• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

For GOP, it's the social issues, stupid

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jun 7, 2012
67
0
0
I am opposed to paying for other people's abortions.
OK ... I have no problem with you not wanting to pay for other people's abortions.

I happen to have an attractive 47 year old daughter, brain injured at birth by high forcepts. She is permanently disable and on meds that generate an 85% probability that any of her offspring will be in worse condition than she is. She did not learn to speak until age 7 years.

We have had people (including SEVERAL DOCTORS) say that she should have as many children as she can. Based on their religious/moral convictions ... would you believe?

There have been at least 3 years where her medical bills have exceeded $150k/year. And many more in excess of $80k/year.

We do NOT like the idea ... but ... IF ... she got pregnant ... would you object to ME paying for her to have an abortion?

I am reasonably certain from comments ... that you, Romney, nor Ryan would willingly and lovingly pay the life time costs from any of her offspring.

So nehalem, what are the alternatives?

While we are at it and life is precious ... what about my almost 104 year old mother who has more or less been in a comma for the last 4~5 years? If I understood her correctly she "has had enough" several years ago but meds and nursing care keep her heart and lungs functioning even though her mind and consciousness has been radically diminished for years and continues to decline.

Open to suggestions on both ends, both birth and extremely diminished quality of life boardering on death.

And in favor of women who cannot afford to feed their children being forced to have one.
Is that really what you meant to say?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
OK ... I have no problem with you not wanting to pay for other people's abortions.

I happen to have an attractive 47 year old daughter, brain injured at birth by high forcepts. She is permanently disable and on meds that generate an 85% probability that any of her offspring will be in worse condition than she is. She did not learn to speak until age 7 years.

We have had people (including SEVERAL DOCTORS) say that she should have as many children as she can. Based on their religious/moral convictions ... would you believe?

There have been at least 3 years where her medical bills have exceeded $150k/year. And many more in excess of $80k/year.

We do NOT like the idea ... but ... IF ... she got pregnant ... would you object to ME paying for her to have an abortion?
No objection whatsoever

While we are at it and life is precious ... what about my almost 104 year old mother who has more or less been in a comma for the last 4~5 years? If I understood her correctly she "has had enough" several years ago.

Open to suggestions on both ends, both birth and extremely diminished quality of life boardering on death.
I see no reason to spend $100,000s or $1,000,000s warehousing people's barely living bodies.

And I do not think that is even really the moral choice.

Is that really what you meant to say?
Absolutely.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
I have a will that specifically states if I am in a coma that is permanent (or I am a vegetable) I am to be unplugged. I refuse to be a burden on my family that way.

No offense meant, I understand that people do not realize you have to have a legal agreement to do it.

As for the abortion situation I am a firm states rights guy and believe the federal government should have no say in the matter.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
If they are homeless where are they going to be having sex? :D
Do you honestly think that homeless people don't have sex? I've seen homeless people having sex in a doorway on a well-traveled street. I've seen homeless people banging behind park bathrooms. Just because people are homeless doesn't mean they cease to be humans, and humans have a strong desire to fuck. They'll do it wherever they can find room.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
OK. Clearly we can agree on at least a couple of things.

But this I do not understand this exchange:



"one" what?


Please explain ...
He meant abortion. He is in favor of women who cannot afford to raise their children being given mandatory abortions. He has expressed this view in other threads in the past.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
OK. Clearly we can agree on at least a couple of things.

But this I do not understand this exchange:



"one" what?


Please explain ...
People who cannot afford to feed their children should not have them.

I do not want to children to starve. And I do want to pay for people to have kids they cannot afford.

Seems like there is only one real solution that fits those conditions.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Do you honestly think that homeless people don't have sex? I've seen homeless people having sex in a doorway on a well-traveled street. I've seen homeless people banging behind park bathrooms. Just because people are homeless doesn't mean they cease to be humans, and humans have a strong desire to fuck. They'll do it wherever they can find room.
To be human is to be able to suppress your desires to better your condition.

So it seems to be like you are arguing that homeless people do cease to be humans.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
To be human is to be able to suppress your desires to better your condition.

So it seems to be like you are arguing that homeless people do cease to be humans.
Now you're arguing morality. One culture may say that suppressing natural instincts is a virtue. Another culture may endorse a hedonistic lifestyle that favors pleasure. Just because you were raised in one culture doesn't mean yours is the only correct view of what makes someone human.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Now you're arguing morality. One culture may say that suppressing natural instincts is a virtue. Another culture may endorse a hedonistic lifestyle that favors pleasure. Just because you were raised in one culture doesn't mean yours is the only correct view of what makes someone human.
People who act like animals should be treated as such.

