gay marriage will eventually be a nationally recognized right, the Republicans lost ground on a national and state level, and if the economy recovers Democrats will likely be the dominant party in the next decade (a study which I cannot find right now because it was discussed on one of the major news networks stated this was an effect noticed internationally).

The social conservative Republicans in particular made a bad name for themselves this election cycle and their most controversial members like Akin were crushed in their respective elections.

The Republican party will be under pressure to embrace libertarians or purge them, a decision that has to be made in the next two years. I think it's going to be an ugly decade for the Republican party if they continue to choose the latter.

Social conservatives of CC (and others), is your opinion on the future of social conservatism in the US

Conservatism isn't dead yet, but the Constitution is on its death bed. Republicans have to join with Libertarians if there is any chance to save Constitutional principles. America has chosen that they would rather vote "me-first" and have decided to become dependent on what the government can give them rather than what they can do for themselves. We can only hope that by 2016, America will have realized what a grave error that was and the Republicans/Libertarians must work together to nominate candidates that can clearly articulate true Constitutional principles.

I hope that you are right GP, but I'm not sure yet. The Democrats have been able to purge or ignore their more radical members (e.g. the people calling for a repeal of the Patriot Act, no more foreign wars, no more caving to the rich). The Republicans have not been able to purge theirs and don't look to do so anytime soon. And yes, that was a dig on the Democratic party and Obama generally.

Even though Wyoming is technically a red state, we believe in a live and let live policy. Basically if what you're doing isn't hurting anyone, we don't care what you do, which is more in line with Libertarian ideals than GOP.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Even though Wyoming is technically a red state, we believe in a live and let live policy. Basically if what you're doing isn't hurting anyone, we don't care what you do, which is more in line with Libertarian ideals than GOP.

Is that what the Country Party is about? I'll admit I didn't even know it existed until I went to vote yesterday because it's so difficult to find information on Wyoming politics

MegaProphet wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Even though Wyoming is technically a red state, we believe in a live and let live policy. Basically if what you're doing isn't hurting anyone, we don't care what you do, which is more in line with Libertarian ideals than GOP.

Is that what the Country Party is about? I'll admit I didn't even know it existed until I went to vote yesterday because it's so difficult to find information on Wyoming politics

Most people here tend to vote Republican, though because of the small population (meaning the elected State officials here), the government of Wyoming would never be able to get away with what other state governments do (mainly in terms of corruption). But even our Democrats are not like Democrats of most other states. In most other states, they would be classified as fiscally Conservative Republicans.

But the main things on Wyoming politics are;
1. Don't want the government running our day-to-day lives.
2. Fiscal resposibility is a must for the state (currently one of the few in the black, rather than the red).
3. If it's not hurting anyone, than we don't care what you do.
4. Your private life is your private life. If you wish to share it, that's your choice.
5. Never, EVER, root for BYU in anything. Ever.

Night Strike wrote:Conservatism isn't dead yet, but the Constitution is on its death bed. Republicans have to join with Libertarians if there is any chance to save Constitutional principles. America has chosen that they would rather vote "me-first" and have decided to become dependent on what the government can give them rather than what they can do for themselves. We can only hope that by 2016, America will have realized what a grave error that was and the Republicans/Libertarians must work together to nominate candidates that can clearly articulate true Constitutional principles.

But how can they work together when they don't agree on some very major issues? We must remember that not all libertarians nore social conservatives are constitutionalists (Gary Johnson, for example, is not a constitutionalist, and seems to prefer a top-down libertarian policy; I'm sure there are some in Congress like him).

Abortion won't really be an issue that tears them apart, since the Supreme Court has taken control of that issue. But drug legalization and gay marriage are things Congress can do things about and they are things that libertarians and social conservatives prominently disagree with each other on. Sure, the coalition is able to last now because the economy is down and those issues have taken precedence. But what will happen when the economy recovers? Social issues will become more important and the differences will become more apparent (especially if the libertarian contingent in congress is even larger than it is now). And what about foreign policy? Libertarians are in no way like traditional republicans on foreign policy, which is and always will be important no matter the economic circumstances.

