Analysis of Romney's defeat

[GhostWriter16]

This is exactly how I view the Asian vote.

They are probably natural Republicans and have very little use for the labor/Moore type of liberalism. On the other hand, I doubt they are big fans of evolution denial and Todd Akin.

I'm open to Republican economic ideas and even ( to some extent ) social ideas, but I'd rather burn the whole country down around my ears than be ruled by someone's religious whims.

Where do you draw the line between social conservatism and religious whims?

You really think that a society that allows churches to refuse to marry people because they are black will force them to marry gays? The whole idea is utterly ludicrous.

Probably not anytime soon. But in 100 years? Who knows.

It doesn't affect most people personally, but for those that lose numerous rights and privileges it is certainly not leaving them alone.
What would you say if the government said evangelicals cannot have their marriages recognized? Is that "leaving you alone"?

That's true-ish, the reality is that the government is in fact leaving them alone and just isn't leaving other people alone.

I still question why you need a license to get married.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Aren't "indepenedents" mostly just disgruntled Republicans these days?

Not just disgruntled Republicans. They include some disgruntled Democrats too. Disgruntled Republicans are probably a larger group though.

Statistically, those who self identify as independents tend to be more likely to vote for members of only one major party than those who self identify as members of either party. Only a small minority of independents could be classified as "moderates." Most independents are well to the right of the republicans, well to the left of the democrats, or simply disagree most strongly with the issues on which both major parties agree with each other.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who are the real swing voters?

 

[JollyRoger]

I still question why you need a license to get married.

To prove up stuff like gender, age, and degree of relationship. But you only need that if you want the government benefits of marriage. If you only care about marriage in the eyes of God, you don't need no stinking license. I do not see why a self-respecting libertarian would ever get one.

 

[say1988]

I still question why you need a license to get married.

1138 Federal rights, privileges, and responsibilities as well as other benefits that are associated with marriage.
Yes, most can be attained without a government licensed marriage, but it would (quite frankly) be a PITA and cost a significant amount of money to get a lawyer to draw up all the necessary paperwork and others simply are not possible to gain any other way.
From the government's perspective a marriage license is just a standardized contract between the individuals. Nothing more, nothing less.

In this way, the government is simply simplifying things for the people. Imagine the legal mess it would be if every marriage contract was different and had to be created individually. A great boon for the lawyers, but harmful to everybody else.

Probably not anytime soon. But in 100 years? Who knows.

Even if I accept there is a non-negligible chance of that happenign (which I don't).
In other words, "They might force their morals on us in the distant future so we must force ours upon them now." A touch hypocritical.

 

[Arakhor]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Well, if the Constitution was suited to governing the 18th Century American colonies, it must be "wholly inadequate" for governing a 300-million strong country stretching across much of an entire continent.

 

[Arakhor]

That way government isn't changing the definition of marriage.

The moment the government stops giving legal benefits to a church marriage, they have altered its definition. The fact that you can marry legally in a registry office, a million miles from a church or any Bibles, Qur'ans and whatnots, should be a clear sign that government is changing the definition.

Definition is not another of those words that only you can use correctly.

 

[Cutlass]

"There was, in fact, massive suppression of the Republican vote -- by the Romney campaign, through the diversion of nearly 40,000 volunteers to a failing computer program."
—

from story on Orca: How The Romney Campaign Suppressed Its Own Vote" http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...w-the-Romney-Campaign-Suppressed-Its-Own-Vote

 

[dutchfire]

Wouldn't we expect better from someone with lots of business experience?

 

[Crezth]

Probably not anytime soon. But in 100 years? Who knows.

Amazing deflection. This way, you get to maintain your garbage unsubstantiated claims, and have the added benefit of plausible deniability. Bravo, good sir.

 

[Cutlass]

Wouldn't we expect better from someone with lots of business experience?

Maybe they hired a defense contractor to design it.

 

[Zelig]

Maybe they hired a defense contractor to design it.

Word is they outsourced it to Accenture.

Can't find much substantiating this, but in the end it doesn't really matter, they obviously outsourced it somewhere which wasn't remotely competent.

 

[EnglishEdward]

When you find your self agreeing with and proving Michael Moore theories, it's time to re-evaluate yourself.

Unable to debate the objective point so switching to the person.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Word is they outsourced it to Accenture.

Can't find much substantiating this, but in the end it doesn't really matter, they obviously outsourced it somewhere which wasn't remotely competent.

or was very Democratic.

 

[Archbob]

This is exactly how I view the Asian vote.

They are probably natural Republicans and have very little use for the labor/Moore type of liberalism. On the other hand, I doubt they are big fans of evolution denial and Todd Akin.

I'm open to Republican economic ideas and even ( to some extent ) social ideas, but I'd rather burn the whole country down around my ears than be ruled by someone's religious whims.

Far East Asian will probably lean republican sooner or later based on economic conditions alone. Far East Asians actually average a higher salary than whites per capita. A lot of the vote is along economic lines.

 

[Zelig]

or was very Democratic.

I don't think so, enough of the various technical failures of the program have come to light that it really looks far more like incompetence than maliciousness.

 

[Tee Kay]

Far East Asian will probably lean republican sooner or later based on economic conditions alone. Far East Asians actually average a higher salary than whites per capita. A lot of the vote is along economic lines.

So do Jewish Americans, and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Except for Orthodox Jews, who are firmly Republican.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So do Jewish Americans, and they overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Except for Orthodox Jews, who are firmly Republican.

I think a lot of Jewish Americans are stealthily atheistic/agnostic. This alone would explain antipathy towards the Republicans.

 

[Tee Kay]

It is certainly more of a cultural/ethnic identity than a religious identity. According to some polls less than half of American Jews actually believe in God.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Classical needs to stop quoting John Adams. He was a Federalist and so what he had to say is pretty irrelevant anyway. Bonus points since he passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. I don't really care what he thought about our government.

NO government is going to work well for a non-moral people, but I don't see why the American constitution is special in that regard.