I know its a popular libertarian believe that every 100 people like me who leave would be met by 110 libertarians coming over but the libertarian party drew less than 1% of the vote with the most attractive candidate they have put up in years.

(10-13-2014 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I know its a popular libertarian believe that every 100 people like me who leave would be met by 110 libertarians coming over but the libertarian party drew less than 1% of the vote with the most attractive candidate they have put up in years.

Libertarian candidates don't draw votes because 1) they don't have money and 2) the perception that they can't win.

Yes, I think that if properly presented, republicans could draw 100 libertarians or libertarian-leaning independents for every 100 social conservatives they lost. It doesn't have to be 110, it doesn't even have to be 100. The true break-even is probably somewhere around 55-65. Why? Because let's say it's 60. Out of that 60, maybe 40 will vote democrat because they don't buy into the republican agenda, and 20 would stay home. So republicans get 40 fewer votes (lose 100, pick up 60), but democrats also get 40 fewer votes (lose 40), so republicans break even.

Why would a social liberal vote for somone pretending to be a democrat when they can vote for a real democrat? The key is and always has been suburban soccer moms. If they want to win those, they need to reframe the issues and engage in debate as opposed to running from debate. Make it about the childten and crime. None of those women want gays influencing their kids and none of them want their kids smoking pot on the way to school. They let thr democrats reframe the issues and change the premise.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

No

The crisis in the party is a lot deeper and Christians are a scape goat.

Republicans will tell themselves anything to keep from taking a second look at their economic mindset.

Trading your faith for your money is the single most disturbing trend I've seen in the entire US, worse than liberalism, communism, or environmentalism.

(10-13-2014 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I know its a popular libertarian believe that every 100 people like me who leave would be met by 110 libertarians coming over but the libertarian party drew less than 1% of the vote with the most attractive candidate they have put up in years.

Libertarian candidates don't draw votes because 1) they don't have money and 2) the perception that they can't win.

Yes, I think that if properly presented, republicans could draw 100 libertarians or libertarian-leaning independents for every 100 social conservatives they lost. It doesn't have to be 110, it doesn't even have to be 100. The true break-even is probably somewhere around 55-65. Why? Because let's say it's 60. Out of that 60, maybe 40 will vote democrat because they don't buy into the republican agenda, and 20 would stay home. So republicans get 40 fewer votes (lose 100, pick up 60), but democrats also get 40 fewer votes (lose 40), so republicans break even.

Well I disagree strongly with you that you could do 1:1. But you make aa point about only needing to draw in the 40-60 range. I still think that won't happen but its more likely than 1:1...

I myself would never vote republican again. And GTS would have wat he wants. A monolithic GOP always racing with the dems to get furthers to the left on social issues.

Social issue lefitism ties in more closely with liberalism than libertarianism but so long as the icky Christians are gone who cares... right/

(10-13-2014 01:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I know its a popular libertarian believe that every 100 people like me who leave would be met by 110 libertarians coming over but the libertarian party drew less than 1% of the vote with the most attractive candidate they have put up in years.

Libertarian candidates don't draw votes because 1) they don't have money and 2) the perception that they can't win.

Yes, I think that if properly presented, republicans could draw 100 libertarians or libertarian-leaning independents for every 100 social conservatives they lost. It doesn't have to be 110, it doesn't even have to be 100. The true break-even is probably somewhere around 55-65. Why? Because let's say it's 60. Out of that 60, maybe 40 will vote democrat because they don't buy into the republican agenda, and 20 would stay home. So republicans get 40 fewer votes (lose 100, pick up 60), but democrats also get 40 fewer votes (lose 40), so republicans break even.

Well I disagree strongly with you that you could do 1:1. But you make aa point about only needing to draw in the 40-60 range. I still think that won't happen but its more likely than 1:1...

I myself would never vote republican again. And GTS would have wat he wants. A monolithic GOP always racing with the dems to get furthers to the left on social issues.

Social issue lefitism ties in more closely with liberalism than libertarianism but so long as the icky Christians are gone who cares... right/

My only question would be, if you're never voting Republican again, I guess you'll vote Democrat? That's really the only alternative nationally....... or will you just stay home and not vote?

Me, if given two choices, I almost always choose the better (in my mind) of the two choices rather than not participate at all. I'd rather get some of what I want than none of what I want.......

I don't get why it has o be a choice at all. Why fiscal conservatism with conservative "values", necessarily have to be at odds with fiscal conservatives with more liberal social values.
I consider myself more in the former camp, while my very own spouse is decidedly in the second. We do okay with that.

Now, fiscal liberals with conservative values might grow a bit uneasy, but I don't find a lot of them out there anyway, least not that vote "R". And Lib- lib They've already got their home.

