RealClearPolitics election polling update...

[Gravekeeper]

Mostly because it's becoming more secular and less socially conservative, yes.

FFS, I even gave you a chance to take your foot back out of your mouth.

Very well, please explain to the class how in the hell any of the countries problems are due to a lack of religion or social conservationism as opposed to a cause of them. -.-

[mjr]

Or... never pushing through any major legislation without one side controlling both the executive and legislative. That's beyond absurd and both sides are complicit.

I'll certainly give you this point. The problem is, unfortunately, it almost has to be that way because of the current political rhetoric. Republicans passing some sort of legislation, to some, automatically means that they "hate" some group or another. Democrats passing legislation, to some, means an automatic "big government handout" to some group or special interest.

As I've said many times before, It seems like "compromise" in Washington DC means nothing more than "give us exactly what we want". It's not really compromise -- at all.

If people want to know why its bad, grab a mirror and try not to smile too much. Hell, after the Dallas Memorial I literally watched two sides of my Facebook feed pick a president and plaster what they liked about their speech. They then tarred the other guys. It's not the parties. It's the entirely correctable behavior of the electorate and the entirely fallacious belief that parties are a rooting interest rather than, you know.. a means to a governing apparatus.

I actually saw a brilliant video the other day that sort of touched on this tangentially. It basically said that here in the U.S., we have a character problem. If we take care of the character issue, things overall may get better.

[mjr]

FFS, I even gave you a chance to take your foot back out of your mouth.

Very well, please explain to the class how in the hell any of the countries problems are due to a lack of religion or social conservationism as opposed to a cause of them. -.-

Why? You'll simply dismiss them, anyway.

I stand by my statement.

[Talon]

Why? You'll simply dismiss them, anyway.

I stand by my statement.

LOL, I don't think so. I think it's far more likely you have no facts to support the preposterous talking point you're doubling-down on.

Put your money where your mouth is, if you can.

[Gravekeeper]

Why? You'll simply dismiss them, anyway.

I stand by my statement.

You stand by a statement you won't standby.

Mhmm. You either have nothing or you realize your opinions on the subject are not acceptable in polite company.

[Kheldarson]

Why? You'll simply dismiss them, anyway.

I stand by my statement.

That’s not how "standing by" works.

Look, coming from a conservative background myself, religion and social conservatism are good things for individuals. They are not good things for broad spectrum political policy as there are too many flavors of religion and social consevatism.

[mjr]

That’s not how "standing by" works.

Look, coming from a conservative background myself, religion and social conservatism are good things for individuals. They are not good things for broad spectrum political policy as there are too many flavors of religion and social consevatism.

But wouldn't people who are Conservative and religious be influenced by those things? And wouldn't that personal influence (and I agree that they are good things for individuals), create a somewhat "greater good", in a way?

If a majority of people who were influenced by Conservative beliefs and religion, wouldn't those beliefs at least partially be reflected in society? And wouldn't that, for the most part, be good from a societal standpoint?

Of course there are exceptions, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

And I can stand by a statement without having to explain it.

[Gravekeeper]

But wouldn't people who are Conservative and religious be influenced by those things? And wouldn't that personal influence (and I agree that they are good things for individuals), create a somewhat "greater good", in a way?

First, social conservative is the topic and second, no. Ethics and morality are not the sole domain of religion despite what it may want to belief. Both presently and historically the influence of religion on politics has been a negative. Those who hold religion as a personal belief do not push for the power to apply their religion as a universal belief.

Thus when religion rears its head in politics its usually a Bad Thing(tm).

If a majority of people who were influenced by Conservative beliefs and religion, wouldn't those beliefs at least partially be reflected in society? And wouldn't that, for the most part, be good from a societal standpoint?

No. This statement is silly and just straight up wrong with even a passing glance at human history. Just because the majority believes something does not mean it is automatically a good thing. Otherwise North Korea would be a paragon of human civilization.

Also, in light of your "Conservative = Bad. Liberal = Good." comment this statement is even more ridiculous.

And I can stand by a statement without having to explain it.

You can, but it renders your statement and position irrelevant as a result.

[Kheldarson]

But wouldn't people who are Conservative and religious be influenced by those things? And wouldn't that personal influence (and I agree that they are good things for individuals), create a somewhat "greater good", in a way?

They would be and not necessarily. For example, would you agree that a conservative Muslim would have the same idea of what the "greater good" is as you do? Or a conservative Jew? Or Hindu?

It's fine to be influenced and guided by your personal morals and ethics. But conservative religious leaders tend to also not compromise at all. That's bad for politics and bad for democratic republics.

