The GOP and the White Evangelical Vote

The "problem" is Welfare.

That is how democrats get elected.
They have Unions and Welfare mothers, too, which get paid to vote them into office.

What America gets back is Unionized Public workers who benefit with huge salaries comparably, and enormous Tax breaking retirement obligations.
Teachers need work only 30 years, for instance, to get full benefits.
That means that a 20 year teacher can retire at 55, and live for 20 years, meaning for every teacher working, we pay for one not working.

Crime by fatherless raised people = 70% of the violent crime.
Child Abuse for the bastard kids we pay single mothers to raise is enormous.

The Democratic Machinery is ruining the country.

 

Hahaaaa,...

Funny.
Because its the white christians who are against abortion, but the liberal atheists who see that they NEED abortions of Welfare would double.

Welfare is now $1 Trillion dollars a year while the democrats kill half of them with abortion.
No abortion, and Welfare would cost half the Federal Budget every year.

 

Health Care is a big problem.

Egyptians had the same trouble we have.
They built pyramids for the rich people so they could live forever by resurrecting in the future.

Americans want to live forever, too, now.

So we have scientists discovering every form and way to keep us alive as long as possible.
That's expensive.

A Health Care solution OUGHT to have considered a way to control the expense of medicine, not hw to get everyone on the roll books for it.

 

Kids...
Raising the kids is the problem.

People who do not marry still have kids.
Half the kids now are fatherless.
The rewards are to great an incentive:

Average Welfare recipient gets $40,000+ per year
September 18, 2013 by Harold Bray
Earlier this year Pennsylvania state officials traveled to the libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, in search of a solution to a dilemma that most states have.
The dilemma, they said, was they could not find a way to transition welfare recipients to work.
The average welfare recipient gets (ooops, I almost wrote “earned”) $45,000 per year in benefits, they said, and has low work skills and little job history.

http://halfwaytoconcord.com/average-welfare-recipient-gets-40000-per-year/

 

Ah, so those numbers are the percentage of religions of divorcees, not the percentage of divorces by religion. Thank you, I understand now.

 

This is relationships, not marriages. One could argue that marriage could reduce those rates.

 

The topic has changed so much, I think I'm lost now. LOL

How we got from The GOP and the White Evangelical Vote to Health Care is beyond me.

 

That's some pretty impressive side-stepping. Unfortunately, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my statement, which your link corroborated.

 

Good point. It's hard to look only at duration of relationships that do not include a life-changing commitment, like marriage, to actual marriage rate duration.

Marriage will almost certainly increase relationship duration rate, and in doing so, will decrease promiscuity.

Relationships follows trends. A hundred years ago, there were few divorces, despite many people being unhappy. When divorce became "a thing" bitter parents and grandparents who remained in loveless marriages encouraged children and grandchildren to make themselves happy and to seek joy in their lives. Divorce increased.
The 70s started the "live together" phase without benefit of wedlock. The late 90s saw a slight uptick in marriage again.

When it comes to homosexual relationships, we have a group that is strongly opposed, and yet, I'm not sure why. If the risk of HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual male community, it behooves us to encourage gay marriages that would decrease that risk. The opposing group, while they may mean well, is fighting in the last stages of a battle they are doomed to lose.

 

I don't know why you find it "odd."

Politics is a balancing act and the GOP, obviously, would like to appeal to more non-White voters and, naturally, to more non-White-evangelical voters, whilst keeping the White voters (that include the White-evangelical voters) it already numbers in abundance happy.

How far is the GOP's establishment willing to go to placate the TPs? It's a question of numbers, and trying not to go too far in either direction so as to retain as many as possible.

Disgruntled voters don't necessarily switch party affiliation; they are just less likely to vote.




.



.

 

Yes, the formation of unions gave rise to the middle class and is the proven means of empowering the worker, and welfare benefits have become a feature of every advanced society's moral mandate to assist those in need. Some still rail against such progressive institution as Social Security and Medicare, but the vast majority of Americans recognize their value and how they have benefited their nation.

Nor is any first-world nation that incorporates a strong Christian ethos into its democratic governance about to revert to the social darwinism of the late 19th century's widespread exploitation and destitution by eliminating either. The decent pay, work hours, safe conditions, prohibition of child labour, etc. that unionization have achieved are not about to be abandoned.

Sincere efforts to insure that everyone benefits from the commonweal strengthens a nation; widening the financial gap between the "haves" and "have nots" endangers it.

Giving an individual "nothing to lose" is the formula for depravity and consequent chaos. One need only take an honest look around the planet without the ideological blinkers that induce short-sighted tunnel vision.

 

The first being married.

I agree however, when you hold silly beliefs such as marriage is a commandment from some sky daddy then you have created an unnecessary condition that propagates marriage which is a lot of times rushed into just to keep from burning in a lake of fire... not really a good reason to marry and most likely the reason so many of these marriages end in divorce.

What?... the mantra is "marriage is a sacred institution sanctioned by god" and this is why religious zealots scream and stamp their feet when gay couples want to enjoy the benefits of marriage ... and then when it suites them they will run to the local court house, a place in which god doesn't dwell, and attain their divorce! Only someone who refuses to see will claim this is not "hypocritical" !

Or not believe and still end up with the same.

Any statistics to back this up or did it just slide out your backside?

 

So stop crying about something you have the power to fix and get out there and fight for a welfare women's right for easy access to abortion.. or keep doing what your doing and continue to prove to everyone that you are not a man of convictions you just like to throw hissy fits on an internet forum!

 

Only one way to fix it Dave...

Get off this forum with your whining and complaining and start promoting abortions to all the welfare women and unwed mothers out there!

 

Since unmarried people cannot get divorced, you're correct. I hope you didn't think this was a profound statement. Next you'll be telling me that water is wet.

Thanks for sharing your speculation and bias.

Those same "religious zealots" believe homosexuality is a sin, so why would you expect them to celebrate the perversion of a societal institution that they respect - marriage?

True, but someone who does not believe in marriage is less likely to get married.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/10/23/republicans-still-happy-campers/

 

Well it is unless it's frozen then it's cold!

Just returning the favor.

That's my point... they don't! They don't respect marriage or they wouldn't get divorced when it's convient.

Unless they fear burning in hell for all eternity and then they jump right in.

 

And as I explained in the portion which you cut out of the quote, the GOP can't lose the white evangelical vote because the Dems can't win it. Saying that the GOP needs to be concerned about 'losing' the white evangelical vote is as legitimate as worrying about the GOP winning the progressive vote. It's not going to happen.

 

As I explained, "Disgruntled voters don't necessarily switch party affiliation; they are just less likely to vote."

- or contribute to or work for a party's candidates when that party does not unambiguously espouse whatever ideological biases those folks hold dear. Yes, having nowhere else to go allows a party some latitude to ignore any particular constituency in attempting to have a wider appeal to some degree, but there is always a cost to pay and a compromise to be struck based upon calculated gains and losses.


.