Both very good guesses and also very funny! 

 

But, the difference I see is that Republicans run on the fact that they are anti-abortion, and pro-marriage.  They flat out pander to a certain high moral segment of the population, even though they are usually the gayest, or the most falandering...

 

Democrats don't run on morality.  They run  on issues.  I'm not saying that democrats don't pander, all politicians do.  It's just that even when a democrat gets caught in some nasty thing, it's not something where you can say, "what a hypocrite".

 

The John Edwards issue, for instance.  Yeah, it was nasty...  But he wasn't running a family values campaign.  He was running a populace campaign focused on the fact that there "Are 2 Americas".  

 

On the flip side, a Republican will get caught trying to solicit a man in a bathroom while campaigning for the defense of marriage and how his faith drives him and his decisions, and blah blah blah...

 

So that's the difference...

 

Your mixing Social Conservatives and Republicans. Yes there are more Social Conservatives in the Republican party but there are plenty of Republicans that are not and never have been Social Conservatives. There are also Social Conservatives in the Democratic party, far fewer than in the past but they still exist. 

 

The problem is anyone outside the GOP assumes all Republicans are Social Conservatives so everything a Republican does gets reflected onto Social Conservatives. Same thing happens to Progressives and the Democratic party, anything a Democrat does get's reflected onto Progressives even if that Democrat isn't a Progressive.

 

The Duggars did portray themselves as Social Conservatives so in this case you're absolutely correct it's all hypocritical but I'm just pointing out sometimes these Republicans that get caught in scandals have nothing to do with the Social Conservative platform.

---

Your mixing Social Conservatives and Republicans. Yes there are more Social Conservatives in the Republican party but there are plenty of Republicans that are not and never have been Social Conservatives. There are also Social Conservatives in the Democratic party, far fewer than in the past but they still exist.


The problem is anyone outside the GOP assumes all Republicans are Social Conservatives so everything a Republican does gets reflected onto Social Conservatives. Same thing happens to Progressives and the Democratic party, anything a Democrat does get's reflected onto Progressives even if that Democrat isn't a Progressive.


The Duggars did portray themselves as Social Conservatives so in this case you're absolutely correct it's all hypocritical but I'm just pointing out sometimes these Republicans that get caught in scandals have nothing to do with the Social Conservative platform.

That was the case up until the 2000 election. Nowadays republicans are social conservatives. Democrats are everything else (all under the umbrella of 'progressivism'). There may be an exception or two to the rule but that's it. It's all black and white now. Divided and conquered.

---

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/go...html?ml=po


Lol^

---

Your mixing Social Conservatives and Republicans. Yes there are more Social Conservatives in the Republican party but there are plenty of Republicans that are not and never have been Social Conservatives. There are also Social Conservatives in the Democratic party, far fewer than in the past but they still exist. 

 

The problem is anyone outside the GOP assumes all Republicans are Social Conservatives so everything a Republican does gets reflected onto Social Conservatives. Same thing happens to Progressives and the Democratic party, anything a Democrat does get's reflected onto Progressives even if that Democrat isn't a Progressive.

There's not that many Republican Politicians that aren't social conservatives.  In fact, there's not that many Republican politicians that are economic conservatives  weat:

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Let's define social conservative... tell me if you think my definition is off base:


Anti abortion, anti gay marriage, uses their faith to guide their political choices, pro authority on terms of policing, pro war on drugs, pro tougher criminal penalties...


Based on this definition, which republican is not a social conservative?


The only one I can think of is rand Paul...

---

I am utterly flabbergasted that you are defending this guy. 

 

Let me get this straight.

 

One man cheats on his wife while she is deathly ill and fathers a child out of wedlock. Horrible for sure. Nobody was physically harmed here unless there is something I am unaware of. Emotionally, sure and it's a terrible thing to do to someone. I have no respect for John Edwards.

 

The other one has molested/raped/fondled (whatever word you want to use to try to tone down how disgusting this is) how many young girls including his own sisters? Then goes on to have (allegedly) extra marital affairs after his family shoved it under the rug seeing no justice done.  All the while claiming how full of love and faith the whole family is to con their way into a TV show to make millions? 

