Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[johnnya24]

Right on the money. I know of no Republican in my walking around life that was happy with the choices right from the start. It was always the lesser evil. Eventually they had to convince themselves that Romney was a good choice. Or at least better than Obama. That is a bad platform to try and win an election.

They need to ditch the spin. It's embarrassing.

[GwynnInTheHall]

They will evolve ... it might take 10 years or 2 more election defeats, possibly sooner if some other issue changes the agenda for them, but it will happen. These niche issues they are obsessing over are complete non-issues in reality. They can't go anywhere. Abortion and gay marriage are novelty platforms that will disappear as quickly as they appeared. Even the zealots can be made to shut up or go away if it is harming the parties chances. Party politics dictates ... it always does.

Could there be a split ... maybe. But it will be more of a chip off the right than a full on split. That is actually the kind of thing that would allow the moderates to grasp control of the agenda again ... and the zealots won't last long on their own ... plus it will allow the party to divorce itself from the harm these people are causing. I think it would definitely be better to have these people on the outside pissing in given the partisan nature of the US media.

Right now the GOP seem like a party full of liars and morons with an agenda that will only appeal to stupid people. Ever time I see a GOP representative I feel like I'm being lied to. Every word seems like spin. Until they change the personnel they will keep lurching around like idiots ... but the more they lose the more common sense will begin to take control again.

That said ... they still have to find a way to get the right candidate through the primaries. That could be the hardest task of all. The last one was comical. Santorum -Romney - Gingrich - Paul (not to mention the others). There is a real talent shortage in the GOP.

I don't doubt some will evolve, but we are talking about Faith vs Facts. there is no way people who believe in the bible (or scriptures of choice) are going to ever accept abortion. Same for homosexuality and evolution. These things fly in the face of what they are taught every Sunday (or everyday in some cases) Unless doctrine is changed--these people aren't changing. They won't die off either as they're children sit next to them and get more teachings at home from the scriptures. Nope--Unless religion fades away or Jesus/Mohamed themselves come down and say--you're being obtuse--they will never change their stance on those planks and any candidate who goes moderate, will lose their support.

I see a split in the party as the moderates distance themselves from the far right social issues and until they can build a base--they won't have the numbers to win the presidency. Maybe in 10 years (end of Hillary's second term), but by then there will be 12 years of democrats running things so legislation, the Supreme court and other programs will have a definite left leaning bent. That will take some time to undo, if they ever can undo it (sure won't happen in one election cycle)

GOP needs to change to survive--i just don't see it happening.

[Fresno Bob]

Someone needs to start funding the libertarian party in the south

[johnnya24]

GOP needs to change to survive--i just don't see it happening.

Change won't happen in the short term, because they haven't learnt their lesson. The defeat was close enough to be rationalized rather than analysed ... they will blame media bias or something. The GOP started to believe their own spin a long time ago, so it will take them a while to realize what's gone wrong, and then admit to their problems. But it will happen. IMO they will try and ride out the Obama wave, and assume that victory will be guaranteed in 4 years time ... just like they assumed they'd win this time.

So expect more of the same. These are pig headed ideologues ... it will take 3 crushing defeats to dent their belief IMO.

They don't need people to believe abortion is OK ... they just need to get it off the agenda. The abortion laws are not changing. They will realize in time these are losing issues. It will be tactically better to bracket off these zero-sum type issues which alienate moderates, independents, minorities, women etc etc.

[GwynnInTheHall]

They don't really need people to believe abortion is OK ... they just need to get it off the agenda. The abortion laws are not changing. They will realize in time these are losing issues. It will be tactically better to bracket off these zero-sum issues.

Change won't happen in the short term, because they haven't learnt their lesson. The defeat was close enough to be rationalized rather than analysed ... they will blame media bias or something. The GOP started to believe their own spin a long time ago, so it will take them a while to realize what's gone wrong, and then admit to their problems. But it will happen. IMO they will try and ride out the Obama wave, and assume that victory will be guaranteed in 4 years time ... just like they assumed they'd win this time.

So expect more of the same. These are pig headed ideologues ... it will take 3 crushing defeats to dent their belief IMO.

That's just the thing--you can't dent their beliefs without pretty much destroying their entire faith based foundation/\. As we've been told here and elsewhere--there is no partial acceptance of God's laws. You're in or you're not. Can't just follow 9 commandments. AND it's your DUTY to fight those who would strive towards a Godless country.

Ask any of our resident Christians--Any of you going to back of your anti abortion stance? Any of you going to support a candidate who champions a woman's right ot chose? Any of you with kids going to NOT teach your kids that the bible is God's law and should be followed?

Nah, this is why the Guns and Religion comment rings true to me--not that it's a bad thing--but there's no way IMO that the far right gives an inch or gives up the fight for what they've believed their entire lives. None.

