as going on a downhill spiral due to so-called Liberalism. Conservatives maintain that the Democratic party as undermining America. Conservatives further contend that Donald Trump is returning America to solid values & prosperity. If you are a Conservative, what do you want for America? What are your values?
Many conservatives I know (not all) simply want to return to the 1950s.
Don, exactly. Conservatives want things the old way. They are afraid of change & progress. They contend that things were so much better in the old days. They are threatened by change. They view change as the downfall of America. They want Blacks to be silent, women to be barefoot & pregnant, the LGBT community to be back in the closet & other marginalized groups to disappear.
Conservatives seem to have a particular animus towards women. Their main animus is surrounding the liberation of women, particularly reproductive liberation. Conservatives don't want to be corrected regarding their atavistic perspectives on sociopolitical issues. They want a strictly delineated & hierarchical America among gender & racial lines. They want each group to be in their respective places.
What in heavens name are you talking about? Seriously, you seem to not be aware there are millions of conservative women, blacks as well as all minorities. One of the most conservative person I know is gay. The rest of your statement is just senseless ranting. Reproductive liberation? Great made up word. Do you really think what you've written makes any sense at all?
GW is correct. Again, please read more from credible sources and quit making false claims as fact.
Republican support among women for the Republican Party has been declining for years because of its anti-women and anti-minority policies and is declining even more quickly under Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … a1b06125c5
Meanwhile, black support for Trump is a whopping 10-15%.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon … a3f67d7669
Do you find it as comical as I do that the only "credible" sources are inevitably the ones saying what we want to hear?
Okay, they're wrong. Here is the liberal USA today with a poll showing support for President Donald Trump among blacks is 36 percent.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 013212002/
Women, he's unpopular with certain segments of women but not all. Many really like him.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17607232/ … hite-women
No, that is USA Today reporting on a poll from "Rasmussen Reports".
The same Rasmussen Reports that is run by conservative analyst Scott Rasmussen, who's polls many people believe are "at best, the result of a flawed polling model and, at worst, designed to undermine Democratic politicians and the party’s national agenda"(1).
The same Rasmussen Reports that has been repeatedly criticised for being biased(2).
Promisem said: "Republican support among women for the Republican Party has been declining . . . " (my emphasis).
You replied with an article title: "Trump’s enduring political strength with white women, explained" (my emphasis)(3). Since when does "women" mean "white women"? In what way does that article refute what Promisem said?
(1) https://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/ … sen-031047
(2) https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8 … t-approval
(3) https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17607232/ … hite-women
Say what you will about Rasmussen being conservative.
It is also a very accurate polling company. One of the few polling companies that accurately predicted Donald Trump winning the presidency.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … s_it_right
It's obvious being conservative hasn't prevented them from providing accurate polling data. Facts are facts.
Women is a word made up of all different types of women. My point is he is not popular with some women and very popular with others. To say he's unpopular with ALL women or to even insinuate it, is completely false.
You implied USA Today was supporting your view. You made a point about it because you deem it to be a "liberal" source.
It wasn't supporting your view. It was merely reporting on a poll by Rasmussen Reports.
It is a fact that Rasmussen Reports' polls have been repeatedly criticized for bias. Having read some of the criticisms, it seems those criticism are less related to Rasmussen being conservative, and more related to the methodology of the polls.
And thank you for the insight that white women are part of a set of people who are women, but that's by the by. Promisem said:
"Republican support among women for the Republican Party has been declining for years because of its anti-women and anti-minority policies, and is declining even more quickly under Trump".
The article he linked to referenced several polls with data that shows more women, across the board, said they would vote Democrat rather than Republican in the mid terms. I don't know how accurate those polls are, but they support Promisem's view that there is a particular decline in support from women, for Republicans, under Trump.
You aimed to refute that, but having checked both sources you provided, we can conclude that one has a reputation for being biased, and the other does not refute the point you are trying to refute.
Sorry, wrong again. Many polls predicted accurately within the margin of error in the final weeks that Clinton would win the majority of votes by 2-3 percent.
And she did.
The only reason she didn't get the Presidency is because of the electoral votes. Plus Russian money funneled into the GOP and NRA.
The white evangelical women I know who are still Republican think they are supposed to be subservient to men. Their Bible tells them so.
LOL. Really? In America today? How many women is that? 1? 2, possibly?
Do you know the same women I know? I happen to live in the most conservative county in Virginia.
I didn't realize we were neighbors.
