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.
Well....how much more of a chance do liberal states with big government loving statists have in becoming yellow? I guess one could argue that those states will have the biggest, most damaging fiscal problems first (see California, Illinois, etc) , so people will wake up sooner and realize that more government is the problem, not the answer?
Oh, I did not mean to imply that places like NY are any closer. But the liberals are honest about their worship of the state, conservatives *pretend* to believe in freedom for marketing purposes. People in California are proud to be big-government.
Oh, I did not mean to imply that places like NY are any closer. But the liberals are honest about their worship of the state, conservatives *pretend* to believe in freedom for marketing purposes. People in California are proud to be big-government.
Agreed except I think we need to define terms a bit. "Conservatives" is a big net. You have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, combo. In many place like Iowa, the liberty movement and certain conservatives come together on a lot of issues that those on the left want no part of. IMO, if there is going to be any movement to yellow, it means bringing in the younger generations where polling shows have the biggest distrust of gov't and thus are not coming from a liberal, big gov't leaning position, but rather a conservative, small gov't bias.
Agreed except I think we need to define terms a bit. "Conservatives" is a big net. You have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, combo. In many place like Iowa, the liberty movement and certain conservatives come together on a lot of issues that those on the left want no part of. IMO, if there is going to be any movement to yellow, it means bringing in the younger generations where polling shows have the biggest distrust of gov't and thus are not coming from a liberal, big gov't leaning position, but rather a conservative, small gov't bias.
I was talking in the sense of the conservative vs. liberal dichotomy. Those "conservatives" don't believe in freedom any one bit more than the liberals. I mean, your same argument can be made for liberals. Some actually are pro-freedom in some ways, or at least couch their terms that way.
To me the term "conservative" has been poisoned... it means neo-con. Even in the cases of people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc...
That is what I like about Iowa so much, if you ask someone if they are a liberal or conservative, a lot of the time, you get a blank stare because they are neither and they are appalled that you would subscribe to one party, let alone put full trust in government.
Tea party "conservatives" are just as unprincipled as socialist "liberals".
I was talking in the sense of the conservative vs. liberal dichotomy. Those "conservatives" don't believe in freedom any one bit more than the liberals. I mean, your same argument can be made for liberals. Some actually are pro-freedom in some ways, or at least couch their terms that way.
To me the term "conservative" has been poisoned... it means neo-con. Even in the cases of people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc...
That is what I like about Iowa so much, if you ask someone if they are a liberal or conservative, a lot of the time, you get a blank stare because they are neither and they are appalled that you would subscribe to one party, let alone put full trust in government.
Tea party "conservatives" are just as unprincipled as socialist "liberals".
hummm....now you're losing me. Being conservative or liberal are not subscribing to a party in anyway.
Gallup does a poll every January and asks American's where they fall on the spectrum. Most recent:
Quote:
A new Gallup poll released on January 31 shows that conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 states. Although liberal identification has reached a new high in the wake of Barack Obama’s reelection, conservatives still make up the largest ideological group in most states. Nevertheless, the average gap between conservatives and liberals shrank from 15.9 to 14.6 percent since 2012.
Quote:
The swing states from recent elections all boast a double-digit conservative advantage leading one to question why Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio all voted for Barack Obama. According to Gallup, the answer lies with moderate voters.
Also I would venture that you're in the vast minority that would equate conservative with neo-con. That sounds like a personal bias to me. Can you link to any source to back that up?
Also, your tendency to paint with such broad brush without providing supporting evidence, is starting to work against your credibility a bit IMO.
Speaking of "poisoned", from my perspective it's the "Republican Party" that has been poisoned.
I was raised in Iowa as a Republican before I questioned anything or thought for myself but, even after maturing & moving around the points of view & voting for various individuals of either party as a young adult, I still was able to vote for the Republican vision of Reagan in 1980.
Since then however, the takeover of that party by the social conservative/moral majority wing & then the growth of the neo-con power cabal who really ran things during the last Bush Administration (i.e. think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) plus seeing the "Do as I say not as I do," conservatives in action who completely run every aspect of government in Georgia, altogether have completely driven me away from that party.
There's never a moderate Republican to be found on the ballot in Georgia! Fortunately they don't seem to be extinct as of yet in Iowa but for me, I don't know when I'll ever be able to cast a majority of my votes on a ballot for GOP candidates unless there is severe reform & a wakeup call return of the GOP to it's old principles that I once was comfortable with, as were my parents.
Iowa was once full of Eisenhower Republicans & it served the state well in many aspects. And when Brandstad had his first long run of terms as governor, he governed very much in that mode.
But it's popular today to label the former Eisenhower Republicans of yesterday or those of today who ascribe to those old precepts as RINO's but that is rhetorical hogwash straight from the bully pulpits of right wing media super elites & their followers who do not question the rhetoric nor know much about the history of politics in America.
hummm....now you're losing me. Being conservative or liberal are not subscribing to a party in anyway.
I didn't really say that, but...
Uh, in mainstream American politics it is. Liberals are democrats and conservatives are republicans... again, the terms have been poisoned by people using them incorrectly. They have used the terms incorrectly long enough, that it is the de-facto meaning.
"In any way"
So you are telling me that "conservatives" are not ANY more likely to be republican? LOL.
Quote:
Gallup does a poll every January and asks American's where they fall on the spectrum. Most recent:
That does nothing to combat my point. It only shows the people of those states to be freer thinkers than other states....
Quote:
Also I would venture that you're in the vast minority that would equate conservative with neo-con. That sounds like a personal bias to me. Can you link to any source to back that up?
No, bro. Vast majority. It is not our fault either, what does every neo-con say when they are asked about their political views? They say they are "conservatives". It seems that you were raised "conservative" and have an unreasonable attachment to the word. If you really want to communicate that you believe in small government, saying you are a "conservative" is not enough. I prefer the term "Liberty minded".
I notice that you have no problem labeling "liberals" as big government, with your "wide brush", when classical liberalism was closer to freedom than modern conservatism. These words tend to get manipulated and bastardized as time goes on, should I keep using the classical definitions, or should I adapt to the more modern, practical definitions?
Quote:
Also, your tendency to paint with such broad brush without providing supporting evidence, is starting to work against your credibility a bit IMO.
Ugh, I am not painting with a broad brush, I am explaining the mainstream American political machine, which is painted in broad brush strokes through no doing of my own. You want to find me a neo-con (majority of republicans) who does not consider himself a "conservative"... good luck. If what you were saying was true, wouldn't "conservative" presidents throughout history have shrank, or held back governmental growth rather than growing the government a the same rate as everyone else?
So no, nothing in your post has shown me any reason to believe someone actually believes in small government when they say they are "conservative", or any reason not to believe that they are way into big government. It simply does not indicate a preference to small government.
Nice back-handed comment too... maybe I should make a comment about your lack of reading comprehension working against your credibility, that would be the polite thing to do right?
(BTW, under the classical definition of conservatism, I would considered a true conservative... but we don't live in that world anymore. I mean, do liberals believe in classical liberalism? God no.)
Speaking of "poisoned", from my perspective it's the "Republican Party" that has been poisoned.
I was raised in Iowa as a Republican before I questioned anything or thought for myself but, even after maturing & moving around the points of view & voting for various individuals of either party as a young adult, I still was able to vote for the Republican vision of Reagan in 1980.
Since then however, the takeover of that party by the social conservative/moral majority wing & then the growth of the neo-con power cabal who really ran things during the last Bush Administration (i.e. think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) plus seeing the "Do as I say not as I do," conservatives in action who completely run every aspect of government in Georgia, altogether have completely driven me away from that party.
There's never a moderate Republican to be found on the ballot in Georgia! Fortunately they don't seem to be extinct as of yet in Iowa but for me, I don't know when I'll ever be able to cast a majority of my votes on a ballot for GOP candidates unless there is severe reform & a wakeup call return of the GOP to it's old principles that I once was comfortable with, as were my parents.
Iowa was once full of Eisenhower Republicans & it served the state well in many aspects. And when Brandstad had his first long run of terms as governor, he governed very much in that mode.
But it's popular today to label the former Eisenhower Republicans of yesterday or those of today who ascribe to those old precepts as RINO's but that is rhetorical hogwash straight from the bully pulpits of right wing media super elites & their followers who do not question the rhetoric nor know much about the history of politics in America.
Any political belief system that has any real following eventually gets poisoned by people trying to take advantage of the popularity of the group or defining term. I am sure that eventually, libertarian will practically mean authoritarian the way that politicians like to misuse words.
So you are telling me that "conservatives" are not ANY more likely to be republican? LOL.
No and I'd be curious how you came to that conclusion based on anything I presented here. I would agree with the statement that someone who is conservative would more likely be a republican. Of course.
OK...the tone has changed on the thread and I'll accept my share of the responsibility for that happening and work to comment a bit more straightforward so as not got turn things personal. My bad on that one.
With that said and back on topic, just because Republicans consider themselves conservative, it doesn't also mean that conservatives consider themselves Republicans. For those like me that have strong libertarian leanings I say I'm a fiscal conservative or a constitutionalist. Now....because of our unfortunate two party system, I default to being a Registered Republican but I bristle a be labeled a "Republican" (for reason given below) but have no problem being called a conservative. Being a "Republican" doesn't really mean anything.
Being a Republican pretty much means nothing these days which is why a lot of us registered as such (for voting and activism reasons), do not want to be labeled as such. The party is fractured and the reason that is occurring goes back to the gallup poll. The numbers tell us there is a large conservative population that is ready to be represented however the Republican party is often times not there to hold the mantel and fight the causes. Their biggest failure IMO is not being fiscally conservative going back decades and coming to a head when the R's had the Prez (GW) and both houses and spent and grew gov't as recklessly as DC did when they weren't in power. Granted, Obama is making things worse, but he was still handed at $14 trillion? Fed debt (now $17T) by predecessors.