(10-13-2014 02:57 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 01:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I know its a popular libertarian believe that every 100 people like me who leave would be met by 110 libertarians coming over but the libertarian party drew less than 1% of the vote with the most attractive candidate they have put up in years.

Libertarian candidates don't draw votes because 1) they don't have money and 2) the perception that they can't win.

Yes, I think that if properly presented, republicans could draw 100 libertarians or libertarian-leaning independents for every 100 social conservatives they lost. It doesn't have to be 110, it doesn't even have to be 100. The true break-even is probably somewhere around 55-65. Why? Because let's say it's 60. Out of that 60, maybe 40 will vote democrat because they don't buy into the republican agenda, and 20 would stay home. So republicans get 40 fewer votes (lose 100, pick up 60), but democrats also get 40 fewer votes (lose 40), so republicans break even.

Well I disagree strongly with you that you could do 1:1. But you make aa point about only needing to draw in the 40-60 range. I still think that won't happen but its more likely than 1:1...

I myself would never vote republican again. And GTS would have wat he wants. A monolithic GOP always racing with the dems to get furthers to the left on social issues.

Social issue lefitism ties in more closely with liberalism than libertarianism but so long as the icky Christians are gone who cares... right/

My only question would be, if you're never voting Republican again, I guess you'll vote Democrat? That's really the only alternative nationally....... or will you just stay home and not vote?

Me, if given two choices, I almost always choose the better (in my mind) of the two choices rather than not participate at all. I'd rather get some of what I want than none of what I want.......

The lesser of two evils is still evil. I would vote for the pro life person who best represents my views in other areas..

Let me ask you... If both parties advocated to renew slavery would you vote for the more conservative party that believed in slavery?

I will flex a whole lot and pretty much any issue, but not the killing of the unborn.

(10-13-2014 03:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't get why it has o be a choice at all. Why fiscal conservatism with conservative "values", necessarily have to be at odds with fiscal conservatives with more liberal social values.
I consider myself more in the former camp, while my very own spouse is decidedly in the second. We do okay with that.

Now, fiscal liberals with conservative values might grow a bit uneasy, but I don't find a lot of them out there anyway, least not that vote "R". And Lib- lib They've already got their home.

They don't really have to be at odds, except there are voters out there somewhere along the line are demanding that virtually all issues "fall in their camp" or they go elsewhere.

Unfortunately, elsewhere - all but assures a Democratic victory by someone that is opposite them in both fiscal and social issues.

(10-13-2014 03:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 03:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't get why it has o be a choice at all. Why fiscal conservatism with conservative "values", necessarily have to be at odds with fiscal conservatives with more liberal social values.
I consider myself more in the former camp, while my very own spouse is decidedly in the second. We do okay with that.

Now, fiscal liberals with conservative values might grow a bit uneasy, but I don't find a lot of them out there anyway, least not that vote "R". And Lib- lib They've already got their home.

They don't really have to be at odds, except there are voters out there somewhere along the line are demanding that virtually all issues "fall in their camp" or they go elsewhere.

Unfortunately, elsewhere - all but assures a Democratic victory by someone that is opposite them in both fiscal and social issues.

Funny the ones I see wanting people to give up a single issue or leave are the libertarians telling pro life people to pound sand..

There is a growing number of people who aren't religious and don't particuarly give a crap about gay marriage or marijuana legality but who are also sick of bloated government spending and moonbat liberal ideology. There is also a trend of a belief in increased foreign isolationism. People are sick of Israel, sick of Iraq and tired of hearing about the EU. They are tired of their tax dollars going to the third world and are fed up with illegal immigration (and in some cases legal immigration). This is not a negligible part of the population either and will not exist in an independent vacuum much longer. A third party will emerge or one of the current parties will mostly adopt this mentality. I think the republicans are closer than the dems to doing this, but you never know. Something has to give in my opinion.

(10-13-2014 03:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't get why it has to be a choice at all. Why fiscal conservatism with conservative "values", necessarily have to be at odds with fiscal conservatives with more liberal social values.
I consider myself more in the former camp, while my very own spouse is decidedly in the second. We do okay with that.
Now, fiscal liberals with conservative values might grow a bit uneasy, but I don't find a lot of them out there anyway, least not that vote "R". And Lib- lib They've already got their home.

Actually I find a lot of fiscal liberals with conservative social values. I'd put GWB in that category based on the way he governed, although not on the way he campaigned. Actually, I'd put a lot of neocons there.

As for the two camps, the social conservatives who are fiscally conservative are unwilling to work with the social moderates/liberals who are fiscally conservative. I think it's pretty clearly the social conservatives who have closed that door. Glad you and your wife can get around that.