And let's just say they do agree to campaign on constitutionalism, which by this I assume you mean states' rights and what not. Is that really a platform that can get people to vote for them? If gay marriage becomes the number 1 issue in America, will the libertarian contingent vote and campaign with the idea that "we don't want federal government to make the decision that we agree with most?" Of course not.

thegreekdog wrote:I hope that you are right GP, but I'm not sure yet. The Democrats have been able to purge or ignore their more radical members (e.g. the people calling for a repeal of the Patriot Act, no more foreign wars, no more caving to the rich). The Republicans have not been able to purge theirs and don't look to do so anytime soon. And yes, that was a dig on the Democratic party and Obama generally.

I thought about this some more and I'm not entirely sure social conservatism is dead.

So, let's operate on the following facts. As of 11:22 AM US EST...

Obama - 59,911,096 popular votes (50.4%)
Romney - 57,217,553 popular votes (48.1%)

So, 48.1% of the population voted for Romney. It is not and will not be clear whether their votes were for entirely social conservative reasons or were influenced by social conservatism. But, Romney's socially conservative message did not turn away 57 million people. So perhaps social conservatism is not dead after all.

<Removed>

bedub1 wrote:I sure hope it's dead. All 3 republicans that talked about rape and abortion lost.

The republican party needs to get rid of the religious right, and the filthy rich. The party needs to embrace the libertarians.

Social Conservatism has changed from Social Conservatism, to ignorance, hate, bigotry, and intolerance. There is no place in the modern world for these backwards thinking hate-mongers.

I don't disagree with any of that, but good luck to the Democrats and Republicans in getting rid of the filthy rich.

GreecePwns wrote:Seriously.

Three states legalized some form of marijuana use, gay marriage will eventually be a nationally recognized right, the Republicans lost ground on a national and state level, and if the economy recovers Democrats will likely be the dominant party in the next decade (a study which I cannot find right now because it was discussed on one of the major news networks stated this was an effect noticed internationally).

The social conservative Republicans in particular made a bad name for themselves this election cycle and their most controversial members like Akin were crushed in their respective elections.

The Republican party will be under pressure to embrace libertarians or purge them, a decision that has to be made in the next two years. I think it's going to be an ugly decade for the Republican party if they continue to choose the latter.

Social conservatives of CC (and others), is your opinion on the future of social conservatism in the US

Libertarians are unsettling to me politically speaking. However, I agree that embracing the Libertarian mindset/stance is the only thing that will save the republicans at this point. That is, unless the economy improves in which case I don't think republicans will have any chance at all. I feel that the Libertarian stance is appealing in times of desperation but not very attractive to the majority in times of prosperity.

bedub1 wrote:I sure hope it's dead. All 3 republicans that talked about rape and abortion lost.

The republican party needs to get rid of the religious right, and the filthy rich. The party needs to embrace the libertarians.

Social Conservatism has changed from Social Conservatism, to ignorance, hate, bigotry, and intolerance. There is no place in the modern world for these backwards thinking hate-mongers.

Yeah if anything the advancement of Libertarianism would create more "filthy rich" types.

Funkyterrance wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Seriously.

Three states legalized some form of marijuana use, gay marriage will eventually be a nationally recognized right, the Republicans lost ground on a national and state level, and if the economy recovers Democrats will likely be the dominant party in the next decade (a study which I cannot find right now because it was discussed on one of the major news networks stated this was an effect noticed internationally).

The social conservative Republicans in particular made a bad name for themselves this election cycle and their most controversial members like Akin were crushed in their respective elections.

The Republican party will be under pressure to embrace libertarians or purge them, a decision that has to be made in the next two years. I think it's going to be an ugly decade for the Republican party if they continue to choose the latter.

Social conservatives of CC (and others), is your opinion on the future of social conservatism in the US

Libertarians are unsettling to me politically speaking. However, I agree that embracing the Libertarian mindset/stance is the only thing that will save the republicans at this point. That is, unless the economy improves in which case I don't think republicans will have any chance at all. I feel that the Libertarian stance is appealing in times of desperation but not very attractive to the majority in times of prosperity.

