2
3

If the Republican party shouldn't represent social conservatives, who should? (self.Conservative)

fourlessyears が 投稿

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。
全 14 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]Salacious- 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (7子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I think the proper question is whether the issues that these social conservatives bring up have a proper place on the political stage in the first place.

[–]drock4vuModerate -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Even as a social liberal, I struggle with my position on issues like abortion and stem-cell research every day, and I can say I am VEHMENTLY against affirmative action and similar legislation. There are SOME tough moral issues out there that social conservatives have very good points on, and of course these views should be represented.

I do agree with you to a large extent though. In as cordial a way as I can say it, social conservatives with issues against gay-marriage, religions other than their own, and to a lesser extent, marijuana legalization need to be kicked to the curb by more rational thinking conservatives who choose to align themselves with the GOP. They are a dying breed, quite literally, and they have no place in an ever-evolving America.

[–]Salacious- 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I can say I am VEHMENTLY against affirmative action and similar legislation

Why? I don't see this as a moral issue, I see it as an issue of economic freedoms. Racism hinders our economic growth by keeping certain groups from achieving something, based on nothing but made up prejudices. Affirmative action is a way of correcting a market failure.

To be honest, I just don't get it. It seems like some people just don't understand how alternatives work. If you don't like abortion, then you should promote alternatives that work, like contraceptives. That's my stance on affirmative action: instead of putting people on welfare, let's fix problems before they ever get to that point, while they are still in school, so that they can have a chance.

[–]drock4vuModerate 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

This is just one of those issues where you and I will just to agree to disagree. You make an excellent point, but I believe we live (or at the worst we are quickly approaching a time in which we live) in a post-racist world. At least at the business level.

In my opinion. I think that modern firms will always hire people who are the hardest working, most productive workers regardless of the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation. It's all about profit, and there are very few business men in today's world who are foolish enough to not follow that mind-set, as hiring the best men/women will make a business thrive 100 out of 100 times.

I'm not naive enough to think that my belief in a post-racist business world may be a little premature though, it's simply the way I think things should be, and where I believe they will be some day soon. When that day comes, however, I think affirmative action should be thrown out expeditiously, as it will only perpetuate the idea that certain groups inherently need government help in order to be successful.

[–]Salacious- 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I think that you have a point that most people, especially those in businesses and positions of power, will make the right choice, but the fact remains that racism is often subconscious and subtle. Like a teacher who gives less time to a black student as opposed to a white student because they subconsciously believe that the black student will fail anyway. Or, where identical resumes were submitted for two names, one very "white sounding" and one very "black sounding". Guess which one gets called in for an interview?.

Like it or not, racism is still a big factor in our society.

[–]drock4vuModerate 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Excellent points. This is a tough issue, and I'm glad to hear a rational opposition to what I believe; it keeps me in check.

"Vehemently" may have not been the best word, or even close to what I should have said. I simply hope that we can make it to a place where subconscious misconceptions are no longer an issue to justify things like affirmative action.

[–]Salacious- 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I simply hope that we can make it to a place where subconscious misconceptions are no longer an issue to justify things like affirmative action.

That's been the plan with affirmative action all along.

In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the opinion for Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld race-based affirmative action, sad:

The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.

While I think it's kind of dumb to say "racism will be gone in 25 years," the point remains the same: affirmative action is to correct a past wrong, and then it's done.

[–]Cracker_please 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I agree with Salacious. I think we get to hung up on racism to realize there is a difference between racism and prejudice. It will take a long time for all the prejudices in the system to work themselves out. There are a lot of little things that disenfranchise minorities that we never really notice exist on a surface level. For example one of the easier ways to get a job is through a friend that already works at that company. Many times your friends tend to be the same skin color. This isn't because you are racist, it is just because we tend to have more in common with people who have a similar background as us and those people tend to be the same race. So an employer who relies on employee recommendations for new hires tend to get more people from the same racial and socioeconomic backgrounds as their current employees.

[–]Coolala2002 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The Republican party should represent social conservatives, it just needs candidates who don't get tripped up on abortion/rape questions.

Issues like gay marriage should be easy to talk about-- either way, marriage shouldn't be up to the state to decide, but the individuals in question. And when the government gives tax benefits to married couples but not same-sex couples, that's tax discrimination. And if there's one thing conservaties should agree on, it's that we should have equality of opportunity, where everyone starts out at the same position.

[–]msdrahcir -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Do we agree on equal opportunity? A child with healthcare does not have the same opportunity as a child without healthcare. Everyone should have equal treatment, not equal opportunity.

[–]molldawg 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Republican Party needs to return to real conservatism by adopted some libertarians stance on issues like gay marriage for example. Let the liberals take the fascist path of govt defining marriage while we take our federalist and conservative path which will allow states to decide how marriage should be define and also take the federal govt totally out if marriage by not allowing special tax treatments to any kind of couple whether that be between a man and woman or woman and woman or woman and dolphin. Sooner or later it will become harder and harder for govt to draw the line of what marriage is and then you have a chaos which is exactly what happens in a democracy. Social conservatives are kind of fascist because they want just like liberals for govt to define something far beyond the purpose of govt. the Republican Party needs to return to its principles. I'm on my phone so sorry any mistakes

[–][deleted] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The only social issue that the government should even consider being involved in is abortion. And then, only to the extent of identifying what does, and does not, constitute a human life entitled to the protections of the US constitution.

Every other "social issue" is based upon a person's own moral code. People are entitled to whatever morals they want, but they aren't entitled to legislate those morals on to the entire population (not saying that doesn't happen; saying it shouldn't happen).