[DMT]

I don't see it happening but a GOP split between fundies and the moderates would be a great thing for this country IMO. In the short-term wed be rid of the completely dysfunctional and reactionary GOP. But beyond that, the Dems wouldn't take long to self-destruct and hopefully a viable Green party could orchestrate their own split. The two-party system is a major cause of our problems. But as I said it's unlikely.

[onejayhawk]

That's just the thing--you can't dent their beliefs without pretty much destroying their entire faith based foundation/\. As we've been told here and elsewhere--there is no partial acceptance of God's laws. You're in or you're not. Can't just follow 9 commandments. AND it's your DUTY to fight those who would strive towards a Godless country.

Ask any of our resident Christians--Any of you going to back of your anti abortion stance? Any of you going to support a candidate who champions a woman's right ot chose? Any of you with kids going to NOT teach your kids that the bible is God's law and should be followed?

Nah, this is why the Guns and Religion comment rings true to me--not that it's a bad thing--but there's no way IMO that the far right gives an inch or gives up the fight for what they've believed their entire lives. None.

I loved the way you dont bother with a wide brush, and just throw the mud in a general direction. Bob Kohm is one of the resident Christians, for example.

As a supporter of the Rule of Law, I acknowledge abortion rights. Calling it the Right to Choose is silly IMO, since it trivializes the ending of a life. However, much as I would like the child to have an advocate, it is not possible to claim lack of Due Process. The Democrats have always fallen down on this issue, even though theu are supposed to be the big Children's rights protectors.

I am not sure where I am supposed to fit religion into that, but as one of the resident believers, a comment was indicated.

J

[onejayhawk]

I don't see it happening but a GOP split between fundies and the moderates would be a great thing for this country IMO. In the short-term wed be rid of the completely dysfunctional and reactionary GOP. But beyond that, the Dems wouldn't take long to self-destruct and hopefully a viable Green party could orchestrate their own split. The two-party system is a major cause of our problems. But as I said it's unlikely.

The GOP never found a candidate. Give them a face, then things will go differently. It will be very interesting if the face is not caucasian or male.

J

[johnnya24]

The GOP never found a candidate. Give them a face, then things will go differently. It will be very interesting if the face is not caucasian or male.

J

Personality, charm and likability are more important. Besides, I'm not sure Condolezza Rice is male or female. I think she's of the lizard genus.

EDIT: although put alongside Hillary Clinton, could Condolezza Rice be made to look warm and sympathetic? I think if Ron Paul ran he would seem like the cuddly one. Wouldn't it be gloriously ironic if after the loss of the female and minority vote, the GOP starts looking for minority females rather than silver spoon fed WASP 1%ers.

[Pogues]

Hillary was born October 26th 1947. In 2016 she will be 69 years old. Do you think she will run? And stay in office until she is 77 assuming she wins twice?

The oldest President at inauguration was Reagan at 69 so Hillary would be the second oldest for her first term and the oldest in her second. And that term did not work out so well for Reagan.

I think the Democrats will probably have to nominate someone different just due to age issues. Granted, people are living longer, but the average life expectancy of a woman in the USA is 80.8 years.

Uuummm...how could Clinton be the 2nd oldest in her first term....but suddenly the oldest in her second...over Reagan's second term? Do women age faster than men after age 70?

[GwynnInTheHall]

I loved the way you dont bother with a wide brush, and just throw the mud in a general direction. Bob Kohm is one of the resident Christians, for example.

As a supporter of the Rule of Law, I acknowledge abortion rights. Calling it the Right to Choose is silly IMO, since it trivializes the ending of a life. However, much as I would like the child to have an advocate, it is not possible to claim lack of Due Process. The Democrats have always fallen down on this issue, even though theu are supposed to be the big Children's rights protectors.

I am not sure where I am supposed to fit religion into that, but as one of the resident believers, a comment was indicated.

J

I love how you only read what you want to, don't really understand that and fail to answer the questions posed to you.

Outside of not answering the 3 questions posed you aalso didn't say if: You were Christian. You considered yourself "far right" you know--the group that has hold of the GOP right now.

Maybe if you tried to pay attention to what I say rather than blindly attack it with every breath you might see the forest for the trees, but given your track record in here I highly doubt it.

PS. If Kohm, a man who has called religion (and the Christian religion) a myth, fantasy and many other colorful names,is a "christian" then you aren't really following those conversations either.

[onejayhawk]

Uuummm...how could Clinton be the 2nd oldest in her first term....but suddenly the oldest in her second...over Reagan's second term? Do women age faster than men after age 70?

You have it right. She is behind be Reagan by weeks. Since RR was undeniably an important President, that could be a good thing.

However,I dont think she will stay in public life the next four, much less a campaign.

J

[In the Corn]

That's just the thing--you can't dent their beliefs without pretty much destroying their entire faith based foundation/\. As we've been told here and elsewhere--there is no partial acceptance of God's laws. You're in or you're not. Can't just follow 9 commandments. AND it's your DUTY to fight those who would strive towards a Godless country.

