Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#25 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,644
  • Reputation: 2,193
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 02:21 AM

I was responding to Nanuqofthenorth's backhanded insult that republicans are peasants who worship the rich. If that's true, then so is the claim that democrats are peasants who worship government. (In other words, Nanuqofthenorth's statement was not true. So you're whacking a strawman.)


Sorry I offended your feelings King.

Really thought someone reading a thread entitled: "GOP Insider: Religion Destroyed My Party" would have realized that the comments were not all going to be flattering to the religious types or the Republican Party.

Obviously I am critical of people that base their political decisions primarily on religious faith. It is a fair criticism in my opinion. You clearly don't agree, so what? Don't agree, no skin off my nose.

If you are upset that I pointed out your flawed attempt at logic, I'm sorry, but it was flawed.

BTW: I am not a Democrat. I also voted for President Reagan and Jesse Helms because I thought we were on the wrong course in the late 70s. I am well versed in economic theory and the fallacy that is Supply Side Economics.

I honestly think 30 years is a long enough time to give it a chance to work.

Lack of regulation caused the Great Depression and deregulation caused the greatest world financial collapse since then, just four years ago.

Years of relative economic stability in between those two events proves regulation works. Quite a few highly esteemed economists of today and those during the Great Depression that implemented the Glass Steagall Act and other regulations agree with me.

They must have known what they were doing because we experienced 70 years of relative economic stability that kept the financial industry from running our economy off the rails.

Yet there are still some that will tell you less regulation of industry is the answer today. As if the two largest financial meltdowns in the last one hundred years never happened.

The leaders of multinational corporations have sufficiently demonstrated time and again they do not have the best interests of the United States or the American Public at heart, nor should they. That is where government comes in.

IBG/YBG. Bonuses and short term stock gains are the driving forces in corporations today and that is not a healthy approach for the long term stability of the American Economy.

Sorry, all indications are that Industry works best when it is properly regulated and by extension the federal government has an important role to play in our economy.

No, I don't worship at the government alter but I do recognize the valuable role government plays in our daily lives.

#26 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,189
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:40 AM

and neither won

Well one of them hasn't actually had the election yet. :)

Mccain lost, not because of the religious right, but because he had the misfortune of running after GWB. No republican could have won in 2008.


IMO, religion influences the primary elections a lot more than it does the november election.

#27 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • Joined: 21-July 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 645
  • Reputation: 49
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:35 AM

IMO, religion influences the primary elections a lot more than it does the november election.


Really? You are fooling yourself.

I challenge you to walk into any one of the four billion churches in the state of north carolina and ask the occupants which candidate they will be casting their ballots for.

I'd guess the results would be about 98% for Romney.

They see it as their DUTY, they don't even consider policy.

All good christians KNOW they are to vote republican, it is a given.

#28 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:19 AM

Laissez-faire capitalism has never existed in this country, but ignoring that, your issue (and do correct me if I'm mistaken) seems to be with the vast inequality of wealth.

Wealth, however, is not doled out arbitrarily and without reason, unless by a centralized market economy. Free trade is not good because it achieves equality, social or economic. It's good because it removes the coercion of government, which relies on the immoral and irrational use of force to change economic interests.

This centralized market philosophy rests on the belief that men, if not coerced, will make inherently irrational and destructive decisions. A foundation that is flawed from two different perspectives. The first is that it assumes man is an innately corrupt animal that will trade against his own interest, which is simply untrue, much like the Christian idea of original sin. The second is that, if in fact man is innately destructive and irrational, he should be allowed to destroy himself. There is no good in preserving a bad businessman's company.

I think the bolded text is the crux of our disagreement. My philosophy is one that celebrates man living for his own sake, his own happiness. Self-interest, when not motivated irrationally or carried out with force or fraud, generates more money than a government possibly can through economic intervention, particularly when the government has no fear of failure, like a business owner does.


Interesting ideas, but there are some things I would like to point out. You claim that free trade is ideal because it removes the coercion of government and its irrational interests- I can completely understand this philosophy, and it is certainly true in some cases (the Farm Bill is a great example that most people dont know about).

The problem with your argument however, is that it doesnt really apply to regulation, especially in regards to the financial industry. You claim that the belief that "men will make inherently irrational and destructive decisions" is false because people's self-interest will not allow it. The problem with that idea (in terms of the financial industry) is that those making risky moves with things like the derivatives market are absolutely acting in their own self interests- they make tons of money, and even if a bad move makes their company go bankrupt, they are allowed to keep the millions they made.

And your point about letting the businesses fail- I have no problem with that in theory. The problem comes in situations like we faced prior to the bank bailout- the banks were too big to fail. After deregulation allowed the investment banking to combine with traditional banks, the banks that had all our money (through traditional banking) were risking it all with newly invented investment strategies. If the government had allowed those banks to fail, it would have thrown our economy into a deeper recession plus the government would have paid a bunch to cover individual's FDIC insured losses.

Bottom line, this financial crisis would not have been possible if proper government regulation was in place- the same government regulation we stripped away in the 1990s

#29 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,865
  • Reputation: 4,621
Administrators

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Really? You are fooling yourself.

