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.
What you people do not seem to understand is that Republicans/conservatives are not the ones that dwell on the gay marriage/homosexuality issue. It is the media and those on the left that continue to bring these issue to the fore. . .Why? Perhaps they want to stir up trouble for those on the right?
When a candidate is asked his opinion on a topic whether in a debate, interview or whatever they answer it honestly.
I can assure you it is not like a republican candidate gets up in the morning and thinks, "Ah, I think I will run on an anti-gay platform today" or "I think I will try to stir the pot and talk about homosexuality today."
Hogwash. They ask and answer. Anything further is simply not true.
i think that flip flopney put the anti-gay issue out there with all of his theatrics when the civil marriage ruling came down in massachusetts. he made sure to get as much publicity as possible so that he could be seen as anti-gay and seize many of the christian votes. so i disagree by saying to you that the politicians themselves create their images,platforms. the media are just reporting them to the public.
What gets in my crawl is that republicans could run on traditional conservative views like, no new nation building and no unnecessary wars, sound fiscal policy that included both tax cuts and spending cuts, environmental CONSERVation, national defense such a keeping our global military more engaged with our own borders and our nation actually more safe in practice than word, less government and associated bureaucracy overhead and simply pay more attention to America proper and they would be in like Flynn. Instead they chose fear.
The only reasons democrats even have a chance is because flipping a quarter is a 50/50 shot.
Ron Paul is the only Republican running on traditional conservative views, and he doesn't have backing of the media so it will be very difficult for him to win.
Ron Paul is the only Republican running on traditional conservative views, and he doesn't have backing of the media so it will be very difficult for him to win.
So true, so sad.
I just got in this months copy of a particular financial magazine I subscribe to; they did a little breakdown on where the candidates stand on economic issues, taxation, etc.
You would think that a FINANCIAL MAGAZINE would probably be inclined to give Paul a little bit of time, but nope.
There were positional breakdowns on Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson on the left while Guilliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee were the only ones even mentioned on the right.
The media is working awfully hard to ensure that the public isn't aware that Ron Paul even exists.
The vast majority of Republican voters are vehement anti-secularists, and Republican voters--by and large--are far more concerened about gay marriage and abortion than they are about anything else. Why else do you think moderate Repubs like Rudy and McCain don't stand a chance?
So what are you trying to say? That the GOP should abandon social conservatism? If thats the case, the Democratic Party would be in power for decades, since the GOP desperately needs trivial wedge issues like God, guns, and gays to stay in power. Thats how they win elections.
mccain does not stand a chance because of his pro illegal immigration stance, not becacuse of his moderate stance on other issues. rudy certainly does stand a chance of winning the nomination. he would not be my 1st choice, but i would certainly back him against a hillary. hillary's programs would cost this country too much financially and we are already struggling with the cost of living.
I see your view, and I guess that is where we differ, and is one of the huge gulfs in this country. . . Whereas seeing his stance makes you, as you said "hate this person," This makes me see him as someone who has strong values and is willing to take a stance, and I like him.
Obviously you would never vote for him, I am not sure yet but I respect him. He's just a man and isn't perfect but I do like him.
I guess what makes one voter like someone (one of the reasons) can make another hate them. There is no sitting on the fence. But I appreciate that we can have a civil discussion.
But differing views aside, since you like that he's taking that stance, do you think it's important that he does so? Do you think it's more important than discussing Iraq (or Iran?)? That's what I'm wanting to get at. Who are the people who want candidates to talk about marriage--the right or the left? Months before the last presidential election, I can remember people from both sides being pretty unconcerned about the FMA and more preoccupied with the war. Many said they were voting with that in mind (I'm not sure how true that is, but it's what they said). Someone must've told Huckabee (or he decided) that it was necessary for him not only to post his views on his website, but to make it clear that he would push for passing the FMA in the White House.
i think that flip flopney put the anti-gay issue out there with all of his theatrics when the civil marriage ruling came down in massachusetts. he made sure to get as much publicity as possible so that he could be seen as anti-gay and seize many of the christian votes. so i disagree by saying to you that the politicians themselves create their images,platforms. the media are just reporting them to the public.
I agree with you, but at the same time, I've seen the media get carried away with this issue. At times I've wondered if certain news stations, websites, etc. have been trying to elicit a reaction from the segments of the population who are very anti-gay and pro-gay. They'll hone in on a few sentences some candidate uttered, and while they might be extremely controversial, they're still just a couple of sentences being reported on while there are so many other issues that could be discussed just as exhaustively.
But differing views aside, since you like that he's taking that stance, do you think it's important that he does so? Do you think it's more important than discussing Iraq (or Iran?)? That's what I wanting to get at. Who are the people who want candidates to talk about marriage--the right or the left? Months before the last presidential election, I can remember people from both sides being pretty unconcerned about the FMA and more preoccupied with the war. Many said they were voting with that in mind (I'm not sure how true that is, but it's what they said).
I don't think it is "more important" than discussing Iraq at this time, no.
I guess it is on his website so people who are not familiar with Mike Huckabee can learn about his views, like a bio.
I think he is a good man with good values. Will I vote for him? I really don't know. I also think the illegal immigration issues is very important and I am not sure he is the right man to address this. He doesn't seem strong enough on this issue for me. Usually I am very decisive and know who I will vote for. At this point I am still deciding.
I don't think it is "more important" than discussing Iraq at this time, no.
I guess it is on his website so people who are not familiar with Mike Huckabee can learn about his views, like a bio.
I think he is a good man with good values. Will I vote for him? I really don't know. I also think the illegal immigration issues is very important and I am not sure he is the right man to address this. He doesn't seem strong enough on this issue for me. Usually I am very decisive and know who I will vote for. At this point I am still deciding.
Whoops...sorry. I unwittingly went back and edited my post after you'd responded, trying to clarify. Well, I don't think I added anything of significance.
we are already struggling with the cost of living.
And whose fault is that?
Seriously though... eight years of a Republican administration driving the economy into a wall, and you really want eight more years of that? The Republicans had the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for ... what? ... six years running? And in those six years they completely wrecked a prospering economy. If someone continually drives into the same ditch, isn't it time to switch drivers?
Seriously though... eight years of a Republican administration driving the economy into a wall, and you really want eight more years of that? The Republicans had the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for ... what? ... six years running? And in those six years they completely wrecked a prospering economy. If someone continually drives into the same ditch, isn't it time to switch drivers?
The economy was prospering great during the mid 2000s. Only recently with the housing meltdown, credit crisis, and $100/barrel oil has recession started to come back into the picture. The last downward spiral began BEFORE Clinton left office. The only thing you can blame on Bush is the $100 oil prices.
The real candidate for the economy is one who will balance the budget, and thats certainly not going to be Hillary Clinton with all her government programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buildings_and_bridges
But differing views aside, since you like that he's taking that stance, do you think it's important that he does so? Do you think it's more important than discussing Iraq (or Iran?)? That's what I'm wanting to get at. Who are the people who want candidates to talk about marriage--the right or the left? Months before the last presidential election, I can remember people from both sides being pretty unconcerned about the FMA and more preoccupied with the war. Many said they were voting with that in mind (I'm not sure how true that is, but it's what they said). Someone must've told Huckabee (or he decided) that it was necessary for him not only to post his views on his website, but to make it clear that he would push for passing the FMA in the White House.
Remember "values voters"? The FMA was the top issue on many people's minds.
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.
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.