For what it's worth (one vote), I will rejoin the Republicans if they embrace a more libertarian attitude towards fiscal policy (which we haven't seen since Reagan, who was hardly a libertarian) and lose the emphasis on social conservatism. In other words, if the party moves a little more towards libertarianism, I'll be happy with Republicans.

Funkyterrance wrote:

bedub1 wrote:I sure hope it's dead. All 3 republicans that talked about rape and abortion lost.

The republican party needs to get rid of the religious right, and the filthy rich. The party needs to embrace the libertarians.

Social Conservatism has changed from Social Conservatism, to ignorance, hate, bigotry, and intolerance. There is no place in the modern world for these backwards thinking hate-mongers.

Yeah if anything the advancement of Libertarianism would create more "filthy rich" types.

That is an incorrect interpretation of libertarianism.

thegreekdog wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

bedub1 wrote:I sure hope it's dead. All 3 republicans that talked about rape and abortion lost.

The republican party needs to get rid of the religious right, and the filthy rich. The party needs to embrace the libertarians.

Social Conservatism has changed from Social Conservatism, to ignorance, hate, bigotry, and intolerance. There is no place in the modern world for these backwards thinking hate-mongers.

Yeah if anything the advancement of Libertarianism would create more "filthy rich" types.

That is an incorrect interpretation of libertarianism.

Well since you are making the offensive move I expect some reasoning backing your statement.

thegreekdog wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Seriously.

Three states legalized some form of marijuana use, gay marriage will eventually be a nationally recognized right, the Republicans lost ground on a national and state level, and if the economy recovers Democrats will likely be the dominant party in the next decade (a study which I cannot find right now because it was discussed on one of the major news networks stated this was an effect noticed internationally).

The social conservative Republicans in particular made a bad name for themselves this election cycle and their most controversial members like Akin were crushed in their respective elections.

The Republican party will be under pressure to embrace libertarians or purge them, a decision that has to be made in the next two years. I think it's going to be an ugly decade for the Republican party if they continue to choose the latter.

Social conservatives of CC (and others), is your opinion on the future of social conservatism in the US

Libertarians are unsettling to me politically speaking. However, I agree that embracing the Libertarian mindset/stance is the only thing that will save the republicans at this point. That is, unless the economy improves in which case I don't think republicans will have any chance at all. I feel that the Libertarian stance is appealing in times of desperation but not very attractive to the majority in times of prosperity.

For what it's worth (one vote), I will rejoin the Republicans if they embrace a more libertarian attitude towards fiscal policy (which we haven't seen since Reagan, who was hardly a libertarian) and lose the emphasis on social conservatism. In other words, if the party moves a little more towards libertarianism, I'll be happy with Republicans.

May I ask your motivation behind this choice?

Funkyterrance wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Seriously.

Three states legalized some form of marijuana use, gay marriage will eventually be a nationally recognized right, the Republicans lost ground on a national and state level, and if the economy recovers Democrats will likely be the dominant party in the next decade (a study which I cannot find right now because it was discussed on one of the major news networks stated this was an effect noticed internationally).

The social conservative Republicans in particular made a bad name for themselves this election cycle and their most controversial members like Akin were crushed in their respective elections.

The Republican party will be under pressure to embrace libertarians or purge them, a decision that has to be made in the next two years. I think it's going to be an ugly decade for the Republican party if they continue to choose the latter.

Social conservatives of CC (and others), is your opinion on the future of social conservatism in the US

Libertarians are unsettling to me politically speaking. However, I agree that embracing the Libertarian mindset/stance is the only thing that will save the republicans at this point. That is, unless the economy improves in which case I don't think republicans will have any chance at all. I feel that the Libertarian stance is appealing in times of desperation but not very attractive to the majority in times of prosperity.

For what it's worth (one vote), I will rejoin the Republicans if they embrace a more libertarian attitude towards fiscal policy (which we haven't seen since Reagan, who was hardly a libertarian) and lose the emphasis on social conservatism. In other words, if the party moves a little more towards libertarianism, I'll be happy with Republicans.