We used to be neighbors. What county?
Edit. I'm sure you won't tell me. But, I did live in a very, very conservative and Christian county. Trust me. I know women who say that. Don't you believe it. They do their own thing. They just pay lip service to that.
OK, I'll trust you.
I live in Hanover, with some pretty deep connections to the community. It has the strongest Tea Party faction in the state, according to the politicians I know.
They have told me (I wasn't giving you my personal opinion) that it's the most conservative county in the state. I grant that "conservative" comes in various forms. So your version of conservative may be different than mine.
We pray and pledge allegiance at county meetings. The local newspaper hasn't endorsed a Democrat for President since the Civil War. You probably also know the area has a fierce Confederacy heritage with no love of federal government. And tons of churches.
Don't take their word for it. I don't think Hanover wins the prize. I lived in Chesterfield. They were the county who insisted on two holidays because they refused to let Lee, Jackson and King share a holiday. It really caused us grief since the county was shut down for two days.
Interesting. I wish Gallup or Pew would do a study on Christian attitudes.
I'd like to know:
What percentage Christian Evangelicals (for example) would definitely make the country a theocracy if they had the choice?
What percentage believe women should be subservient to men?
What percentage believe homosexuality should be illegal?
What are their views on race, gender etc?
Would be an interesting exercise.
But of little value. I would strongly suspect that very few would answer honestly, even if they were convinced that it would never be made public. There is a difference in knowing how one should believe and what one does believe.
We could say that about any poll though. Either we accept the inerrant flaws in polling (especially on social issues) and cautiously acknowledge they can be a useful indicator, or we dismiss all polls on social attitudes on the grounds they are inherently unreliable.
Well, I'll answer this poll, though I'm a non-evangelical Christian.
1) I wouldn't make the country a theocracy
2) I don't believe women should be subservient to men. In fact, that flies in the face of Christ's teachings.
3) I wouldn't make homosexuality illegal. People that want to have sex with others in their own gender are free to do that.
4) Gender - you have an idea. Race is similar: "In Christ there's neither Greek nor Jew". Just substitute black nor white.
Thanks for sharing. There's now a sample size of 1.
The majority of Christians in the US (around 25%) are Evangelical Protestants though, some of whom would likely consider you a heathen.
That terrible Bible thing... cause of all the worlds evils, liberated women know far better than to give that a moments thought.
Don is quite right. Rasmussen is so discredited by inaccurate polls for Fox News that the founder got driven out of his own company.
He even predicted on Election Day that Romney would have a landslide win over Obama. We know how that turned out.
You would be VERY hard pressed to provide any proof of Rasmussen being discredited. You shouldn't say such things unless you can prove them. That's what Democrats do.
Still at it, huh?
It's easy to prove. Real Clear Politics tracks polls from multiple sources. Rasmussen consistently shows every Republican including Trump getting much higher numbers than all of the other polls combined.
It has always done it that way.
Trump's amazing approval rating is one obvious example. Rasmussen always gives him an approval rating 5-10 points higher than anyone else.
I'm sorry, you need to look at what you provided. It doesn't show what you think it does.
Or you don't want to see what it does show. No major poll other than Rasmussen gives Trump a 49% approval rating. Most of them are in the high 30s to low 40s.
Gallup, Reuters, Economist, etc. are all at 42-43%. Click on the button on the page below to see all of the most recent Trump polls. Once again, Rasmussen scores him far higher than all other polls.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr … l-ratings/
Are you prepared to say all polls are wrong except for Rasmussen?
Simply because Rasmussen's polls are different than other polls doesn't make them discredited or wrong. If they were as bad as you claim, they wouldn't be in business. I'll give you a little insider information. Rasmussen is a favorite among many politicians including Democrats. The results don't matter as much as the questions asked, how the poll was conducted and who was asked. Each polling place approaches things differently. A study in the history of Rasmussen will show they've been right about many different political races where other polls have been wrong. That's why they are in such demand. I worked on many different campaigns. Local, state and federal. Polls are an essential part of planning a campaign or how to conduct one.
Very true, what is good for the American economy is good for all Americans, regardless of race or sex, if you want better wages, want better job opportunity, you want a good economy.
So I want a President that is attacking the unfair trade agreements we have had with other countries for decades... while that helped those developing countries and international corporations rake in the profits from using slave labor, it has devastated our industrial base and the upward mobility for the Middle Class here in America.
Its time to turn that around, as Trump has been doing.
Also we want to maintain at least a semblance of our two party, citizen represented political system... we were on the verge of becoming a Banana Republic, and we are still fighting the forces that want America to become something it never was, or want to do away with the nation-state all together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM_guk9LC8g
There is a lot Conservatives want, and despite the accusations and rhetoric emanating from the disparaging Left, it has nothing to do with race, sex, or going back to the 1950s.
In fact, I would say it is the Left that is trying to recreate the 60s, and the need for revolution against men, against racial oppression, etc. that does not exist today in our laws, our government programs, or society at a large. Its an effort to break Americans apart into small, warring factions, divided Americans are far easier to manipulate and control, and that is the ultimate goal of the 'evil forces' that would strip away our freedoms, rights, and wealth as a nation.
Divide us by whatever means necessary, don't think of yourself as an American... think of yourself as an oppressed minority, or oppressed woman, etc. in reality we exist in the most liberated, free, wealthy time in the history of all mankind, but the 'Left' is trying like hell to get us to throw it all away.
Why exactly are the trade agreements unfair?
Well lets see, the 500 Billion dollar trade imbalance with China in large part due to their 'special status' formerly 'favored nation status', but essentially remaining the same for the past 40 years.
NAFTA which incentivized companies to move to Canada or Mexico where labor is cheaper, taxes are lower (until Trump changed America's corporate tax rate from the highest in the world to middle-of -the-pack and lower than Mexico) and in addition directly resulted in tens of thousands of Americans (IE - Truckers) losing their non-manufacturing jobs because of the changes this agreement established.
I could go on and on... and I have, in various Hubs, so if you are interested you can go read those that are related to this issue.
Those sound like reasons to blame the companies that take advantage of the agreements rather than the agreements themselves.
Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?
No, it's the agreements. They restrict companies by what they can sell, how much they can sell, when they can sell, the price structure of things they sell and more. You should read some of these agreements and see what companies doing business on an international level have to go through to sell their products overseas. They set the tax rate on what is sold and more.
Yes companies are about maximizing profit.
And our government is supposed to be about maximizing the wellbeing and opportunity of its citizens, and looking out for its National interests.
So, no, allowing China to continue to fleece America, or allowing companies the opportunity to make things in Mexico at the expense of our own citizens is NOT the job of our government... but that is exactly what our corrupt politicians have allowed and abetted, especially the last two Administrations that ignored the matter as it grew out of control (or worse, helped facilitate it), rather than address it.
This is true of many conservatives. There is a difference between Trump fanatics and people who are simply political conservatives though. In the same way there is a difference between revolutionary Marxists and people who are just politically liberal.
Many of the fanatics on this forum (I think we all know who they are) would have you believe that distinction does not exist. Mainly because division and discord is what allows people like Donald Trump to thrive. The more fear that can be stoked up, the better it is for Trump and his ilk.
That's why everything is always the fault of the blacks, the immigrants, the gays, the liberals, the press. Trump (and by extension the Republican Party which has now been hijacked) needs an enemy to scare people into accepting ever-extreme policies.
Those policies mostly consist of dismantling the state, i.e. federal agencies that protect people from the harm that can be caused by unbridled "greed is good" capitalism, and maintaining the status quo. The problem with maintaining the status quo,or going back to the 50s, is that you retain (regain) all the racial inequality, gender inequality, misogyny, homophobia etc. that goes with it.
LOL. Prove the allegations. Who is blaming blacks, immigrants or gays?
The left shoots itself in the foot, at every turn, through baseless bs fear mongering, and the foolish fall for it.
Give a list of your claimed allegations against blacks, immigrants and gays.
If I had a daily award for unsubstantiated claims, you would win. When I read your last post I heard the theme of the Twilight Zone being played.
You mean Trump fanatics no longer think the country is in a state because of minorities, immigrants, gay people, feminists, the press and liberals? I must have missed that memo. When did that change happen?
Agreed. There is a huge difference between Trump fanatics and true conservatives who have a clear understanding of economics and the Constitution.
I don't see the "going back to the 50's thing" at all. True, many conservatives want to take government back a notch, believing that the federal government is now WAY to powerful in terms of what it can regulate. State governments have the constitutional authority to regulate all they want, but that power wasn't provided for the Feds.
That said, I'm in favor of some federal intervention, though I agree with many of my conservative colleagues that the federal government has way overstepped its constitutional authority.
Well it's interesting you say that.
From what I can see, government intervention is bad when it involves something that some conservatives don't like (like protecting people and the environment against certain corporate interests) and good when it involves something some conservatives do like (like making the internet less neutral for the benefit of corporate interests).
All seems a bit "fluid" to me.
Likewise people who are "fiscal conservatives" are suddenly supporting tax breaks that increase the deficit.
So I know what I'm waiting for. The return of knowing what "conservative" means. Once upon a time, if someone said they were conservative, you knew they believed in small government, balanced budget etc.
Whatever this new thing is, it doesn't look like conservatism to me. It just looks like a random selection of opportunistic positions that shifts as often as the wind changes. Maybe it is conservatism, and I just don't understand it.
My "thing" is this: I support, kind of, the feds requiring a minimum wage - is that constitutional? No; however, a completely tether free economy tends to become abusive, so a little regulation is necessary. That gives you an idea of where I come from.
"government intervention is bad when it involves something that some conservatives don't like (like protecting people and the environment against certain corporate interests) and good when it involves something some conservatives do like (like making the internet less neutral for the benefit of corporate interests)". Many conservatives I know, including myself, try to run the straight line between over-involvement by the government, and that involvement which is absolutely necessary. For me, that leaves out ANY involvement which is strictly about making life fair. Also leaves out the feds telling people what they have to buy; that partly explains my opposition to Obamacare.
In short, many conservatives, including myself, that believe in small government and balanced budgets, have made compromises that we deem are necessary, but probably not desirable.
Funny thing is, I know many liberals who would say something similar, but obviously from a liberal perspective.
E.g. walking the line between a market economy that delivers prosperity and can transform people's lives, and the belief that there is a legitimate role for government in addressing economic and social issues like poverty, health care, education etc.
Many of my liberal colleagues will accept that a competitive market economy can be beneficial, but do not accept that the desire for profit should supersede the needs of people. That includes any situation where government supports corporate interests that are not also in people's interests.
Yes, both say the same thing but from radically differing levels. One wants as large a nanny state as they can get, one wants as little government as possible.
One of the differences, seems to me, is that innocuous statement that liberals "do not accept that the desire for profit should supersede the needs of people. " That the "needs of the people" always override the need for profit, without ever going so far as to realize that without profit there will be nothing at all for the needs of the people.
One example might be the requirements for running a small business - it has become nearly impossible to start up a new business without a huge outlay of cash to satisfy the perceived needs of the people. So there is no business, no job and the needs of the people are completely unsatisfied.
It's strange, this little exchange with Hxprof didn't feel like a typical conservatives vs liberal clash. I could be wrong, it's just my perception after all. But it felt more like a simple stating of perspectives. It was quite refreshing.
Anyways, you've honed in on the people-before profit sentiment, but I did balance that against: "a market economy that delivers prosperity and can transform people's lives".
I think people who walk that line do fully understand that business can be positive and transformative, but have concerns about how we have pushed too far in that direction, so profit has become the number one priority above all else. Sure, it's great when profit aligns with the interests of people and the environment. The issue is when it doesn't, and profit is deemed more important.
It's strange, this little exchange with Hxprof didn't feel like a typical conservatives vs liberal clash. I could be wrong, it's just my perception after all. But it felt more like a simple stating of perspectives. It was quite refreshing.
Anyways, you've honed in on the people-before profit sentiment, but I did balance that against: "a market economy that delivers prosperity and can transform people's lives".
I think people who walk that line do fully understand that business can be positive and transformative, but have concerns about pushing too far towards profit being the number one priority above all else. When profit aligns with the interests of people and the environment, that's great. The issue is when it doesn't, and profit is deemed more important.
In terms of a "nanny" state. Some would say OSHA rules are an example of a nanny state. But that doesn't take account of how reducing injuries in the work place saves businesses (and the economy) money. In that case it's not so much as a "nanny" state as a "responsible adult" state.
It's all a matter of degree - something that has been said 10,000 times in these forums. Zero profit - zero business. Massive profit - zero consumers (and maybe workers).
Yes, OSHA was a step towards the nanny state. So is every other law controlling the population, particularly when the beneficiary is a specific individual. How many steps does it take to become a nanny? We're well over half way, IMO, which is too far.
I think it varies depending on the policy area. In some areas I think government is overreaching. In others it seems to have the balance about right. In others I think it's not doing enough.
I think OSHA probably does more good overall than harm, but I'd have no issue with rules and regulations being reviewed to make sure they're not overly-bureaucratic and onerous. In fact that should play an important part of any government agency's programme of work, because it helps reduce waste and increase efficiency.
The real issue lies in situations where making a profit does not align with people's well-being or is damaging to the environment. That's when the profit motive needs to take a back seat.
It's helpful to distinguish between fake conservatives and true ones.
Fake conservatives support Trump and his budget-busting tax cuts and attacks on the Constitution.
True conservatives oppose massive tax cuts while increasing spending (mainly on "defense"). They also defend the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights and not just the 2nd Amendment.
Correctly stated. There are so many pseudo-Conservatives, particularly in the forums!
You couldn't be more wrong on tax cuts and more. I don't care what you claim your background to be, you don't know what is a true conservative.
I'm clearly more of a true conservative than you. I know you don't slash taxes and raise spending in a growing economy.
Only a fake conservative thinks that's a good idea.
Now is a time when the government should be running a budget surplus and paying down the national debt.
Please read more from credible sources about real economics (not Breitbart propaganda), starting with Trump's skyrocketing deficit.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-bu … 2018-09-11
Give it time, President Ronald Reagan faced the same situation. As the economy continues grow so will the tax base. One of the major tenets of Conservatism is letting people keep more of the money they earn.
Please pay attention to #8
http://humanevents.com/2006/12/20/ten-p … servatism/
I agree with #8, but not to the point where it bankrupts the country.
Maybe you should read a bit of information from the Tax Policy Center. There is a good chance tax cuts will pay for themselves.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefin … themselves
This country went through the same thing with Reagan. It didn't work then, and there is no reason to think it's working now.
Have you seen today's stock market crash? It's not a positive sign.
Readmikenow, sadly, I don't see how the tax cuts will pay for themselves. We need economic growth of 3% (minimum) per year....not likely to happen. And neither Trump nor Congress seems to be in the mood to cut spending at all.
Hxprof, I am going to have to disagree with you. The economy is growing at a faster rate than predicted. Here is a scorecard from Forbes. When you look at the graphs realize they only cover up to June of 2018, only half the year. By July of 2018, the economy grew at a rate of 2.9 percent, and is expected to go higher.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones … 26047e1283
That compares to Obama's best number of 5.1% in 2015.
Many experts agree the tax cuts will give a temporary boost to the economy, followed by a drop in 2019 or 2020.
Obama was president for 8 years, President Donald Trump has been in office for 2 years. I read economic experts who believe the economy is only set to really grow in the next few years. The renegotiated trade deals and lower taxes will be a big reason.
Even if so, the economy must continue to grow at that pace (minimum 3% per year), ongoing, in order to pay for itself. If Congress cut spending during this time, that could work....Ha ha, see if Congress cuts spending. I suspect Hell would freeze over first.
Agreed. They are always a temporary boost and then drive up the national debt in the long run.
The scary part is, when the next recession comes, the government and the Fed will have too much debt to do much stimulating.
They did the last time (have too much debt). It didn't stop them.
I don't believe our congress even considers debt in deciding what they will spend. They haven't for years and years.
Or maybe they'll put YellowStone Park up for sale to China; that should be good for a few Billion. Or the Grand Canyon.
What about my point? Do you think it's a conservative principle to cut taxes and increase spending at the same time?
What gm and her like want is for us to lose it and call them names so they can attempt to get us banned , old tactic , new day .
MIke , Dems are stuck in a downfall trying to reuse old political tactics , relying on the decency of conservatives to BACK OFF when they falsely accuse us of racism , bigotry , misogyny , the very habits they are guilty of !
They are losing so badly across the political spectrum that their politically enslaved groups like women , minorities , blacks , hispanics are deserting the democratic party in droves , Blacks now support Trump by approximately 34 % . up from about 10 %,
What does that say ?
A Dying democratic party . Don't take the bait .
OH GOD, HE'S...……….BAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK...…………….DAMN! Another, incoherent, illogical rant by ED as usual. If one wants laughs, have Ed participate in the forums. Incoherency at its most sublime...………...
See what I mean ? Wouldn't it be really nice if eevveerryyoonnee' just shut up and swallowed the whole liberal message without question ?
I was in a seventh grade class recently when the male teacher began the" fixed" discussion of how climate warming is destroying the whole world's environment and a seventh grade girl raised her hand and asked the teacher ...."If we shouldn't consider that it may be a natural climate cycling ".... , of course the teacher quickly silenced the girl .
That is how liberals HAVE to think , all for one group thought , if you don't you are wrong , categorized and ostracized !
gm. I'm not only BAAAACK , I'm right ! Offer some debate or sit down and be quiet , stoping being childish .
It is stopping. You can't even spell properly. Your English is beyond atrocious. You obviously never completed school. No one who is intelligent & educated is taking you seriously. You aren't respected, you are even despised in the forums. Even I now despise you. I refuse to stoop to a lower level to discuss anything w/you. You are THE LAST person anyone would engage in a discussion with. You can talk to yourself. Do me a favor, DON'T EVER COME TO MY POSTS AGAIN! Hillary Clinton was RIGHT about the deplorables & their low intelligence. I debate people whom I respect & I don't have any respect for you whatsoever!
No gmwilliams, from what I have seen on your threads these last few days, Ed is not the least respected forum poster.
Wow, GA, you're taking the gloves off these days!
Do you recall a hubber 2-3 years ago that got increasingly rude and obnoxious in the forums in a deliberate experiment to see what it took to be banned? Had a few people in tears, and finally left in a huff (after regaining forum privileges) with a tirade about how awful HP, the people and the writers were.
That last tirade deserved it promisem. No walk-backs on this one.
To be purposely demeaning and insulting in such a blatant manner is out of line.
You responded to my comment, which didn't include what prompted it. So take a look at what I was responding to:
How else could that comment be read other than being purposely hurtful? How would you respond to such a post?
Notice my comment was an observation and not a judgment.
I was simply surprised at how hard you struck back at someone who was responding to another poster who called her childish and baited her, among other comments.
The baiter also has a long history of being uncivil and has been banned in the past.
I can accept it as an "observation" promisem. But, you should also notice that my comment wasn't a defense of Ed, (although, considering the force of her charges, I would do so), it was just addressing the content.
However, even though prior to a gmwilliams apology, I said there would be no "walk-back" of my comment, I am relieved that I can gladly walk-it-back now.
I respect and understand ahorseback Ed and always have! Huh!!!!
The new format here makes typing way harder. The intuitive aspect makes you spell things in the wrong way, such as through for throw. It gets tedious correcting the stupid intuitive feature which we now have to deal with All The Time!!!
gm, it doesn't even bother me of how you emote all this, apparently your emotions are clouding your responses so I'll leave you to that misery . no sense kicking a hornet's nest . if you seriously wanted to debate you wouldn't resort to the usual liberal "go to ", the personal attack . So I'll give you an out here because of your limitations of group thought and lack of debating skill ..........
Have a nice day !
Ed, I apologize profusely. My actions were uncalled for. I am calling a truce. Let's begin again on a positive note. To each, his own. Conservative, Liberal, Moderate, who cares. We are all God's children.
Sometimes it is a relief to be wrong gmwilliams. You just proved a recent insinuation of mine was wrong.
I'm sure Ed is grateful for your gracious comment and will likewise treat you and others with more respect going forward.
gmwilliams, based on comments of yours I have seen across the forum, that post struck me as uncharacteristic.
kudos for owning it though, and trying to do the right thing. I only wish others on the forum would take the same responsibility for their comments.
Problem is , IS Trump acting conservatively? Sure he's slashed incoming tax revenues , feeding the war machine in spite of peacetime , spending fairly liberally , but watch what happens when nov. tells us what it has to say . He'll either continue saving dollars or a newly won democratic house will blow all the proceeds like they did to Reagan's incredible savings.
It is interesting, reading posts from those who do not call themselves conservatives, what a conservative is and what a conservative wants. If you agree with them then you aren't a conservative. If you don't, you are.
I label myself conservative because I think it represents fairness to the individual, individual rights and liberties, a commitment to equality and compassion tempered with a heavy dose of fiscal responsibility. Although, I don't believe the people in power represent those views, I don't think the people in power fairly represent the left either.
Got to hand it to Don W , he disses Rasmussen who's been around forever and fairly accurate and then offers up some weird news polls invented by the 93% media that is biased against Trump to begin with -as "proof " . Rasmussen was one of the inventors of polls and now [today's liberal ] is going to shoot the messenger for telling them the truths that they don't like listening to?
Come on ! DonW.
I didn't offer any of these polls as proof, Readmikenow did, as you can see from his post:
If you have a query about their credibility, ask him about it.