 

Now, with all that said. I would like to point out how you have tried to not only defend this piece of scum but also attempted to pull the "well look what this democrat did that actual isn't even the same thing at all but is somehow worse!!!!" I expect that of some other ilk on here but not you. You are better than that. 

 

First of all, I am not defending this guy at all.  I'm just pointing out that the molesting claims regarding him and his sisters were at a point in his life where he was not an adult, and he clearly had/has mental issues.  A 14 or 15 year old should know right from wrong, but some are just messed up.

 

The narrative changed from a guy that does a reality TV show regarding family values being exposed due to a website hack, to the guy is a child molester.  So many people are quick to pick one part of a story from the OP and focus on it rather than look at the "big picture".

 

As I said before, I think that the guy is scum, and I am not defending him.  He is by all means a phony.  I also think that there are probably (sadly) deeper issues with that whole family.

 

Just trying to keep things in context.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

in all honesty, when you have 19 kids aren't you going to have at least one that's a little touched? I mean its math right?

---

in all honesty, when you have 19 kids aren't you going to have at least one that's a little touched? I mean its math right?

Sure that would be understandable. I don't understand sweeping it under the rug.


Edit: no actually I do. I just disagree with it and the proceeding preaching

---

Let's define social conservative... tell me if you think my definition is off base:


Anti abortion, anti gay marriage, uses their faith to guide their political choices, pro authority on terms of policing, pro war on drugs, pro tougher criminal penalties...


Based on this definition, which republican is not a social conservative?


The only one I can think of is rand Paul...

To me a social conservative supports legislation to enforce their version of morality. For example Huckabee and his constitutional amendment idea on personhood at conception is a social conservative. Others might be against funding abortions that's not social conservative that's just part of the pro life platform.


Strong legislation against Gay marriage is another social conservative view. plenty of republicans instead support state rights or better yet removing all laws about marriage between consenting adults.


Theres also neo-conservatives that are more liberal on social policy but extremely aggressive on foreign policy,


Id consider Huckabee, Santorum, Jindhal, Cruz all social conservatives. Trump, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Paul, Perry none of them are social conservatives

---

Let's define social conservative... tell me if you think my definition is off base:


Anti abortion, anti gay marriage, uses their faith to guide their political choices, pro authority on terms of policing, pro war on drugs, pro tougher criminal penalties...


Based on this definition, which republican is not a social conservative?


The only one I can think of is rand Paul...

You know the more you post the more you expose yourself as a Libertarian at heart.  The band wagon has plenty of seats.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You know the more you post the more you expose yourself as a Libertarian at heart. The band wagon has plenty of seats.

Libertarians have more overlaps with progressives then either side likes to admit.

---

in all honesty, when you have 19 kids aren't you going to have at least one that's a little touched? I mean its math right?

Admittedly, I actually had this same thought. I hate that I can be so cynical.

---

Christian a d Republican are not synonymous.

---

Libertarians have more overlaps with progressives then either side likes to admit.

Not those already on the band wagon.  ;-)

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You know the more you post the more you expose yourself as a Libertarian at heart. The band wagon has plenty of seats.

In my experience it's been easier to convert liberals than conservatives.

---

In my experience it's been easier to convert liberals than conservatives.

 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Christian a d Republican are not synonymous.

TRUTH.

---

You know the more you post the more you expose yourself as a Libertarian at heart.  The band wagon has plenty of seats.

 

I've been ordered not to do that anymore...

 

Libertarians have more overlaps with progressives then either side likes to admit.

 

 

In my experience it's been easier to convert liberals than conservatives.

 

I think there is a coalition that can be formed between these 2 factions.  We progressives/liberals/whatever we're defined as agree with alot of the libertarian philosophies.  There should be issues that we can agree on and get through congress, if we get rid of the corrupted politicians on both sides.

 

And I think there's also room for compromise on alot of the other issues we disagree on...  

 

But yeah, I've noticed how similar some of the 2 side's throughts are on alot of topics.

---