(10-13-2014 03:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 03:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't get why it has to be a choice at all. Why fiscal conservatism with conservative "values", necessarily have to be at odds with fiscal conservatives with more liberal social values.
I consider myself more in the former camp, while my very own spouse is decidedly in the second. We do okay with that.
Now, fiscal liberals with conservative values might grow a bit uneasy, but I don't find a lot of them out there anyway, least not that vote "R". And Lib- lib They've already got their home.

Actually I find a lot of fiscal liberals with conservative social values. I'd put GWB in that category based on the way he governed, although not on the way he campaigned. Actually, I'd put a lot of neocons there.

As for the two camps, the social conservatives who are fiscally conservative are unwilling to work with the social moderates/liberals who are fiscally conservative. I think it's pretty clearly the social conservatives who have closed that door. Glad you and your wife can get around that.

I disagree....

(10-13-2014 03:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 03:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't get why it has to be a choice at all. Why fiscal conservatism with conservative "values", necessarily have to be at odds with fiscal conservatives with more liberal social values.
I consider myself more in the former camp, while my very own spouse is decidedly in the second. We do okay with that.
Now, fiscal liberals with conservative values might grow a bit uneasy, but I don't find a lot of them out there anyway, least not that vote "R". And Lib- lib They've already got their home.

Actually I find a lot of fiscal liberals with conservative social values. I'd put GWB in that category based on the way he governed, although not on the way he campaigned. Actually, I'd put a lot of neocons there.

As for the two camps, the social conservatives who are fiscally conservative are unwilling to work with the social moderates/liberals who are fiscally conservative. I think it's pretty clearly the social conservatives who have closed that door. Glad you and your wife can get around that.

I guess we "get around that" by realizing that she has one set of firmly held beliefs, which as an adult I respect, while I have, in some instances, another.

Neither of us feel the need to hash it out daily, weekly or even much of ever. I'm not talking her into or out of anything, and nor is she, me.
So what's the point in bringing it up over and over, for either "side"?

This is what I don't get. Have your beliefs, live your life that way, lead by example so to speak. I'm not one to shy away from letting damn near anyone know where I stand on an issue or whatever subject, but I similarly feel no need to PROCLAIM it if not asked or it's not an appropriate time and place.

Social moderates don't scare me, they don't threaten me. I don't threaten them either, best I know, we just see things a little different here and there.

All that and I find it essentially pointless to try and argue your way to changing someones mind. Must be done by gentle suasion over time. Love 'em to death IOW's.

(10-13-2014 03:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for the two camps, the social conservatives who are fiscally conservative are unwilling to work with the social moderates/liberals who are fiscally conservative. I think it's pretty clearly the social conservatives who have closed that door.

Wow...

Just, wow.

SMH

(10-13-2014 03:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 03:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2014 03:11 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I don't get why it has to be a choice at all. Why fiscal conservatism with conservative "values", necessarily have to be at odds with fiscal conservatives with more liberal social values.
I consider myself more in the former camp, while my very own spouse is decidedly in the second. We do okay with that.
Now, fiscal liberals with conservative values might grow a bit uneasy, but I don't find a lot of them out there anyway, least not that vote "R". And Lib- lib They've already got their home.

Actually I find a lot of fiscal liberals with conservative social values. I'd put GWB in that category based on the way he governed, although not on the way he campaigned. Actually, I'd put a lot of neocons there.
As for the two camps, the social conservatives who are fiscally conservative are unwilling to work with the social moderates/liberals who are fiscally conservative. I think it's pretty clearly the social conservatives who have closed that door. Glad you and your wife can get around that.

I disagree....

(10-13-2014 04:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Wow...
Just, wow.
SMH

I find these two posts pretty incredible.

I mean, you've got Mike Huckabee saying if republicans soften their stance on abortion or gay rights he's leaving, but it's the social moderates who are not playing well with others? Really? Seriously?

I'll just add my own WOW in return.

Abortion is critical to values. You can argue the gay stuff, but there is no moral philosophy that leads to abortion. I am not a Huck fan, but abortion is a critical issue and I agree with him on that. If the gays would stay away from the children and the obscenity on television, I'd have less a problem with their choices.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

You are free to believe that opposition to abortion is so morally correct that any deviation cannot be permitted. Just understand that you're not going to be winning any elections with that stance. And you're not going to accomplish anything without winning elections.

(10-13-2014 06:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You are free to believe that opposition to abortion is so morally correct that any deviation cannot be permitted. Just understand that you're not going to be winning any elections with that stance. And you're notgoing to accomplish anything without winning elections.

This^^^

Disagree. Latest poll I saw had it split at 47% and I'll bet my house the issue has a lot more enthusiasm on the life side.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk