Started By
Message
re: Lets Talk Politics
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
2
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:46 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
Not as surprised as some on the politics board. Many over there think I'm a liberal democrat because I don't oppose gay marriage and don't want to put Muslims in camps 
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:48 pm to Iosh
Your first three links are from August and September, and the last isn't much to look at.
Like I said, he's toned it down considerably since last Summer.
Like I said, he's toned it down considerably since last Summer.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:49 pm to Roger Klarvin
And you think this represents a genuine shift in his philosophy?
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:55 pm to Iosh
quote:
evangelical religious rhetoric
Lets talk more about this. Why is this a bad thing? What actual policy (& lets stick to policy here) do you think he will push that is evangelical religious?
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:55 pm to Iosh
No, I think it represents a realization that he can't get elected publically saying gay marriage will be the downfall of our civilization.
I don't know if he honestly was as fundamentally religious as he seemed or was just pandering to the far right, but I don't care as long as he isn't making policy based on that.
This isn't like Mitt Romney, who held beliefs so demonstrably false that I questioned his decision making capacity. Evangelical Christianity isn't nearly on that level of absurdity.
I don't know if he honestly was as fundamentally religious as he seemed or was just pandering to the far right, but I don't care as long as he isn't making policy based on that.
This isn't like Mitt Romney, who held beliefs so demonstrably false that I questioned his decision making capacity. Evangelical Christianity isn't nearly on that level of absurdity.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 2:58 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Cruz is very, very genuine in his religious beliefs and he's not going to change. If there's been a downturn in his social conservative rhetoric (and I'm not seeing what you're seeing) it's because he knows he has the evangelical vote in his pocket already.
No, I think it represents a realization that he can't get elected publically saying gay marriage will be the downfall of our civilization.
I don't know if he honestly was as fundamentally religious as he seemed or was just pandering to the far right, but I don't care as long as he isn't making policy based on that.
He will absolutely govern as a social conservative and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
(A lot of libertarians like to fool themselves.)
This post was edited on 1/18/16 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:01 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Not as surprised as some on the politics board. Many over there think I'm a liberal democrat because I don't oppose gay marriage and don't want to put Muslims in camps
A real conservative would be against the government telling people who they can and can't marry. Why can't more republicans understand this?
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:06 pm to greenbastard
quote:
A real conservative would be against the government telling people who they can and can't marry
They are, the issue is all about freedom and rights. So what will you say when they tell a Baptist church that they have to close their doors if they don't perform a gay marriage? Or tell a Baptist preacher that he will be fined if he doesn't?
You can't and shouldn't over simplify the discussion
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:07 pm to greenbastard
quote:
A real conservative would be against the government telling people who they can and can't marry.
The truth is the GOP has largely been hijacked by the religious right, many of whom prefer pseudo-theocracy over a constitutional republic. They believe not in freedom but in the freedom to do that which they morally approve of.
Other than abortion, which if you believe is murder you are obligated to oppose, it is illogical to claim to be a conservative and then oppose victimless actions between adults.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:10 pm to Old Sarge
quote:
So what will you say when they tell a Baptist church that they have to close their doors if they don't perform a gay marriage? Or tell a Baptist preacher that he will be fined if he doesn't?
I'd tell them to get fricked and stand in protest. The government has no right to do that.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:15 pm to Iosh
quote:
govern as a social conservative and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Of course he will, but other than revoking federal funds to PP (which even many libertarians and some moderate democrats now support) what can he really do? Abortion and gay marriage are settled, there's no putting those genies back in the bottle. Immigration is as much a fiscal and foreign policy issue as a social one, and he'll most likely settle on some form of amnesty if elected.
This post was edited on 1/18/16 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:16 pm to greenbastard
Agreed. Government should not be involved in marriage. They should also not give benefits to those that are married.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:19 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Immigration is as much a fiscal and foreign policy issue as a religious one, and he'll most likely settle on some form of amnesty if elected.
How is immigration a religious policy?
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:20 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Abortion and gay marriage are "settled" by one SCOTUS vote. The social conservative bloc doesn't give a shite for stare decisis (they granted cert and flipped on Carhart as soon as Alito replaced O'Connor).
Of course he will, but other than revoking federal funds to PP (which even many libertarians and some moderate democrats now support) what can he really do? Abortion and gay marriage are settled, there's no putting those genies back in the bottle.
I personally prefer a liberal SCOTUS to a conservative one, because at the end of the day "judicial activism" means nullifying a law, and we have too many laws. The liberals have shown a willingness to keep dumb state laws (and dumb state police) in check. The conservatives haven't shown that same willingness about dumb federal laws. At the end of the day Scalia and Kennedy both wussed out when it came to the commerce clause, Roberts wussed out on Obamacare. So as far as I'm concerned the advantages of a conservative SCOTUS are wholly theoretical until they clone Clarence Thomas.
This idea that True Conservatism means a rubber-stamp SCOTUS doesn't jibe with my understanding of small government.
This post was edited on 1/18/16 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:31 pm to Farmer1906
I meant to type "social policy"
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:34 pm to Roger Klarvin
All good. 
Posted on 1/18/16 at 3:40 pm to Iosh
quote:
Abortion and gay marriage are "settled" by one SCOTUS vote. The social conservative bloc doesn't give a shite for stare decisis (they granted cert and flipped on Carhart as soon as Alito replaced O'Connor).
I personally prefer a liberal SCOTUS to a conservative one, because at the end of the day "judicial activism" means nullifying a law, and we have too many laws. The liberals have shown a willingness to keep dumb state laws (and dumb state police) in check. The conservatives haven't shown that same willingness about dumb federal laws. At the end of the day Scalia and Kennedy both wussed out when it came to the commerce clause, Roberts wussed out on Obamacare. So as far as I'm concerned the advantages of a conservative SCOTUS are wholly theoretical until they clone Clarence Thomas.
This idea that True Conservatism means a rubber-stamp SCOTUS doesn't jibe with my understanding of small government.
I fear sweeping limitations on the first and second amendments are not far away with a liberal SCOTUS.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 4:13 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I fear sweeping limitations on the first and second amendments are not far away with a liberal SCOTUS.
i agree with this. i make no apologies for being a conservative religion right winger, but a 5-4 liberal SCOTUS is asking for trouble.
i love a balanced legislative branch (because hopefully that means less laws getting passed that eff us.) but if i only get to pick one of the 4 possible majorities, i want a conservative SCOTUS.
ideally. i'd like a moderate republican president, democratic senate by one vote, even congress either way, and a 5-4 conservative SCOTUS. i feel like that is the best option to make sure stupid new laws don't get made.
Posted on 1/18/16 at 4:36 pm to 3nOut
The biggest problem with conservatives as a whole is the insistence on their brand of moral legislation. Once that becomes incompatible with modern society, and we're getting there, the "dangers" of conservative politicians will be far less substantial. Eventually it will become impossible to get elected to so much as mayor if you publically say you oppose gay marriage for instance, and so it will just go away out of necessity.
However, the dangers of liberal politicians will remain because they pander to an ever expanding group of voters who believe limiting freedom is justified in the name of equality and tolerance.
However, the dangers of liberal politicians will remain because they pander to an ever expanding group of voters who believe limiting freedom is justified in the name of equality and tolerance.
Page 12 of 50
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News