Ask any of our resident Christians--Any of you going to back of your anti abortion stance? Any of you going to support a candidate who champions a woman's right ot chose? Any of you with kids going to NOT teach your kids that the bible is God's law and should be followed?

Nah, this is why the Guns and Religion comment rings true to me--not that it's a bad thing--but there's no way IMO that the far right gives an inch or gives up the fight for what they've believed their entire lives. None.

T

Ask any of our resident Christians--Any of you going to back of your anti abortion stance? Any of you going to support a candidate who champions a woman's right ot chose? Any of you with kids going to NOT teach your kids that the bible is God's law and should be followed?

Abortion stance - While I oppose abortion that is a lost battle. While sad, Christians need to, and have, been better at moving towards the counseling of pregnant women regarding options. Again, women's choice is tied to the same questions. Christians need to be more proactive in helping women and men understand the lasting effects of choices that are made. One issue voters are idiots in all stripes.

As for the last question, I do and continue to teach my children that the Bible is God's law and should be followed. This has led to some very interesting discussions with my daughter. Minnesota just voted on same-sex marriage. My daughter said, "Vote No!" (that being that same-sex marriage should not be banned by a constitutional amendment. I told her, I will be voting yes, solely because of how the amendment was written (a biblical definition). I told her, I have no issue with same-sex unions, but I can't get past the word marriage. She understood where I was coming from.

GITH, I vote my conscience, however, I know that my standards as a follower of Christ are not the world's standards. I have no expectation that any person not a follower of Christ should have to live by his standards, so I know I will most likely never find a candidate I totally agree with.

You're broad brush of Christians has painted us all as Republicans, but I know I am not the only Christian here who didn't vote for Mitt. I even voted for a Democratic senator...and it's not my first time.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Abortion stance - While I oppose abortion that is a lost battle. While sad, Christians need to, and have, been better at moving towards the counseling of pregnant women regarding options. Again, women's choice is tied to the same questions. Christians need to be more proactive in helping women and men understand the lasting effects of choices that are made. One issue voters are idiots in all stripes.

As for the last question, I do and continue to teach my children that the Bible is God's law and should be followed. This has led to some very interesting discussions with my daughter. Minnesota just voted on same-sex marriage. My daughter said, "Vote No!" (that being that same-sex marriage should not be banned by a constitutional amendment. I told her, I will be voting yes, solely because of how the amendment was written (a biblical definition). I told her, I have no issue with same-sex unions, but I can't get past the word marriage. She understood where I was coming from.

GITH, I vote my conscience, however, I know that my standards as a follower of Christ are not the world's standards. I have no expectation that any person not a follower of Christ should have to live by his standards, so I know I will most likely never find a candidate I totally agree with.

You're broad brush of Christians has painted us all as Republicans, but I know I am not the only Christian here who didn't vote for Mitt. I even voted for a Democratic senator...and it's not my first time.

Did I say republicans or the Far right? I think the Far Right has hijacked the GOP the past 2 elections, but I'd say--there are many moderate GOPers who don't hold the same steadfast religious beliefs and wish the social planks of anti abortion, anti gay marriage and the like would go away or at least remove themselves from politics.

so NO i did not paint all Christians as republicans. as to the other parts of your post, first-thanks for answering my questions, but you pretty much confirmed what I said. You're anti abortion, but you couch that belief because--"it's a losing battle" and not because you don't believe it. You argue semantics to defend denying same sex couples equality, but if it's only a word--what does it matter? My wife and I couldn't be married in either of our own churches because of our disparate faiths, but we were "married " in the eyes of the law, which is all is being asked by the LGBT community--so again you're not for same sex marriage--not in the manner we're debating in these elections. You are teaching your kids to follow God's law. regardless of what they choose to believe themselves. Finally--you say you didn;t vote for Mitt, but did you vote for a pro choice candidate? If not, you exemplify all 4 points I made, which I don't think is wrong by any means, but is what will prevent conservatives from being elected to the presidency from here on out.

Moderate or continue to fight "a losing battle" in our elections, that's my point and to do so, I believe Christians will have to step a bit away from the letter of their beliefs.

BTW I haven't found a candidate who reflects my beliefs exactly either, but then I also don't have the added burden of scripture defining my choices as well.

I hope I've been clear--let me know if I've not.

[Gregg]

The issues of abortion and gay marriage gets lumped into one general "Christians are bad" topic. I understand why, but it is really wrong.

What would it take for you to give up your abortion stance? You believe you are correct and I doubt anything could change your mind.

If someone believes that abortion is the killing of human being and that the killing of a human being is wrong. They might not want to be forced into saying it is right. Or support it in any way. Would you give up your stance on abortion in fact make abortion illegal to gain a win on the rest of your politcal views?