If a majority of people who were influenced by Conservative beliefs and religion, wouldn't those beliefs at least partially be reflected in society? And wouldn't that, for the most part, be good from a societal standpoint?

Except that the job of government is also to protect the minority from the majority. So when we allow the mob to overrule the rights and beliefs of the minority, then we're going against our governmental obligations.

And I can stand by a statement without having to explain it.

Sure you can, but now I know that you don't understand what you actually believe in and can ignore it.

[NecCat]

If a majority of people who were influenced by Conservative beliefs and religion, wouldn't those beliefs at least partially be reflected in society? And wouldn't that, for the most part, be good from a societal standpoint?

Of course there are exceptions, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

I don't understand what you are saying. I was raised both religious and politically conservative, I didn't understand how someone could hold both of those things true at once in my childhood, and I understand less how those things go together now

Religion: You must donate money so the church can use it to improve the lives of poor people
Politically: It's bad to give money to poor people, it teaches them not to work for money and keeps them poor, it's irresponsible of the government

Religion: You must donate your time and energy to tell others the messages that are important and keep doing it until they hear you
Politically: Protesters should be arrested and locked up - they are a disruption to functioning society and a danger to all, they shouldn't be allowed to block traffic, walk out of jobs, congregate in public etc

Religion: You must not judge others, you must show them through example the right way to behave and allow them to question morality in their own way and time
Politically: Criminals should be jailed, none of this probation fines community service crap, they should be locked up forever

Religion: You should embrace people of other beliefs, there is none so blessed as those who can teach about god to the ignorant
Politically: We need to stop letting immigrants into the country, they are a danger to our way of life, they are not like us enough

I could do this all night, but I really have work to do. I am genuinely curious about your position that if people were both more religious and conservative it would reflect into society and America would be a better country. How do you see that working?

[mjr]

They would be and not necessarily. For example, would you agree that a conservative Muslim would have the same idea of what the "greater good" is as you do? Or a conservative Jew? Or Hindu?

The same could be said for liberals, could it not?

It's fine to be influenced and guided by your personal morals and ethics. But conservative religious leaders tend to also not compromise at all. That's bad for politics and bad for democratic republics.

EVERYONE is guided by personal morals and ethics. But the funny thing about it is, we always end up with "who are you to foist your morals on me??" and in general, it's liberals saying that to conservatives. I find it amusing that Liberals talk so much about tolerance -- except for opinions that they don't agree with.

Except that the job of government is also to protect the minority from the majority. So when we allow the mob to overrule the rights and beliefs of the minority, then we're going against our governmental obligations.

Then it's a good thing the U.S. is a Representative Republic (not a democracy), isn't it?

Sure you can, but now I know that you don't understand what you actually believe in and can ignore it.

Oh, I understand exactly what I believe. Feel free to ignore whatever you want.

[Kheldarson]

The same could be said for liberals, could it not?

Liberals tend to have a greater tendency towards acceptance and compromise than fundamentalists.

EVERYONE is guided by personal morals and ethics. But the funny thing about it is, we always end up with "who are you to foist your morals on me??" and in general, it's liberals saying that to conservatives. I find it amusing that Liberals talk so much about tolerance -- except for opinions that they don't agree with.

The ones that liberals tend to be intolerant of are opinions that reveal intolerance. Funny how strongly bigots defend it.

Then it's a good thing the U.S. is a Representative Republic (not a democracy), isn't it?

Funny how much conservatives tend to forget that fact to push their ignorance and bigotry as mob rule.

[Talon]

I find it amusing that Liberals talk so much about tolerance -- except for opinions that they don't agree with.

More frivolous unsubstantiated sweeping statements.

[Gravekeeper]

Ah yes, the infamous dead horse "How dare you not tolerate my intolerance" argument.

[ben_who]

And most of those "trends" that you say most Republicans are going against are why this country is going down the crapper, in my not so humble opinion.

Rhetoric like "this country is going down the tubes" is more likely to send the country down the tubes than anything you're actually claiming is sending the country down the tubes.

The country isn't going down the tubes. The country is CHANGING. It does that. You just don't like what it's changing into. The country is still there, still functioning, and still stable. We face no existential threats - not a single one. Our economy is ticking along just fine in most sectors. When you go to the supermarket, there is food on the shelves; when you go to the ATM, there's money in the machine.

We're facing certain issues specific to our era that we're ill-equipped to handle, but none of those issues are existential crises for the nation. We also have a number of issues that certain people want you to believe are existential crises. "Not enough people believe in the Little Baby Jesus!" is not an existential crisis, it's just the country changing into something you don't like. If it's even true, and not just something someone told you to scare you into voting a certain way.