EDIT: Although it appears that you agree that mine is at least A correct view :D
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
People who act like animals should be treated as such.

EDIT: Although it appears that you agree that mine is at least A correct view :D
People are animals. Expecting everyone to restrain themselves from pleasure until they are financially successful is just absurd. But, yes, I agree with you that people should take more personal responsibility for their lives and actions, and we shouldn't reward irresponsible behavior. I just think there should be a middle ground between "everyone live an orgy of hedonistic bliss and damn the consequences" and "no sex until you can afford a house."
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
People are animals. Expecting everyone to restrain themselves from pleasure until they are financially successful is just absurd. But, yes, I agree with you that people should take more personal responsibility for their lives and actions, and we shouldn't reward irresponsible behavior. I just think there should be a middle ground between "everyone live an orgy of hedonistic bliss and damn the consequences" and "no sex until you can afford a house."
All I said was no sex until you can afford a condom.

Which is pretty much the standard we use for everything. If you want to watch tv you do not get to demand the government give you one.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,784
9,945
136
All I said was no sex until you can afford a condom.

Which is pretty much the standard we use for everything. If you want to watch tv you do not get to demand the government give you one.
Your problem is your wording. Poor people aren't demanding condoms. Intellectuals are promoting the idea of providing free condoms as a way to cost effectively help stem the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
For GOP, it's the social issues, stupid.
I don't think so.

I think being able to quibble about issues such as abortion and gay marriage are luxuries afforded in times of economic success. Economic worries easily overtake those issues for most. Worrying about jobs and putting food on the table are of far more pressing personal concern than social issues for most people.

The author says:

And contrary to the libertarian promises, social issues have been front and center, especially in the state legislatures that Republicans took control over in 2010.
I see nothing of significance in the above to the broader argue the author is making. State/local govt has very little influence on the national economic condition. Outside of their own budgets they can do little else. Moreover, social issues more appropriately belong at the sate/local level. Do I care that NYC forbids large soft drinks or that San Fran forbids kid's Happy Meals? No, that is their business and doesn't affect me whatsoever.

Nor would I point to NC as any sort of relevant example as the author did. NC had democratic control of the state govt for something like 100 yrs in a row. There are bound to be pent up demands from things being so one-sided for so long.

I also find it rather obvious that politicians are going to pander to whatever slice of the electorate they do. National elections are almost always rather close. No one can afford to overlook a segment of the electorate unless they are so small as to be inconsequential.

I can agree with the author's assertion that social issues are always present. But I think he is far too simplistic. And I think to attribute social conservatism soley to the Repub party is simply incorrect. Large segments of the Democratic voters are known to be social conservative. Blacks are, many Hispanics are, and your average Southern white Baptist, although many are Democrats, is too.

Fern
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Both losing 800K jobs in Jan 2009 to slowly gaining ~100K jobs a month now are 'damn disasters'?

To say the recovery now is anything but anemic would be foolish, but considering our states then and now equal is hard to understand.
Gaining jobs at a rate more slowly than the population grows isn't a recovery, it's merely sinking more slowly. And this is with pumping the equivalent of TARP and Stimulus Rex into the economy every year. What jobs we're gaining, we're gaining with borrowed and often made-up money.

There are two valid ways of answering the question. On the Republican side, virtually every metric is worse than when Obama took office - more people unemployed/fewer people working, lower wages, fewer home owners higher inflation - especially core inflation - so we're indisputably worse off. On the Democrat side, the trend line of virtually every metric is better than when Obama took office, so if one assumes those trend lines would have continued apace without the miracle of Obama, we're indisputably better off. Which side you choose to recognize (or at least, emphasize) largely depends on which side you prefer to begin with. But at any rate, seldom does such a sweeping question have one clear answer.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
I don't think so.

I think being able to quibble about issues such as abortion and gay marriage are luxuries afforded in times of economic success. Economic worries easily overtake those issues for most. Worrying about jobs and putting food on the table are of far more pressing personal concern than social issues for most people.

The author says:



I see nothing of significance in the above to the broader argue the author is making. State/local govt has very little influence on the national economic condition. Outside of their own budgets they can do little else. Moreover, social issues more appropriately belong at the sate/local level. Do I care that NYC forbids large soft drinks or that San Fran forbids kid's Happy Meals? No, that is their business and doesn't affect me whatsoever.