I challenge you to walk into any one of the four billion churches in the state of north carolina and ask the occupants which candidate they will be casting their ballots for.

I'd guess the results would be about 98% for Romney.

They see it as their DUTY, they don't even consider policy.

All good christians KNOW they are to vote republican, it is a given.



Guess I am in the 2%, I've never voted straight ticket in my life.

#30 davos

davos

    €∞€∞€∞€

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,343
  • Reputation: 2,318
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:46 AM

Really? You are fooling yourself.

I challenge you to walk into any one of the four billion churches in the state of north carolina and ask the occupants which candidate they will be casting their ballots for.

I'd guess the results would be about 98% for Romney.

They see it as their DUTY, they don't even consider policy.

All good christians KNOW they are to vote republican, it is a given.


I don't know about that. I would actually say a good deal of Catholics could vote Obama more than anything else. Santorum-types and its pervy leaders seem to misconstrue the make-up of the Catholic population.

Episcopal, Baptist, and Lutheran definitely seem to drive on this right side a lot in the political arena but a good chunk of Catholics that go to church like three times a year just to go to church are more left in my opinion and its not really apparent given how the media operates. They are ok or just don't care about the gay sh*t and the only "big" issue that goes against the left is that they're against abortion.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think that type is a large chunk

#31 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,184
  • Reputation: 51
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:24 AM

Democratic voters have their issues as well, but "worshiping government" is not one of them. At least with government we have a shot at electing people that will screw us over. Companies - not so much.


I see this last statement a bit differently, though I would submit that (D) and ® simply answer to a different bossman.

With government, you rarely see a program go away, a tax go away, or put in their terms a "revenue stream" disappear.
Once enacted, they are all loathe to take away someone's bacon.
Also, government tends to grow, anr rarely if ever gets smaller, something ® voters like to TALK about but seem blind to the fact that their party often grows government bigger than the (D).

I see it like this...a company can really suck and fail. It then goes away. Well, maybe it gets bought up, refurbished, and the bigwigs golden parachute away.

The politicians can be voted out of office, but the policies don't really ever go away.

So pick your poison.

Honestly, bad governments scare me just a little bit more than big business....but it seems more and more like they are one in the same these days.

#32 CatofWar

CatofWar

    Join, or Die

  • Joined: 24-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,522
  • Reputation: 896
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:37 PM

Posted Image

#33 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,189
  • Reputation: 1,566
HUDDLER

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:35 PM

Really? You are fooling yourself.

I challenge you to walk into any one of the four billion churches in the state of north carolina and ask the occupants which candidate they will be casting their ballots for.

I'd guess the results would be about 98% for Romney.

They see it as their DUTY, they don't even consider policy.


How much you willing to bet? That would be easy money for me, if you are including all churches in the state.



I would be willing to bet that the voting percentages for Romney in white evangelical churches would be lower than those voting for Obama (or any other Democrat) in black churches.

Evangelicals make up a significant portion of the republican vote, but they are not a majority. They have a lot of influence in the primary, less so in the general election because the candidates to an extent take their vote for granted, much as democrats do the black vote. But Mccain was not well liked by the evangelicals. Their favorite in the 2008 election was Huckabee, and he lost. And Romney was not the favorite of the evangelicals in 2012 (their votes were more spread out among the other candidates) but Romney still won the nomination. That is why their vote matters more in the primaries than in the general election. Romney had to win their favor, but since he is now the presumptative nominee, getting that vote is not quite as important (although it is still somewhat important).

#34 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • Joined: 21-July 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 645
  • Reputation: 49
HUDDLER

Posted 08 August 2012 - 07:39 AM

You are talking about religious people voting in the primaries.

I know they didn't like Romney, seems no one did, yet somehow he is the guy.

Truth is though, given the choice between D Jesus fuging Christ Himself & R Adolf Hitler... the people that attend a christian church every Sunday will almost ALWAYS vote R

They will vote R or they will stay home.

Oh wait, I must be delusional... There is no connection between religion and the republican party.

#35 King

King

    A Cell of Awareness

  • Joined: 20-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,765
  • Reputation: 49
HUDDLER

Posted 08 August 2012 - 12:44 PM

You are talking about religious people voting in the primaries.

I know they didn't like Romney, seems no one did, yet somehow he is the guy.

Truth is though, given the choice between D Jesus fuging Christ Himself & R Adolf Hitler... the people that attend a christian church every Sunday will almost ALWAYS vote R

They will vote R or they will stay home.

Oh wait, I must be delusional... There is no connection between religion and the republican party.


I'd like to see some statistics on the church-goer vote, personally. Republicans definitely carry fundamentalists, but I'm willing to bet mainstream Christians are pretty evenly divided between the two parties.

Jesus definitely would've voted democrat, too.

#36 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • Joined: 21-July 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 645
  • Reputation: 49
HUDDLER

Posted 08 August 2012 - 01:01 PM

Jesus definitely would've voted democrat, too.


I know my friend Haysoos does