Introducing Squeak's Law!
"As a World Talk arguments grow longer, the probability of bashing conservative and/or the US republican party increases proportionally"
While I really don't want to get overly involved in rank against conservatism that is going on here, I thought I would chime in with a few comments.
One thing of note. If everyone believes that the politics are so 'broken', why aren't more people libertarian? The best way to not be affected by 'broken politics' is to simply have as little political involvement as possible.
The use of religion right now, in the R primary especially, has more to do with distracting people from the economy and associated issues than actually giving a crap about religion. The relentlessly strict-Catholic-ward shifting of policy declarations is a key clue. Rs don't want to talk about the economy, because they know they will eventually be taken to task for the fact that this crash was at least 30 years in the making, and it's not Obama's fault that it happened. He can be 'blamed' for the Affordable Health Car Act, but that's not as unpopular as media would have you believe, especially not with people who actually understand what it is and isn't.
Originally Posted by dauphinous
I agree with your premise, but disagree with the concept that Republicans don't want to talk about the economy. That is definitely where the Republicans would want to focus and is definitely the main issue that will decide the next US presidential election.
Originally Posted by dauphinous
Hey, what makes the conservative fundies go into a froth and ignore everything else? LGBTQ rights, abortion, and now birth control.
I happen to be a conservative and a fundamentalist. It is obvious that you mis-understand the whole birth control thing.
I am not a catholic and personally have no problem with birth control. I DO have a problem with the government MANDATING that any religious institution would be required to do something that goes against their religious beliefs (and do it for free). The 'compromise' isn't really much of a compromise, as it simply shifts the cost onto the insurance companies -- without taking the onus off of the catholic hospitals to provide something that fundamentally disagrees with the tenets of the institution (who will still be required to provide the birth control for free).
A similar story is HERE
, where a preschooler was told she needed to eat a school provided lunch because hers wasn't healthy enough.
Another example of the intrusive, almost Orwellian involvement of government in the choices that individuals make.
What I don't understand about the US pre-elections is that republicans don't all vote for the least conservative candidate. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like a hyper-conservative like Santorum doesn't stand a chance in winning over the moderates and will never become president, while a moderate republican candidate would have a much better chance. If they want a republican president, shouldn't they vote for a moderate candidate? I know this goes against the idea of voting for whoever matches best with your own ideology, but a two party system doesn't support that philosophy anyway.
Originally Posted by Bbender
The 2012 election won't be as much about the Republican candidate as it will be a mandate on Obama's first term in office.
There are many examples of strong left or right leaning individuals have been elected.
After Nixon/Ford - Jimmy Carter was elected (very left wing)
After Carter - Ronald Reagan was elected (very right wing)
After W Bush - Obama was elected (who was ranked as the most liberal senator in 2007)
I would also say that while Santorum is definitely conservative, he is FAR from hyper-conservative by US standards.