U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2013, 02:55 AM
 
Location: US
17,930 posts, read 17,846,344 times
Reputation: 13933

Advertisements

I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.

Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?

I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2013, 03:05 AM
 
6,578 posts, read 9,493,195 times
Reputation: 3154
Also long as these old cranky SOB Republicans like John Mccain Mitch Mcconnell and John Boehner are in DC this will never happen. 2014 is the yr to vote these obstructing aholes out so we can finally get the economy moving in the right direction and do something to get the wealth gap problem taken care of
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 03:44 AM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,658,980 times
Reputation: 3967
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.

Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?

I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
How do you have both? How do you have social security, medicare, Obamacare, child care, welfare, section 8, food stamps, unemployment and when ever some "oppressed" group out there, complains to their politicians they need money for whatever, and have a "fiscal conservative?" This social liberal policy has to be paid somehow? So how do you pay for it? Where is the money going to come from?

You can fight tooth and nail about corporate welfare and military. Guess what? Democrats are just as much to blame as republicans in this vane. Look at Obama, what changes has he made in regards to "corporate welfare." NOTHING. NOTHING has changed.

Now, if you mean socially liberal about abortion and issues such as that? Guess what? The MAJORITY of republicans agree with legalized abortion, gay rights, racism, et al. I'm a black man and a Republican. We are just TIRED of having our wallets raided by an out of control government and our money given to others, which are lazy, and do not provide for this society. Moreover, with the current government, there appears to be no end in sight and worse, it appears to be expanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 03:49 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,746,688 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.

Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?

I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
Most republicans will tell you that social issues should be decided at the state level. We object to the feds getting involved in what goes on in our back yard. It's the democrats who push social agendas down from the federal level to the state level.

Personally, I'd like to see social programs eliminated. Let communities take care of their own and charities step in where communities can't. Everything is more expensive when the feds get involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 03:54 AM
 
7,371 posts, read 4,639,472 times
Reputation: 3133
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to vote for Democrats because I hate Republicans stance on social issues.
I would suggest you vote based on your fiscal views rather than your social views. I oppose many social conservative views myself. But the nation won't financially collapse if homosexuals don't get married. You have to have priorities.

Quote:
Will there be a day when Republicans will focus solely on fiscal and economic policy and simply say, social issues can be decided at the state level?
Interesting you should say that, since Democrats do not want social issues to be decided at the state level. If you want state sovereignty that's another reason to vote Republican, because Democrats concentrate power in the federal government.

A result of that is any individual policy the Republicans put into place that you might not like is going to be far easier to change than a Democrat policy. The government's scope and reach under Democrats will be greater.

Also, there's a tendency when you like what is being done to not pay attention to how it is being done. For example, the reason gay people can get married in some states now is because the Democrats have decided not to enforce the ban on those marriages. There is a ban on gay marriage in existence, they are just purposely ignoring it. As a general principle, do you agree that the President can pick laws he doesn't like and simply declare he isn't going to follow them? What if he picks a law you do like next?

But as to whether the Republican stance will change, we don't know yet. Right now there is a struggle going on in the Republican party between the neocons and the small government people. The neocons have controlled the party for decades but the small government people are the ones with the initiative. If they continue, they will probably eventually take control. And if they do then yes social policy will be decided at a state level or simply left to individual choice.

Quote:
I think many Obama supporters would switch sides if Republicans could ease up a bit.
I agree. The problem is that there are social conservatives and neocons around. You have to look at how many people would switch sides as compared to how many social conservatives would stop their support. If five million Obama supporters switched sides, but fifteen million social conservatives got upset and stopped donating and showing up at the polls then even with getting some people to switch the Republicans still lose out overall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 04:00 AM
 
Location: US
17,930 posts, read 17,846,344 times
Reputation: 13933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
Now, if you mean socially liberal about abortion and issues such as that? Guess what? The MAJORITY of republicans agree with legalized abortion, gay rights, racism, et al. I'm a black man and a Republican. We are just TIRED of having our wallets raided by an out of control government and our money given to others, which are lazy, and do not provide for this society. Moreover, with the current government, there appears to be no end in sight and worse, it appears to be expanding.
I am talking about abortion, contraception, stem cell research, gay rights, anti-discrimination laws etc. Currently, at least Republican politicians are not in favor for these social issues. I personally cannot vote for a candidate that doesn't believe in allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies, letting people love who they want or allowing scientists to do their thing so we can compete with the rest of the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 04:01 AM
 
Location: US
17,930 posts, read 17,846,344 times
Reputation: 13933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Most republicans will tell you that social issues should be decided at the state level. We object to the feds getting involved in what goes on in our back yard. It's the democrats who push social agendas down from the federal level to the state level.

