Who can save the GOP this election?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,335
7,987
136
The far right Christians have some very negative perceptions of mormonism; really, of anything except their own brand of christianity. The concern that they may vote for a third party instead of republican.

.

Are there that many far right Christians? Enough to influence an election?
 

Agfadoc

Member
Dec 4, 2011
104
0
0
The far right Christians have some very negative perceptions of mormonism; really, of anything except their own brand of christianity. The concern that they may vote for a third party instead of republican.

.

I beg to differ, Christians are much more accepting of Mormonism rather than Socialism.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Both are socialist, but one is federal and one is state. Huge difference.

Still, it may sway the more rabidly emotional voter towards other GOP candidates, all of whom will lose. Who's the alternative to Romney now, Newt? If Newt gets the nomination it'll certainly make a lot of people's live easier. I dislike Obama but I'd give my right nut before voting Newt into office.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Verses the nation of losers rally around Obama? Huh.... Quite a contrast.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

I honestly don't know if an obama supporter or palin supporter is worse at this point.

With Palin we knew she was an idiot from the get go. Obama made us think we'd see change and we didn't find out he was the same ol same ol til later.

If you were against Bush and you see Obama doing all of the same stuff as Bush and you still approve of him, you're an idiot.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
They don't save it. The key now is getting the Republican primary voters to vote in someone who will hardball debates and get into subjects that really matter to this nation and skip the stupid social issue bullshit. They won't win, but it would do our political system a disservice to continue discussing most the bs we have.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Still, it may sway the more rabidly emotional voter towards other GOP candidates, all of whom will lose. Who's the alternative to Romney now, Newt? If Newt gets the nomination it'll certainly make a lot of people's live easier. I dislike Obama but I'd give my right nut before voting Newt into office.
This is true. Personally I think Newt is extremely smart, and he has successfully fought these same issues before. I suspect my opposition is the same as yours - a perception that Newt is morally far more flexible than a President should be. Jury's still out on whether or not he's worse than Obama, but on one very visible issue - does he have the strength of character to avoid cheating on his spouse - Obama wins hands down. I tend to guess that the ethical situations I can't see more or less follow those I can see, so . . .

That's how Dubya won a 2nd term; he hung the big old scary same sex marriage in middle America's face.
Riiight.
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Civil_Rights.htm
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also believe because we're the USA, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights. With respect to DOMA & the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws."
Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ Oct 13, 2004

SNIP
"If the Massachusetts legislature crafts an amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection. I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
Source: Paul Farhi, Washington Post May 15, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28118-2004May14.html

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politi...iage-change/1BkSv0gFq3qIYzLyLp5gbL/index.html
Seven years after a presidential campaign in which he threaded the needle by explaining his support for the gay rights revolution taking place in his home state while not supporting gay marriage himself, US Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, has a declaration.

He now supports gay marriage.
Kerry has taken virtually every imaginable nuance on gay marriage, but during the 2004 election he was solidly anti-gay marriage, though also anti-Defense Of Marriage Act. I can't think of a major party Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate in recent years who has been willing to expound support for gay marriage. Oh, wait, I can - Dick Cheney.

Personally I think there's huge room on the right for a bold statement. "Government should never had the right to determine whom you can and cannot marry, nor have the power to decide which Americans have which rights. If you disagree with their choice, fine; we don't all have to agree about every issue. That's what freedom means. What freedom does NOT mean, however, is the right to impose your will on your neighbor."

On the left - well, most of us just accept that the left's candidates are merely lying - which is reprehensible in its own right, but doesn't actually take away anyone's G-d given right to pursue happiness without infringing on his fellow men and women.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Funny thing, Jesus was a socialist in the classical sense of the word.
Um - no. Socialism is a construct of the early modern period. People in Jesus' time had no trouble distinguishing between charity and authoritarianism.

Just so we're all clear, socialism is government ownership of the means of production, or with a little leeway government of the distribution of the product itself. Even with the most liberal definition possible - state collectivism - Jesus could not be considered a socialist because he did not involve the state. Charity funded from voluntary contributions is the polar opposite of socialism.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
And who, pray tell, is a socialist in the upcoming election?

People throw terms like socialist around so much without any thought to what it means. It is just a meaningless slander to them. Compared to the rest of the world, no one is the Us is anywhere near socialist. There are just moderates and right wingers in the US.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,641
58
91
Um - no. Socialism is a construct of the early modern period. People in Jesus' time had no trouble distinguishing between charity and authoritarianism.

Just so we're all clear, socialism is government ownership of the means of production, or with a little leeway government of the distribution of the product itself. Even with the most liberal definition possible - state collectivism - Jesus could not be considered a socialist because he did not involve the state. Charity funded from voluntary contributions is the polar opposite of socialism.

Not quite what I meant. I meant socialist in the more hippie commune sense.