May I ask your motivation behind this choice?

There is a lot there to explain, but I'll try my best. Until about 2006, I was a registered Republican who believed in small government from a fiscal perspective and was indifferent to social issues. In 2006, I became more concerned with social issues and realized that the Republican Party had no interest in small government from a fiscal perspective. Additionally, I became more concerned with foreign intervention in places like Iraq and with the extreme reduction in civil liberties brought on by the Patriot Act. So I realized that the Republican Party wasn't for me anymore. I then joined the Libertarian Party which more closely aligned with my small government fiscal ideals and my small government social ideals.

In 2008, I contemplated voting for Barack Obama because I thought he would remove us from foreign wars and would take the teeth out of the Patriot Act. However, I also realized he would continue the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush years. So, I voted for Bob Barr, who I did not really like. As the Tea Party came to prominence, I contemplated returning to the Republican Party because I liked the fiscal message. But as the Tea Party became co-opted by mainstream, social conservative, big government "for the stuff we like" Republicans, I left my local tea party and went back to the Libertarians (although I never changed my party affiliation).

In 2012, there were two primary candidates I liked - Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. I liked Huntsman more because he was more charistmatic than Ron Paul and less socially conservative than Ron Paul. But Huntsman had no chance because the Republican primaries are about who can be the most socially conservative while also maintaining his or her charisma. I also liked Gary Johnson, but he also had no chance for similar reasons. When Romney got the nomination, there was virtually nothing he said that appealed to me from a fiscal perspective or a social perspective. He would go to war with Iran over nuclear weapons (same as Obama), he would increase spending on the things he wanted (same as Obama), and he took a socially conservative stance on gay marriage, abortion, the Patriot Act, etc. I contemplaed voting for Obama, but his fiscal policies were horrendous corporate handouts and he also would go to war with Iran and continue enforcing the Patriot Act. So, I decided to vote for Gary Johnson.

If the 2012 presidential (and senate) elections are truly a repudiation of Republicans as social conservatives and big spenders, I would go back to the party. If more moderately social Republicans and fiscally responsible Republicans (like Huntsman, like Christie) take control of the party, they would be more closely aligned with my own views than they are now. I would like to see the Republicans take some ideas from the Democrats, some from the Libertarians, and some from the existing party, namely the following:

(1) Maintain fiscal control over the federal government by cutting spending on a variety of items, including specifically the military.
(2) Immediately pull troops out of foreign wars and conflicts, starting with Iran and Afghanistan. Begin to close military bases in other places where we don't "need" them.
(3) Repeal the Patriot Act and any other laws that infringe upon our civil rights.
(4) Don't make abortion or gay marriage a part of any platform. Either ignore the issues or leave the issues to the purview of the courts.
(5) Embrace immigrants by publicly and loudly proclaiming the GW Bush plan (co-opted successfully by Obama) of helping people come into this country legally.

These are things that I believe are good for the country as a whole and that the Republicans can successfully run on. They do not completely correspond to my ideals, but I will compromise on some issues (e.g. I think immigration should be legal in all cases, I think gay marriage should be legal in all states).

thegreekdog wrote:

There is a lot there to explain, but I'll try my best. Until about 2006, I was a registered Republican who believed in small government from a fiscal perspective and was indifferent to social issues. In 2006, I became more concerned with social issues and realized that the Republican Party had no interest in small government from a fiscal perspective. Additionally, I became more concerned with foreign intervention in places like Iraq and with the extreme reduction in civil liberties brought on by the Patriot Act. So I realized that the Republican Party wasn't for me anymore. I then joined the Libertarian Party which more closely aligned with my small government fiscal ideals and my small government social ideals.

In 2008, I contemplated voting for Barack Obama because I thought he would remove us from foreign wars and would take the teeth out of the Patriot Act. However, I also realized he would continue the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush years. So, I voted for Bob Barr, who I did not really like. As the Tea Party came to prominence, I contemplated returning to the Republican Party because I liked the fiscal message. But as the Tea Party became co-opted by mainstream, social conservative, big government "for the stuff we like" Republicans, I left my local tea party and went back to the Libertarians (although I never changed my party affiliation).

In 2012, there were two primary candidates I liked - Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. I liked Huntsman more because he was more charistmatic than Ron Paul and less socially conservative than Ron Paul. But Huntsman had no chance because the Republican primaries are about who can be the most socially conservative while also maintaining his or her charisma. I also liked Gary Johnson, but he also had no chance for similar reasons. When Romney got the nomination, there was virtually nothing he said that appealed to me from a fiscal perspective or a social perspective. He would go to war with Iran over nuclear weapons (same as Obama), he would increase spending on the things he wanted (same as Obama), and he took a socially conservative stance on gay marriage, abortion, the Patriot Act, etc. I contemplaed voting for Obama, but his fiscal policies were horrendous corporate handouts and he also would go to war with Iran and continue enforcing the Patriot Act. So, I decided to vote for Gary Johnson.

If the 2012 presidential (and senate) elections are truly a repudiation of Republicans as social conservatives and big spenders, I would go back to the party. If more moderately social Republicans and fiscally responsible Republicans (like Huntsman, like Christie) take control of the party, they would be more closely aligned with my own views than they are now. I would like to see the Republicans take some ideas from the Democrats, some from the Libertarians, and some from the existing party, namely the following:

(1) Maintain fiscal control over the federal government by cutting spending on a variety of items, including specifically the military.
(2) Immediately pull troops out of foreign wars and conflicts, starting with Iran and Afghanistan. Begin to close military bases in other places where we don't "need" them.
(3) Repeal the Patriot Act and any other laws that infringe upon our civil rights.
(4) Don't make abortion or gay marriage a part of any platform. Either ignore the issues or leave the issues to the purview of the courts.
(5) Embrace immigrants by publicly and loudly proclaiming the GW Bush plan (co-opted successfully by Obama) of helping people come into this country legally.

These are things that I believe are good for the country as a whole and that the Republicans can successfully run on. They do not completely correspond to my ideals, but I will compromise on some issues (e.g. I think immigration should be legal in all cases, I think gay marriage should be legal in all states).

Thanks for the explanation.

So from what I understand your motivation is more heavily toward the social aspects of the party or are those just the aspects you chose to focus on in your response more?
In relevance to my suggestion that the Libertarian stance would produce more filthy rich
types I still don't see your reasons why you believe this to be incorrect. In my mind fiscal conservatism has a tendency to create these types over time. What is the biggest roadblock of a filthy rich or prospective filthy rich person: Taxes. Now I'm not saying that the Libertarian stance doesn't have its benefits but I personally feel that it can very easily get out of control and result in a lot of undue suffering.

Funkyterrance wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

There is a lot there to explain, but I'll try my best. Until about 2006, I was a registered Republican who believed in small government from a fiscal perspective and was indifferent to social issues. In 2006, I became more concerned with social issues and realized that the Republican Party had no interest in small government from a fiscal perspective. Additionally, I became more concerned with foreign intervention in places like Iraq and with the extreme reduction in civil liberties brought on by the Patriot Act. So I realized that the Republican Party wasn't for me anymore. I then joined the Libertarian Party which more closely aligned with my small government fiscal ideals and my small government social ideals.

In 2008, I contemplated voting for Barack Obama because I thought he would remove us from foreign wars and would take the teeth out of the Patriot Act. However, I also realized he would continue the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush years. So, I voted for Bob Barr, who I did not really like. As the Tea Party came to prominence, I contemplated returning to the Republican Party because I liked the fiscal message. But as the Tea Party became co-opted by mainstream, social conservative, big government "for the stuff we like" Republicans, I left my local tea party and went back to the Libertarians (although I never changed my party affiliation).