Personally, I'd like to see social programs eliminated. Let communities take care of their own and charities step in where communities can't. Everything is more expensive when the feds get involved.
I think many Republican voters feel this way. However, Republican politicians don't. Simply watch the primary debates and you'll know what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 04:07 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 5,780,102 times
Reputation: 2361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJboutit View Post
Also long as these old cranky SOB Republicans like John Mccain Mitch Mcconnell and John Boehner are in DC this will never happen. 2014 is the yr to vote these obstructing aholes out so we can finally get the economy moving in the right direction and do something to get the wealth gap problem taken care of
So you believe in the distribution of wealth. That distribution of wealth isn't going to come from just the top. It would be from the top down. Would that distribution be taking from those that work (that would be you assuming you work) and giving to those that don't work (which could also be you)? Are you (being one of those "that have") fine with working and expected to give more of your income and lowering your standard of living in order to raise the standard of living for for those that don't work ("those that don't have) so that you can be "equal"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 04:07 AM
 
Location: US
17,930 posts, read 17,846,344 times
Reputation: 13933
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
I would suggest you vote based on your fiscal views rather than your social views. I oppose many social conservative views myself. But the nation won't financially collapse if homosexuals don't get married. You have to have priorities.



Interesting you should say that, since Democrats do not want social issues to be decided at the state level. If you want state sovereignty that's another reason to vote Republican, because Democrats concentrate power in the federal government.

A result of that is any individual policy the Republicans put into place that you might not like is going to be far easier to change than a Democrat policy. The government's scope and reach under Democrats will be greater.

Also, there's a tendency when you like what is being done to not pay attention to how it is being done. For example, the reason gay people can get married in some states now is because the Democrats have decided not to enforce the ban on those marriages. There is a ban on gay marriage in existence, they are just purposely ignoring it. As a general principle, do you agree that the President can pick laws he doesn't like and simply declare he isn't going to follow them? What if he picks a law you do like next?

But as to whether the Republican stance will change, we don't know yet. Right now there is a struggle going on in the Republican party between the neocons and the small government people. The neocons have controlled the party for decades but the small government people are the ones with the initiative. If they continue, they will probably eventually take control. And if they do then yes social policy will be decided at a state level or simply left to individual choice.



I agree. The problem is that there are social conservatives and neocons around. You have to look at how many people would switch sides as compared to how many social conservatives would stop their support. If five million Obama supporters switched sides, but fifteen million social conservatives got upset and stopped donating and showing up at the polls then even with getting some people to switch the Republicans still lose out overall.
This an entirely different issue... currently, I believe BOTH parties are equal big spenders. I don't think the US would be financially any better under Romney. Democrats spend and tax, while Republicans spend and borrow. Republicans don't want any cuts to military spending, in fact they want to increase it by $2 trillion. Republicans don't want to end foreign aid, many want to boost foreign aid. Republicans think we should be more involved in Syria, which would virtually mean providing air support or ground troops. I don't think either party will lower our deficit, look at history. When has our debt and deficit dropped during a Republican president?

It's true Democrats favor nationwide policies, but those positions are usually granting more freedom, not taking them away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2013, 04:10 AM
 
7,371 posts, read 4,639,472 times
Reputation: 3133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
How do you have both? How do you have social security, medicare, Obamacare, child care, welfare, section 8, food stamps, unemployment and when ever some "oppressed" group out there, complains to their politicians they need money for whatever, and have a "fiscal conservative?" This social liberal policy has to be paid somehow? So how do you pay for it? Where is the money going to come from?

You can fight tooth and nail about corporate welfare and military. Guess what? Democrats are just as much to blame as republicans in this vane. Look at Obama, what changes has he made in regards to "corporate welfare." NOTHING. NOTHING has changed.
Yeah and I think that's one of the problems. How are we going to compete against the crony capitalists without the donations from them? You know, when we say "hey, you guys can forget that too big to fail stuff. we're not going to bail you out and we're not going to subsidize you" then when they go and donate to the other side, how do we compete with that?

Quote:
Now, if you mean socially liberal about abortion and issues such as that? Guess what? The MAJORITY of republicans agree with legalized abortion, gay rights, racism, et al. I'm a black man and a Republican. We are just TIRED of having our wallets raided by an out of control government and our money given to others, which are lazy, and do not provide for this society. Moreover, with the current government, there appears to be no end in sight and worse, it appears to be expanding.
Yep, there are a lot of fiscal conservatives, small government types, and conservative libertarians now. Problem is that there are a lot of religious social conservatives around. We need their votes and campaign donations even though we don't really agree with a lot of their social views. Also the establishment types running the Republican National Committee, House, and Senate are old neocon social conservative types. We may be the base of the Party now but we're not the ones calling the shots and even if we are a majority we aren't enough of a majority to stop working with the religious social conservative types yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top