And some people long for the days when both parties "worked together"? Working together to accomplish what all those past decades? Our country is a fiscal mess, we have fiat currancy, our entitlement programs are not sustainable long term, we have fallen behind educating our kids, we've spent $18 trillion since 1965 on the War on Poverty to move the poverty level from 10% to.....wait for it....10%, we've wasted millions of dollars in time and resources on the failed "war on drugs", several billion spent and lives lost running failed military operations around the globe, we pretend we can't protect the sovereignty of our country via secure borders, etc. etc. etc.
The establishment (D's and R's) are slowing killing this country off. They have the corporations and special interests in their backpockets and in the meantime, that leaves very few in DC fighting for the little guy.
Speaking of "poisoned", from my perspective it's the "Republican Party" that has been poisoned.
I was raised in Iowa as a Republican before I questioned anything or thought for myself but, even after maturing & moving around the points of view & voting for various individuals of either party as a young adult, I still was able to vote for the Republican vision of Reagan in 1980.
Since then however, the takeover of that party by the social conservative/moral majority wing & then the growth of the neo-con power cabal who really ran things during the last Bush Administration (i.e. think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) plus seeing the "Do as I say not as I do," conservatives in action who completely run every aspect of government in Georgia, altogether have completely driven me away from that party.
There's never a moderate Republican to be found on the ballot in Georgia! Fortunately they don't seem to be extinct as of yet in Iowa but for me, I don't know when I'll ever be able to cast a majority of my votes on a ballot for GOP candidates unless there is severe reform & a wakeup call return of the GOP to it's old principles that I once was comfortable with, as were my parents.
Iowa was once full of Eisenhower Republicans & it served the state well in many aspects. And when Brandstad had his first long run of terms as governor, he governed very much in that mode.
But it's popular today to label the former Eisenhower Republicans of yesterday or those of today who ascribe to those old precepts as RINO's but that is rhetorical hogwash straight from the bully pulpits of right wing media super elites & their followers who do not question the rhetoric nor know much about the history of politics in America.
atler, from my perspective, I came from a pretty heavy Democrat leaning family. I headed the other direction when I started to see the destructive force that too much government meant to individuals and the country as a whole. I was a proud Republican for years and then I woke up and realized they weren't doing much better. I used to hear people say "there really is no difference between the two parties" and I'd go "huh??". Now I can see that too. I'd describe it now as they were messng up our country as well....just not as quickly as the Democrats were. Not exacty something to want to hook my trailer to.
No and I'd be curious how you came to that conclusion based on anything I presented here. I would agree with the statement that someone who is conservative would more likely be a republican. Of course.
OK...the tone has changed on the thread and I'll accept my share of the responsibility for that happening and work to comment a bit more straightforward so as not got turn things personal. My bad on that one.
With that said and back on topic, just because Republicans consider themselves conservative, it doesn't also mean that conservatives consider themselves Republicans. For those like me that have strong libertarian leanings I say I'm a fiscal conservative or a constitutionalist. Now....because of our unfortunate two party system, I default to being a Registered Republican but I bristle a be labeled a "Republican" (for reason given below) but have no problem being called a conservative. Being a "Republican" doesn't really mean anything.
Being a Republican pretty much means nothing these days which is why a lot of us registered as such (for voting and activism reasons), do not want to be labeled as such. The party is fractured and the reason that is occurring goes back to the gallup poll. The numbers tell us there is a large conservative population that is ready to be represented however the Republican party is often times not there to hold the mantel and fight the causes. Their biggest failure IMO is not being fiscally conservative going back decades and coming to a head when the R's had the Prez (GW) and both houses and spent and grew gov't as recklessly as DC did when they weren't in power. Granted, Obama is making things worse, but he was still handed at $14 trillion? Fed debt (now $17T) by predecessors.
And some people long for the days when both parties "worked together"? Working together to accomplish what all those past decades? Our country is a fiscal mess, we have fiat currancy, our entitlement programs are not sustainable long term, we have fallen behind educating our kids, we've spent $18 trillion since 1965 on the War on Poverty to move the poverty level from 10% to.....wait for it....10%, we've wasted millions of dollars in time and resources on the failed "war on drugs", several billion spent and lives lost running failed military operations around the globe, we pretend we can't protect the sovereignty of our country via secure borders, etc. etc. etc.
The establishment (D's and R's) are slowing killing this country off. They have the corporations and special interests in their backpockets and in the meantime, that leaves very few in DC fighting for the little guy.
I love the above post. John Q. Public by himself is powerless to change the rapid decline to our values and the country in general as the leaders of both parties don't care (they are NOT oblivious). Getting elected and maintaining power is all that matters. The only real possibility of change might be the extreme of a constitutional convention. Till that happens, the main question I have for any politician running for office is are you or are you not for term limits. If they respond that they're for term limits, they would have to be a far left knucklehead wanting no restrictions on immigration for me not to vote for them. Left leaning Democrat? No problem, you still have my vote, BUT your actions will speak louder than words.
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.