In 2012, there were two primary candidates I liked - Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. I liked Huntsman more because he was more charistmatic than Ron Paul and less socially conservative than Ron Paul. But Huntsman had no chance because the Republican primaries are about who can be the most socially conservative while also maintaining his or her charisma. I also liked Gary Johnson, but he also had no chance for similar reasons. When Romney got the nomination, there was virtually nothing he said that appealed to me from a fiscal perspective or a social perspective. He would go to war with Iran over nuclear weapons (same as Obama), he would increase spending on the things he wanted (same as Obama), and he took a socially conservative stance on gay marriage, abortion, the Patriot Act, etc. I contemplaed voting for Obama, but his fiscal policies were horrendous corporate handouts and he also would go to war with Iran and continue enforcing the Patriot Act. So, I decided to vote for Gary Johnson.

If the 2012 presidential (and senate) elections are truly a repudiation of Republicans as social conservatives and big spenders, I would go back to the party. If more moderately social Republicans and fiscally responsible Republicans (like Huntsman, like Christie) take control of the party, they would be more closely aligned with my own views than they are now. I would like to see the Republicans take some ideas from the Democrats, some from the Libertarians, and some from the existing party, namely the following:

(1) Maintain fiscal control over the federal government by cutting spending on a variety of items, including specifically the military.
(2) Immediately pull troops out of foreign wars and conflicts, starting with Iran and Afghanistan. Begin to close military bases in other places where we don't "need" them.
(3) Repeal the Patriot Act and any other laws that infringe upon our civil rights.
(4) Don't make abortion or gay marriage a part of any platform. Either ignore the issues or leave the issues to the purview of the courts.
(5) Embrace immigrants by publicly and loudly proclaiming the GW Bush plan (co-opted successfully by Obama) of helping people come into this country legally.

These are things that I believe are good for the country as a whole and that the Republicans can successfully run on. They do not completely correspond to my ideals, but I will compromise on some issues (e.g. I think immigration should be legal in all cases, I think gay marriage should be legal in all states).

Thanks for the explanation.

So from what I understand your motivation is more heavily toward the social aspects of the party or are those just the aspects you chose to focus on in your response more?
In relevance to my suggestion that the Libertarian stance would produce more filthy rich
types I still don't see your reasons why you believe this to be incorrect. In my mind fiscal conservatism has a tendency to create these types over time. What is the biggest roadblock of a filthy rich or prospective filthy rich person: Taxes. Now I'm not saying that the Libertarian stance doesn't have its benefits but I personally feel that it can very easily get out of control and result in a lot of undue suffering.

My motivation is mostly fiscal since I still don't really care about the social issues (with the exception of the Patriot Act and similar legislation). The Repubicans haven't demonstrated they can be fiscally responsible.

In terms of libertarianism and the filthy rich... I honestly don't know if this is a tenent of libertarianism or not, but I am for less corporate welfare. What I mean by that is stuff like the Romney tax planning idea where he gave money to a charitable trust and received a tax-free annuity or tax breaks for certain companies and not others. I believe we see a rise in the percentage of the pie held by the rich partially because of these type of tax preference items. If Company X or Industry Y spends $5 million campaigning for a president (Democrat or Republican), the president is more likely to benefit the Company X or Industry Y with preferential treatment. Another example is the number of waivers for companies for the Affordable Care Act. This is the kind of stuff I want to get rid of and it's not an easy fix.

But corporate welfare is not a tenet of libertarianism and is certainly not something I support. While I am clear that I do not want to punish successful companies with excessive taxation and regulation, I also do not want to benefit companies with free money or exceptions to rules. And both major parties are guilty of preferring the wealthy to the not (Democratic rhetoric notwithstanding).

Yes, social conservatism is dead in the US. When a notched lapel, 2 button tuxedo qualifies as "formal wear", it proves that even the simplest societal rules (i.e. the dress code) are gone. Blame it all on George Clooney, that smug muthafucka.

GreecePwns wrote:Seriously.

Three states legalized some form of marijuana use, gay marriage will eventually be a nationally recognized right, the Republicans lost ground on a national and state level, and if the economy recovers Democrats will likely be the dominant party in the next decade (a study which I cannot find right now because it was discussed on one of the major news networks stated this was an effect noticed internationally).

