Republican hypocrisy driving people from the party

You didn't answer my question: How does it advance the cause of liberty?

 

I agree that the Democrats some have gone too liberal but Universal Health Care is not something I find to be too liberal.

As I have posted before...I am from Massachusetts and we HAVE Universal Healthcare and I am wealthy and my payments went DOWN!!! As well our state has a BUDGET SURPLUS and Massachusetts Universal Healthcare is a plan created when Republican Governor Mitt Romney brought in the best and brightest to create a plan to solve the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS Massachusetts was loosing due to the poor, uninsured and indigent going into our Emergency Rooms for everything from a Chest Cold to Quadruple Bypass Surgery.

THE FACTS ARE....Nationally we spend BILLIONS MORE upon covering such Emergency Room, Hospital and Ambulance Costs that it will VERY COST the country to institute Universal Healthcare.

Universal Healthcare WORKS....we know it works because we in Massachusetts all have coverage and because we are not spending ridiculous amounts of money covering Emergency Room and other costs we have a SURPLUS BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now as long as Universal Healthcare is run the WAY IT WAS DESIGNED TO WORK.....and as long as no one tampers or adds to the system.....the Federal Government will ALSO spend less money running it.

Now the Government has no place in a persons bedroom, religious practices and must ensure that a Majority is NOT allowed to oppress a minority such as we cannot allow Religious Icons or Statues in and upon State and Federal Buildings as if one Religion is allowed to do it then EVERY RELIGION must be allowed to do it so unless some of you Christians want to see a Statue of Buddha or Muhammad in front of your Court House I suggest we all make sure we remove any Christian specific statues or monuments.

The Republican Party MUST REFORM if it EVER wants to win another Presidential Election.

AboveAlpha

 

If you or anyone else here thinks the Democratic Party is losing the YOUTH VOTE...and remember I am NOT a DEMOCRAT.....you and they are KIDDING THEMSELVES!!!

Let's be plain about this....any 18 year old to 27 year old kid who is actually HOME at night to take a POLL call and not out with her or his friends partying their asses off is probably the child of a Conservative Christian or Religious Family and would likely vote Republican anyways.

There has NEVER been a time in the last 34 YEARS....since Reagan.....that the youth of America was so distant, disenfranchised or more realistically OUT RIGHT HATED the Republican Party to the extent it does right now.

Just to let other members know...I DO NOT post anything specific due to my Religious or Political Ideology....I simply POST THE FACTS....and let the chips fall where they may.

AboveAlpha

 

I didn't answer the question because it's kind of a non sequitur. You are asking why the State shouldn't eliminate legal marriage, as if that somehow advances the cause of liberty for the government to remove that option. It doesn't advance liberty to eliminate it.

 

I'll argue that it does in fact advance the cause of liberty to remove government from the marriage equation.

 

No, you are posting an opinion. I know the difference. Do you?

 

Of course I know the difference....this if a study done by the GOP itself.

. youth
In 2012, Mitt Romney won individuals older than 30 by 1.8 million votes; he lost voters younger
than 30 by 5 million votes. The RNC must recognize that today’s young voters will be voters for the
next 50-plus years. For many of the youngest voters and new 2016 voters, their perception of the
two parties was born during the Barack Obama era, and that perception will help determine their
worldview moving forward. The Party is seen as old and detached from pop culture. The RNC needs
to make immediate efforts to reverse this narrative. It can be done; look at the two benches. While the
Democrats have Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, we have leaders like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Kelly
Ayotte, and Bobby Jindal, among many others. We also have a youthful RNC Chairman, Reince
Priebus. The RNC must more effectively highlight our young leaders and fundamentally change
the tone we use to talk about issues and the way we are communicating with voters. This means
acknowledging the problem and then building an infrastructure or youth component to all of our
political efforts.
Young voters need to be attracted to the Republican Party by both the message and the candidate.
Obama was seen as “cool” in 2008, and his popularity spread like wildfire among young voters.
Obama and his “Change we can believe in” slogan was a trend in 2008 to which many young
Americans were attracted. In 2008 and again in 2012, the Obama campaign used young supporters
as precinct captains and boots on the ground. They were enthusiastic voices bringing their friends
and neighbors into the campaign. The RNC and Republican candidates need to establish the same
network of committed young voters who will help spread our message.


On messaging, we must change our tone — especially on certain social issues that are turning
off young voters. In every session with young voters, social issues were at the forefront of the
discussion; many see them as the civil rights issues of our time. We must be a party that
is welcoming and inclusive for all voters.
We also need to communicate with young voters where they get their information. We can’t use old
communication tools for young voters. Technology is second nature to young voters. Using social
media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram is important, but we also need
to be actively looking for and utilizing the newest and most cutting-edge social media platforms
to engage this generation.
Highlighting the young leaders we have is important, as is cultivating new ones. We need to have
strong, relatable leaders from all demographic groups as the face of the Party. Young voters will look
to these people as role models and inspiration to join the Party.

LINK....http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf

The difference between what is FACT and OPINION is I am posting the FACTS and can back it up.

AboveAlpha

 

Your Data is OLD.

That report was released in March of 2013.

This data is newer:

Harvard no less....LOL.

moar!

Why? My opinion is that people are suffering under the effect of his policies more and more with each year and they rightfully blame HIM and to a lesser extent the R's.

The recession is very real for most people; the stock market is artificially inflated.
Job opportunities are low.
Unemployment is still high - the govt plays funny games with the numbers.
Obamacare is revealing itself as a more epic disaster with each day.

Obama owns this - he lied and we know it.

 

OK. Make the argument that eliminating the option to voluntarily be married, in the legal sense, advances the cause of liberty.

 

I think he's arguing it shouldn't even be a legal status.

 

How about Bangladesh? Seriously, I'm wondering why Americans have to lower their standards of living to match that of Bangladesh?

 

Yes, but he's arguing that it advances the cause of liberty to eliminate it. That's what I'm curious about.

 

Basically it would mean it doesn't matter if you're married or not, you're treated the same way.

 

Glad to... and thanks for asking. In a nation where citizens desire to live in freedom, those citizens have a vested interest in limiting the scope and authority of their government to only those acts that strictly defend individual liberty. This is best accomplished, in my view, by very carefully and objectively balancing competing interests while erring on the side of liberty. The most objective standard that can be used is demonstrable harm or demonstrable imminent harm. Drunk driving laws are a good example. It is perfectly reasonable for the state to restrain citizens from operating a 3,000-lb. piece of metal after guzzling a six pack because the act in question clearly meets the standard of imminent harm. No rational person would argue that it is preferable to allow citizens to operate a motor vehicle under such impairment and call it "freedom." Your right to guzzle a bottle of Wild Turkey and point your badass muscle car down a public road is trumped by my right to not end up pinned under said badass muscle car. As I said: competing interests.

Additionally, certain institutions are devised to insure that everyone plays by the rules. And by "the rules," I mean essentially that everyone recognizes their fellow citizens' autonomy and right to act freely in a manner of their own choosing for any reason they see fit provided that such act does not constitute an infringement on anyone else's right to do the same, and further provided that said citizen agrees to accept full responsibility for his actions and will accept the consequences, whether the outcome of said act was intended or not. You may also call this the "social contract" if you like. When the citizen fails to abide by the rules of the social contract, then said institutions as referenced above are obliged to impose consequences commensurate with the transgression. These institutions include law enforcement, criminal courts, armies and the like. When utilized properly, these institutions serve their purpose in balancing those competing interests I referenced above.

Now, when we permit--or worse still, insist--that our government overstep the bounds of this very narrowly-defined role, we invite into our lives a flood of intrusions that run the gamut from merely inconvenient to downright tyrannical. The civil bureaucracy exists somewhere on that continuum, and within that civil bureaucracy we find, of course, the marriage statutes. In my view the marriage statutes are nothing but needless bureaucracy and are frankly duplicative of the civil body of contract law already in existence. Needless bureaucracy is part and parcel of the government overstepping its bounds and constitutes a breach of the government's primary objective to defend individual liberty by acting only when necessary to address harm. Ergo, eliminating needless bureaucracy advances the cause of liberty.

As a married man myself, I have nothing against the institution of marriage but I find it wholly unnecessary for the government to be involved in any way outside of providing a civil remedy should a conflict arise between me and my wife to be settled in a court of law like any other civil dispute. Without the marriage license from the government, my wife and I would be just as married.

 

So as a married man, in the legal sense, you and your wife are both less free than if you were not married? So in your own life, you have a legal, government issued and approved marriage certificate, but want the government to abrogate that and everyone else's government issued and approved marriage certificate. By doing that, aren't you imposing your values on me in a rather direct and personal way? It seems you want to impose your own lifestyle views on me and everyone else.

I was sort of half way hoping that you actually had an argument that I hadn't heard before. It would have been interesting if you actually had a case to be made that eliminating the institution of marriage somehow advances the cause of liberty. Instead, your argument basically boils down to marriage licenses issued by government create a bureaucracy, therefore, get rid of the bureaucracy by getting rid of marriage.

By that argument, we should eliminate birth certificates, death certificates, wills, deeds, and any sort of legal document required by the state. They all require bureaucracy, and most of them unlike a marriage certificate, are not voluntary. I don't get a say so if either a birth or death certificate is created for me. Damn that needless government meddling! But marriage, which is totally voluntary... that has to go.

Let me be charitable and say I remain unconvinced by your argument, although I appreciate you making the attempt.

 

That's the VERY BIG and IMPORTANT question!!

That is almost worth running a campaign on.

 

OHHH!!!

So now you will refute the GOP's REPORT from the RNC itself????!!!! LOL!!!

LOOK at this link....
LINK....http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_..._Book_2013.pdf

Even the Republican Party admits it must either change it's own platform and be inclusive to youths who might be Fiscally Conservative but are SOCIALLY LIBERAL!!.....or else even the GOP admits it will become irrelevant.

AboveAlpha

 

I'm not a Republican. And I SAID, your quoted data is old. Try to keep up.

 

It is the newest overall and comprehensive RNC Report to date as such reports of this size come out only once a year.

The RNC does put out POLL DATA but such poll data is HIGHLY DUBIOUS and as anyone here knows when you were 18 to 26 or so years old you were either in School or Living at Home thus any Poll would not be calling your PARENTS TELEPHONE NUMBER looking for you....or you were out partying your ass off as I remember when I was 18 to 26 and I certainly was not at home all night or afternoon being able to take a POLL CALL!!! LOL!!!

The Republican Party's own RNC freely admits it has a major problem with attracting young people and DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTES both a LOSS OF ADULT REPUBLICAN VOTERS and a COMPLETE INABILITY TO GAIN YOUNG VOTERS.....due to one very specific problem.

That problem is the INFILTRATION OF EXTREMIST CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY FORCED INTO THE RNC'S PLATFORM!!!!

The Republican Party under REAGAN had a HUGE number of YOUNG VOTING REPUBLICANS....and the reason for this was because the youth of America saw Reagan turning things around economically and rebuilding our National Defense and Military after the humiliation of the Iran Hostage Crisis and as a response to the massive Soviet Buildup.

Young people....AND I WAS ONE OF THEM....were able to easily get good jobs after the first term and Reagan also increased the PAY and BENEFITS of our Military Personal as well as increased College Incentive Money for those joining the Military.

Today....the youth of America look at the Republican Party with contempt and bitterness a and some youth even look at the Republican Party and feel sorry for it and them as they see a Party so out of touch with the real world and the vast majority of American's that it is no longer funny but just sad.

I KNOW...I voted for Reagan and I would NOT vote Republican as of late as I am an Independent and vote for the BEST CANDIDATE.

I liked McCain but when Palin was thrown in it all went to HELL!

AboveAlpha

 

It damned sure is doing that.

 

McCain is a progressive. Both parties have failed us. There IS NO best candidate.

 

A candidate being labeled a Progressive is a GOOD thing as it helps the candidate be elected.

AboveAlpha

 

Who says it's good? Progressives are closet communists and fascists. That what you want?

 

That is not the definition of a Progressive as a Progressive can be either Republican or Democrat.

The tern being progressive is specific to advancing society for the betterment of humanity.

AboveAlpha