Family values, christian values, fiscal conservative spending and taxs, common sense legislation, state rights, america first, sucessful people get rewards, individual liberty, america as the worlds protector.
Why insist upon traditional, family, and christian values when the people who tend to champion these things don't respect your lifestyle? When you say these things it's really easy for people to come to the conclusion that you're just trolling now.
What? There are same sex republicans same sex accepting evangelical churches and members and etc, sure some of the older crowd in these places may or may not be accepting but it just makes ones faith stronger. And again my state voted with a significant margin for same sex legalization. Acceptance is growing in the party and among churches and etc so I have no fear that rights for me will be expanded. The American people are majority of support even in purple and red states.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Yes common christian values. Donate to the poor, be nice to others, etc.
Yeah I'm aware. People like those you describe tend to plug their ears when they hear the majority of their party speak on such topics though. That or they're just libertarians and value being fiscally conservative* over socially conservative. (asterisk because true fiscal conservatives are like unicorns for the last 30 or so years)
Always with the sex legalization - that is just one area in which people who love to boast their support for 'individual freedom' actually mean 'individual freedom as long as it follows (and doesn't exceed) what I believe your freedoms should constitute'.
Nice strawman - I don't believe a 'family' has to have a 'biological' mother or father.
Fixed for you
Both of said groups have endorsed Ted Cruz, and he just won Iowa. While I'm not expecting him to do as well in New Hampshire, there's clearly a large portion of your party that either espouse what they stand for or at least tolerate it.
What other things is needed for freedom? Oh I gues we need the freedom for giving blood since people who are same sex are kind of barred from it. Freedom to choose healthcare? Freedom to buy a gun is being challenged
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
But I wont be voting for TrusTED. Rubio follows my values.
So then they shouldn't allowed to adopt only because they're a same sex couple? lol....so then it's better for a kid to be an orphan?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
What is TrusTED is reference to...?
Ted is too back and forth and I fear he was just selling out to evangelicals. Rubio aligns more for me on the positions I support the most (again I dont put that much value on social stuff) I also dont think Im super duper conservative though.
Seems a fine freedom to be in favour of.
Freedom to have healthcare?
I doubt anyone is against that... All the arguments which I have seen that assure honest Americans that the government is trying to take their guns away are all BS. No one, not even Barack, the secret Muslim, Saddam Hussein Obama is actually trying to take away people's right to own firearms. That would be like political suicide if you ever wanted to actually be elected.
Why exactly does this have to be true?
Beside the point, and unrelated to the argument.
Seems so.
Perhaps - and perhaps not.
Maybe I have misjudged you...
... or maybe not.
Well it's a good thing that it isn't your place to decide what rights the people in America actually have.
Why not? 'Cause everyone in America is fertile, there are no orphans which need to be adopted. There are no kids with abusive/shitty parents which need to be adopted...
Because it's still too early to assume he'll win? I don't know
Yep, he'll likely improve America and actually make it the land of free and American dream. I can't believe people want that to happen!
Family values? What family values? The country has a high rate of divorce, and it's been like this for years.
You seem to be extremely conservative, at least in your hatred of Obama and democrats.
Obama administration went about same sex legalislsation the wrong way. Again popular vote by citizens is the best way to get it done. Even if he didnt do it his way. The growing acceptance of same sex individuals would have enabled same sex marriage to be legalized. Enabling the court to hear an issue, or more technically appointing folks on the court who would suggest to hear the issue and decide it was bad. Its the principle and not the topic that matters. Soon we will reach the age when the govt will dictate the brand of soap detergent that you need to use.Do people really want the govt to dictate what goes on in our civil marriages.
How right you are.
Cool stuff. Although to be fair the results there are more or less to be expected. Safe for having a pool of actually evil people wealth, it is intuitive to want more equal income distribution and improved status quo over time for the majority. About as intuitive as, say, saying stealing is bad. The issue here in that regard isn't about whether better income distribution is a thing but rather about the means to obtain it. Within that context, differences are ideological. Conservatives at the US as far as I can tell really want that but see the government as something getting in the way and making people poorer. The issue here is the genuine believe that less taxes and less government and less "artificial" increases of wages genuinely lead to those objectives (I do think there is an extent to which "american values" (which IMO are a bit of a myth but that is neither here nor there) would take precedence over that objective in their view). In contrast to what democrats suggest which is achieving that via taxes, larger government and increased wages. Of course, a look at every single developed nation who triumphs the US in terms of income, wealth inequality and overall lifestyle easily suggests which is the approach that has worked.
Popular vote by citizens who think more people should have guns and same sex marriage is a sin but not divorce is a horrible move, and it'd get no one anywhere. It's a horrible way to get it done because homosexuals cannot get married. If there is growing acceptance, then why did it take the federal government to legalize same sex marriage instead of the rest of the states doing it on their own? If we wait for growin acceptance, it'll at least five years, if not more than ten, for all states to accept same sex marriage.
I highly doubt any or most Christians would allow that, not like Bernie seems to be. How many president, bar maybe Obama, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts, stood up and let the marginalized voices be heard?
Successful people are getting rewarded. How are they not when they gain more wealth and more properties? Republicans aim to reward them even more and would likely let them get away with criminal acts. Their rewards give them advantages that others don't have.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---