The social conservative Republicans in particular made a bad name for themselves this election cycle and their most controversial members like Akin were crushed in their respective elections.

The Republican party will be under pressure to embrace libertarians or purge them, a decision that has to be made in the next two years. I think it's going to be an ugly decade for the Republican party if they continue to choose the latter.

Social conservatives of CC (and others), is your opinion on the future of social conservatism in the US

Its definitely not dead, in fact this will cause the true conservatives to buckle down on their base and continue to reform minds.. more home schooling, more lectures from the pulpits. That Democrats only won by a relatively small margin in the face of idiocy such as "women can prevent pregnancy if its really rape", disdainful jokes about climate change -- even while the things they laugh at (such as more snow, increased ice in parts of the Arctic, etc) actually prove the climate is changing, not the reverse, and more focus on the "danger" of "losing America" to immmigration, etc...

NONE of those things should even have entered real, intelligent debate. They should have been so ludicrous as to not even merit much national news focus. But, they did. That, alone is worrisome.

This is not a battle over morals. It is a battle over facts.. facts that a few want to twist to match their sense of what "morality" ought to be.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

GreecePwns wrote:Seriously.

Three states legalized some form of marijuana use, gay marriage will eventually be a nationally recognized right, the Republicans lost ground on a national and state level, and if the economy recovers Democrats will likely be the dominant party in the next decade (a study which I cannot find right now because it was discussed on one of the major news networks stated this was an effect noticed internationally).

The social conservative Republicans in particular made a bad name for themselves this election cycle and their most controversial members like Akin were crushed in their respective elections.

The Republican party will be under pressure to embrace libertarians or purge them, a decision that has to be made in the next two years. I think it's going to be an ugly decade for the Republican party if they continue to choose the latter.

Social conservatives of CC (and others), is your opinion on the future of social conservatism in the US

Its definitely not dead, in fact this will cause the true conservatives to buckle down on their base and continue to reform minds.. more home schooling, more lectures from the pulpits. That Democrats only won by a relatively small margin in the face of idiocy such as "women can prevent pregnancy if its really rape", disdainful jokes about climate change -- even while the things they laugh at (such as more snow, increased ice in parts of the Arctic, etc) actually prove the climate is changing, not the reverse, and more focus on the "danger" of "losing America" to immmigration, etc...

NONE of those things should even have entered real, intelligent debate. They should have been so ludicrous as to not even merit much national news focus. But, they did. That, alone is worrisome.

This is not a battle over morals. It is a battle over facts.. facts that a few want to twist to match their sense of what "morality" ought to be.

I wonder if they have statistics on how many people voted for the Republicans because of social issues only. This simplifying of the reasons behind voting for a candidate is ridiculous, but perhaps statistics will show it's not.

For example, I did not vote for Gary Johnson only because of Romney's or the Republicans' social positions. I could say it was a reason, but not the reason.

And climate change is not a social issue, it's an economic one.

Night Strike wrote:Conservatism isn't dead yet, but the Constitution is on its death bed. Republicans have to join with Libertarians if there is any chance to save Constitutional principles. America has chosen that they would rather vote "me-first" and have decided to become dependent on what the government can give them rather than what they can do for themselves. We can only hope that by 2016, America will have realized what a grave error that was and the Republicans/Libertarians must work together to nominate candidates that can clearly articulate true Constitutional principles.

None of this has anything to do with the OP.

thegreekdog wrote:And climate change is not a social issue, it's an economic one.

I think this depends on the person. I myself view it mainly as an economic issue but player obviously doesn't.

Funkyterrance wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:And climate change is not a social issue, it's an economic one.

I think this depends on the person. I myself view it mainly as an economic issue but player obviously doesn't.

It seems to be both- on a social side, much of the issue is about how distrustful the denial side has been of the overwhelming scientific consensus. That's tied into the economic side- much of the denialism is heavily tied to companies that have a vested interest in saying that it isn't happening. Or to flip back to the social side, religious folk who have an issue with science in general.

I'm not sure the two parts- the social and the economic are easily separable.