bullets13

elderly drivers who have no idea what's going on around them going 45mph in a 70 mph zone. I've had them pull right out in front of me, and turn across right in front of me as well. I've also been stuck behind them for miles upon miles, with no hope of passing due to the other dozen cars stuck behind them. I know it's tough for them to give up their independence, but many of them are as dangerous as 16-year-olds with a brand new license. I'd like to see mandatory driving tests for the elderly every few years starting at the age of 75.

Entitlements and big government spending are a major problem fiscally. Not abortions, forced religion, gay rights, etc. those are not major fiscal issues, but they are major hot button issues that are swaying the middle voters. Again, believe what you want, but ultraconservative isn't working for the white house. Heck, without Jeb giving the election to GW, there wouldn't have been a republican in office since 92. And that trend isn't changing this election with the Donald being the right's representation. I'm thinking about writing in Steve Nash or something. The thought of choosing between the Donald and the Hillary is the Nauseating.

He strikes me as too cocky and arrogant to surround himself with anyone other than those who are willing to kiss his arse and agree with everything he says. But i could be wrong. That's just how he comes off.

And Obama...

you're bringing up fiscal issues. A candidate claiming to reform those could do some good. I'm talking about gay rights, abortion, prayer in school, etc.... moral policies that conservatives would try to put into place. Look at the backlash they're taking in North Carolina right now for instituting discriminatory laws. you don't have to believe me, but those are the types of issues where the GOP is losing the white house.

Many people on here have repeatedly stated that the GOP was losing elections because they didn't have any real conservatives running in the primaries. Now you have one running in the primaries, and he loses to the punchline of a joke. So obviously that wasn't the answer, It's going to take a republican with a moderate social stance to get republicans back in the white house due to the electoral college. If you're not winning the swing voters, you're not winning the election. If you guys are willing to vote for Donald over Hillary, then y'all would've voted for a GOP candidate with moderate social views over her as well. That's what it's going to take.

there in lies the conundrum for many of us who have conservative ideals when it comes to fiscal policy and liberal ideals when it comes to social issues. Am i willing to vote for a politician who is willing to aggressively pursue conservative changes on social issues if it means getting a politician in that will try to limit govt spending and overreach? I have a hard time doing it. And like WE1 said, a lot of voters seem to struggle with it like i do as well.

There's a fractured GOP with the old guard wanting to continue as ultra conservative, and the new guard wanting a more liberal Republican party. Neither group has enough to clout to get a strong candidate the nomination, opening the door for a mouthpiece with a hairpiece to take it over instead. The Donald will be a horrible president, but he can't beat Hillary, so i'm not to worried about him. I'm pretty worried about her, though. I wish we could trade her for her husband. I think he'd do a pretty decent job, just as he did before. He's shown a willingness to represent the wishes of his party while working with the other party. You can't say that about many politicians on either side of the aisle.

this is a reasonable statement.

how many times has someone made a statement like the one REB just made, and YOU come on and be the one to throw those terms around? I know it happens an awful lot.

Several on here do that constantly. What's your opinion on the matter?

I'm saying that just because it's not something you or i would ever do does not, and should not make it a crime.

Wait, did you just say that common sense dictates that homosexuality should be a crime? That might be the most absurd thing I've read in this forum, and there's been a lot of crazy tinfoil hat stuff on here. Common sense would dictate that what two consenting adults decide to do is their choice, and of no concern to law enforcement, or anybody else, for that matter. Out of curiosity, should all sin be a crime? What about the ones YOU commit? Time to throw every teenage boy ever in the clink for lustful thoughts and masturbation! Or just "the gays" because they gross you out? And as for NAMBLA arguing that they're the same class as homosexuals, that doesn't mean it is, unless you're saying you respect their position on the matter. Westboro baptist church claims to be good upstanding Christians, but I doubt most Christians would agree.

I'm sure there will be a movement by pedophiles for that (I believe NAMBLA is a real thing that's been around forever attempting to gain rights for pedofiles with no success), but it won't be gaining any traction. I would not be surprised at all if the second hypothetical you suggest comes to pass. While I wouldn't support that movement, I must point out that you're lumping pedofiles and transgenders together, now the 3rd conservative to do so in this thread, and this after you feigned offense at my suggestion that conservatives were often guilty of doing so.

This is absolutely correct. Or maybe the Browns and the Titans.

The difference being that homosexuality should've never been a crime. You're equating homosexuality and pedophilia in your comparison, which is what I was talking about earlier in the thread. Interracial marriage used to be illegal as well, and slavery was legal. Some laws need to change with the times. Legalizing pedophilia is obviously not one of them, and the thought that "liberals will make that legal next because they support gay marriage" is ridiculous. the left being okay with two consenting adults marrying each other has absolutely no connection with an adult raping a child, and to suggest as much is absurd.

transgender behavior and pedophilia behavior are two totally different things. So while it may have been surprising to some when transgenders were given more rights, transgenders are not raping children. I do not at all see child rapists getting government protection. At some point conservatives, no matter how uncomfortable homosexuals and transgenders make them, need to at least learn to quit lumping them in with sex offenders.

Not sure who gets to make that decision. But I'm confident that if all of a sudden privileged white males were no longer allowed to be members of high end country clubs the republicans would get to the bottom of it and determine exactly who gets to make that decision.

do you not see a difference between the two?

If i didn't know better, it would seem that you feel it's okay for businesses to deny service based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

i don't have a problem with that if you're teaching them to be a good person, and not a homophone, islamahobe, sexist, or bigot.

I honestly don't have a problem with a baker who won't bake a cake for a gay person's wedding. But if that baker is going to use their religion as a reason not to do so, they should also refuse to bake a cake for a divorcee's second wedding, or a couple who already has a child's wedding, etc. etc. because if the baker is trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage, divorce and out of wedlock sex are a much more prevalent problem.

If it was just one guy, i wouldn't be labeling all Christians. Truth be told, i've seen hundreds of Christians drunk, hundreds of Christians hating gays, dozens of Christians cheating... and those are just the ones that make it into the public eye. But if you show me the Christian who doesn't sin, i'll be happy to amend my remarks. as to the second highlighted point, sure you can recognize others' sins. but if you're devoting more energy to damning others for their sin than correcting your own, you dang sure are a hypocrite (and by you i'm talking about any Christian, not necessarily yourself). On another note, i attended church 2-3 times a week from the age of 12 until i graduated college (and still do occasionally). I graduated from a conservative Baptist college, and 24 of my college hours were earned taking Christian/Bible courses. I also went to chapel while i was there twice a week for 4.5 years on top of regular church services. So it's safe to say I'm well-versed in conservative Christianity and it's beliefs and teachings.

kinda funny how they can stand idly by as others around them drink, but have a coronary and start boycotting businesses when two dudes hold hands.

My biggest issue with it is the lack of criticism on the other sinful issues that are more comfortable to conservatives. If you're going to live a puritan lifestyle and denounce all sin, take the steps necessary to avoid all of it, discriminate against all of it... then by all means use your religion to do so. but as is often the case, their own lives and lifestyles leave them no room to talk when it comes to the sinful lifestyles of others. The best example is the "Good Christian Woman" that garnered support of conservatives all over the country for refusing to issue marriage licences to homosexuals. It's against her religion, and i could respect that, except... she's on her fourth marriage. So what right does she have to make any effort at all to protect the sanctity of marriage, or determine whether or not somebody else should be allowed to do or not do something based on the will of God?