I'm merely pointing the data was not from USA Today, it was simply being reported on by USA Today. And pointing out that a poll of white women, doesn't refute what Promisem said about women moving away from the republican party, because "women" does not mean "white women".
Hey Don, let me draw you into a tangent relative to your comment.
"What percentage Christian Evangelicals (for example) would definitely make the country a theocracy if they had the choice?"
That you posed this question seems to indicate you think a lot of them would. I haven't done any research on it. I don't claim any authority on knowing whether it is right or wrong - but, it wouldn't have occurred to me that any but the most fundamental of fundamentalists would want a theocratic government.
Do you think a large segment of all Evangelists really would want to go that far? Or are you thinking more along the lines of those Westboro church-type folks?
I think you're right - there is but a tiny minority that would like a theocracy. Of course they have the loudest voices...
But that does not mean that a great many would not try and fit their belief system into the law. Prohibition comes to mind, as does the massive fight over gay marriage, Intelligent Design and abortion - all religious issues. Indeed, we continue to hear cries that Christianity is under "attack"...because their control is slipping and they don't have the political power to create law or rules from dogma as much any more. Again, prayer in school, religious icons on public ground, even the blue laws (which still exist in some places) come to mind.
That's how I see too. But that also means we are drawing a line between an actual theocracy and a religiously guided government. That line could get to be pretty blurry.
At this point I honestly don't know. I try to stay optimistic. It's not easy.
Perhaps you're right, support for a full blown theocracy would be too extreme for most, but I see many Christians who are not content to be left alone to believe what they believe.
Instead they want to frame laws that effectively force everyone to live according to their beliefs. Women's reproductive rights is one example. I think it's reasonable to say the biggest cause of opposition to a woman's right to choose is religious belief (relating to the belief that human life begins at conception).
Similarly with same sex marriage. For many Christians it's not enough to be left to practice whatever they believe, and leave others to follow their own beliefs. Those Christians want marriage to be legally defined exclusively according to their specific religious beliefs, regardless of what anyone else in the country thinks.
And don't get me started on teaching about evolution.
So maybe I'd change the question from asking about a theocracy, to something about how much legislation Christians believe should specifically reflect Christian values (in cases where those values differ from non-Christian values).
Essentially I'd like to know how many Christians would impose Christian beliefs on everyone else through legislation. It's seems to be a high number.
[Edit] I just saw your post to wilderness and you summarized what I'm referring to: "But that also means we are drawing a line between an actual theocracy and a religiously guided government. That line could get to be pretty blurry".
Ha! You are 'preaching to the choir' now Don, (sorry, it was to cheesy to resist).
With the question re-framed, I would worry that a large segment would want almost all laws molded by their religious beliefs. And I agree with your other comments too. I think religious beliefs should be personal - unless asked.
What liberals want is to take the proceeds from the only profitable and successful economy --known as capitalism AND spend it on the most costly programs of the most failing government style known TO man -socialism .
"AND spend it on the most costly programs!"
Ben Franklin said, "The good of money is the use of money."
Shouldn't we give it to them to use?
After all, THEY are the softhearted, the kind hearted, the caring, the compassionate ones.
and some of us who earn the money are apparently not.
...such a dilemma for them, is it not???
Americans have raised a generation [or two ] who stare bright eyed at the brass rings in life and nothing more . " Free " now includes anything that they want at other peoples expense .
Politically life should mirror our existence on the street , work or go hungry and homeless . Chose working and having or chose living without .
by Readmikenow 10 minutes ago
This is worth watching. It shows the experience of black conservatives in the United States. It is very powerful. I challenge everyone to click on the link I've provided and watch the movie's trailer."The film simply asks: “Why is there no respectful disagreement in the black...
by Credence2 13 minutes ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
by Scott Belford 11 months ago
Trump's hand-picked attorney general summarized the Mueller Report by saying two things.1) Trump or his campaign did not legally conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election2) Trump is NOT exonerated from the charge of Obstruction of Justice.IF Barr properly reported Mueller's...
by Readmikenow 17 months ago
I've been a conservative since I graduated college. I've known many conservatives. My black conservative friends seem to really get a lot of grief for their beliefs. I've seen my one friend be banned from family gatherings at a sibling's home because he supported President Donald...
by Scott S Bateman 11 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi trillion dollar wars chasing weapons of mass destruction that don't exist instead of...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with the last statement, I won't go so far as calling it a win. Instead, I call...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|