Nor would I point to NC as any sort of relevant example as the author did. NC had democratic control of the state govt for something like 100 yrs in a row. There are bound to be pent up demands from things being so one-sided for so long.

I also find it rather obvious that politicians are going to pander to whatever slice of the electorate they do. National elections are almost always rather close. No one can afford to overlook a segment of the electorate unless they are so small as to be inconsequential.

I can agree with the author's assertion that social issues are always present. But I think he is far too simplistic. And I think to attribute social conservatism soley to the Repub party is simply incorrect. Large segments of the Democratic voters are known to be social conservative. Blacks are, many Hispanics are, and your average Southern white Baptist, although many are Democrats, is too.

Fern
I agree with a lot of that, but like zsdersw I suspect that the Republicans, should they take the White House and the Senate, will waste a lot of time and energy on social issues. Fixing the economy is complicated work, and there are no easy answers. But for a social conservative, things like abortion and gay marriage are simple, clear-cut, with definite right and wrong answers. That would be very, very tempting.

Thump's right about one thing, the GOP's social conservatism is the very antithesis of small or limited government. No government with the power to choose whom you may or may not marry (assuming you are both consenting and mentally competent adults) or force you to carry a child that is viable only when attached to your body can be termed small or limited. That this power doesn't constrain my choices doesn't change this fact any more than enslaving blacks would be morally acceptable to me because I'm white. That dichotomy, the inherent strain between those advocating for a small, limited government and those who want a government strong enough to impose their will on others, hampers the Republican Party in a way the Democrat Party, believing government should provide all things to all people, does not face.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Thump's right about one thing, the GOP's social conservatism is the very antithesis of small or limited government. No government with the power to choose whom you may or may not marry (assuming you are both consenting and mentally competent adults) or force you to carry a child that is viable only when attached to your body can be termed small or limited.
(1) On marriage- if you truly want small government then there would be no recognized marriage/union/whatever. You cannot demand the government recognize your relationship as special and then complain when the government sets conditions.

(2) abortion - And there is also no small government if the government can take money from you and send it to someone else for 18 years because you had sex once.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
(1) On marriage- if you truly want small government then there would be no recognized marriage/union/whatever. You cannot demand the government recognize your relationship as special and then complain when the government sets conditions.

(2) abortion - And there is also no small government if the government can take money from you and send it to someone else for 18 years because you had sex once.
Agreed. I'd only add that I don't mind the government setting conditions - in fact, I prefer it - but I expect those conditions to fulfill a pressing need that can only be fulfilled by that condition. Government protecting a child too young to give informed consent seems reasonable. Government protecting me from being offended by Neal and Bob's sanctification, not so much.

EDIT: I should add that I don't want small government so much as lean, sensible government, with each level doing only those things that cannot practically be done at a level closer to those governed. My school board representative knows me and cares about the education my grandson receives. My governor, not so much. And Obama, not at all.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,784
9,945
136
Yes. Do you understand that yours isn't either?
From what I understand, a majority of the country believe that the only way to balance the budget is with a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes. If I agree with that, I believe that would make me a centrist on this issue. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Saying I am wrong doesn't count. Back up your claims with some actual logic.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
1
0
From what I understand, a majority of the country believe that the only way to balance the budget is with a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes. If I agree with that, I believe that would make me a centrist on this issue. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Saying I am wrong doesn't count. Back up your claims with some actual logic.
The only majority that exists on spending cuts/tax hikes is "raise everyone else's taxes but mine and cut spending but don't touch services I rely on". That is the dysfunctional nature of the majority of the electorate... and what would be considered "centrist" if what defines centrist is the majority opinion.

Tax hikes for other people are highly popular. Tax hikes for yourself are not.

Spending cuts and shrinking government is highly popular. Spending cuts or reforms to the biggest-ticket items in the federal budget are not.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
The right's agenda is extreme.. just like the left's is.
On abortion, nothing the right has proposed comes anywhere near the extremity of taxpayer-funded abortions.

No. I refuse and reject both of them.
To govern is to enforce a brand of morality. There's no way around that.

I live for the day when both social conservatives and fiscal liberals find themselves with something in common: little to no political influence/power.
There is a place for social conservatism, in that a healthy culture needs some norms. What norms do social liberals propose that do not equally fall prey to their own universal solvent (that social norms have no ultimately reasonable basis)?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY