Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Nov 7, 2012.
Where should I have my bills sent so Obama can pay them for me?
Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
It is NOT about "moving left." It's about taking the conservative message to ALL kinds of people -- black, Hispanic, female as well as white men.
The Ds had a plan to reach out to and mobilize people of color and women, while the Rs marginalized the former, ignored the latter and somehow imagined that arithmetic doesn't actually work and they could win an election by securing the votes of only white men.
If you think black folks, Latinos and women inherently cannot appreciate real values of conservationism because they are black, Latino or female then you're either racist and misogynist or you don't really believe that those values are worthwhile. [I'm not saying Rs are racists, I'm saying they ceded whole swathes of the population. Not saying conservatives are racist; saying it should be quite the opposite.]
Running to white men only means losing and losing and losing. But REAL conservative values -- as opposed to the pro-big-business, intrusionist, statist BS that the GOP has become -- are good for all people. If Rs want to be and win as conservatives -- not sure they do - then they have to change THAT. And that is not a move to the left.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8"]How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters - YouTube[/ame]
And this one on how well the Liberals are informed and where they get there news. When the news media is in the pocket of Obama what would you expect
That's all well and good, but I must have missed the ads that were targeted to white males. I assure you - I am far from a racist. (My record here stands for itself). There was without question a complete lack of use of modern resources for reaching out to voters, but I don't get where you're coming from about race or gender. I have no idea why they stacked the way they did, nor do I have a solution of how to market better to a specific race or gender.
I do know of what I speak. And slamming my character is not an argument.
Paul's FP is very much in line with a liberal panacea. Remove all American presence abroad, and everything will be peachy. There's more to it, but that comparison is fair. I'm discussing the implication and motivation for such policies not labels. Thanks.
"the corruption of true conservatism"? If anything its the libertarian slam machine, found via this site, that has corrupted the true meaning of the word.
The founding fathers would not embrace many of the policies and fallacies pushed across this forum as "true conservatism." Like Foghorn Leghorn would say, "Yap-yap-yap, keep that mouth flappin' and do no listenin'."
But that's not obama's policy. He's been blowing up people in pakistan and yemen and and afghanistan and god knows where else pretty much nonstop, and hasn't removed any presence that i know of outside of ending the however many years in iraq. I do know of a few bases he's added in various places all around the world, like chile (???).
Paul wanted to bring americans home and use the military to defend this country. Obama isn't interested in anything like that, or if he is, he's doing the opposite anyway. I'm certainly not trying to slam your character, i'm just saying your statement wasn't true. Romney and obama are at one end of the line, paul is at the other. Sorry you took it that way.
What's the first cardinal rule about the President? He tries to be all things to all people. IF he didn't do drones, would he have been re-elected? Possibly, but he wouldn't appear "middle of the road". He doesn't to you or me, but to those that pay less attention he does.
The end goal of Obama's policy is a weaker and less "imperial" American presence abroad. And what is the consequence and mindset behind Paul's FP musings and debate performances? The same. Focus on the end goals of both, and how they both lament and demonize American FP and apologize or justify for terrorist action abroad through their comments and public appearances on American "militarism".
I understand the "niceties" of Paul's plan. I know where it digresses from the President's slow slide to the same place. Paul would do it all in one fell swoop. Obama understands the vagaries of politics and will eek out the same end but even more destructively.
I don't like either option, and believe America has responsibilities to be a beacon of light to the world. Not a bully or brat, as both Paul and Obama seem to believe, but an example of dignity abroad. Of course you, Paul, and Obama would disagree with this premise vehemently. So what's the point of going further.
No, the GoP is what corrupted the meaning of the word conservativism- here's an example.
You may be conservative, but the GoP isn't. They just finished nominating a guy for VP that voted for all almost all the spending he possibly could when Bush was in office, including bailing out bankster crooks with your money.
I never said GOP. I said conservative. In addition, the GOP is a possible platform for conservatism. But I've never deluded myself to believe one is the other.
So we're clear QNman, I am categorically NOT suggesting you're a racist. Last thing I meant to say. [At base, I simply don't ascribe that philosophy to anyone who hasn't made it clear they hold to it.] More than that, I'm not suggesting that's the case for Romney or the GOP or any such thing. I AM saying that if the GOP cannot find a way to get brown folks and women to vote for its candidates, it loses from here on out. I AM saying that real conservative values are good for every sort of people, and that the GOP has clearly failed -- either to embrace those values (my view) or, if they are embraced by the GOP, to transmit them meaningfully to voters across the demographic spectrum.
[To be clear on another front -- i think the problem might well be part of, or at least go hand-in-hand with, the fundamental inadequacies of the two-party system as presently constituted, where both parties are sold out to K Street.]
Excellent point, sir. I hope someone smarter than me can figure out how to do that - because it clearly needs doing.
Thanks Ruble Noon for equating morality with Fred Phelps - you are doing much to dumb down America.
I never said republicans were moral, only that the democrats are the party with no morals... or at least secular morals. I'm glad you think you are a good and moral person, I really am, but secular moralism isn't a real high standard.
"I would vote republican if...."
I'm sure you mean "if they were democrats."