This is actually so true Juq, these people are most of the time those pro-life people who are generally the ones with a total absurdity in favor of military spending,

Too many generalizations lately have been floating around.

I'm pro-life as well and favor dramatically reduced military spending and a ban on the death penalty.

@Jai
did you miss by accident "most of the time"?

And many who are in favor of not lowering or raising the military budget are worried about protection, not killing people.

"protection" through killing folk. Sounds like a plan.

Got some evidence to back that generalization? I'm Pro-Life and I think the U.S needs to scale back on military, or at the very least, focus that money on homeland defenses instead of maintaining a hundred off-shore bases in countries we have no need patrolling.

They're both conservative principles, and each Republican (I don't recall if Kasich is for-abortion or not, but I doubt he is) left supports both a bigger military force/more military misdeeds, and it's been pretty much that way for the last few decades (with notable but no-chance Republican exceptions like Rand Paul).

All you better be for the Libertarian group, then, since based on these two things, you're fit much better to them than Republicans.

Too many generalizations lately have been floating around.

Official GOP stances:

*Foreign terrorism suspects should not be given constitutional rights.
*Government needs to grow military spending.
*Military forces needs to fly more drones over countries to kill suspected terrorists.
*America should upscale the war on Mashriq.
*America should lower foreign help spending.
*America should send footsoldiers to Syria as long as it's part of an international coalition.
*After slaying Mashriq, America should overthrow Bashar Assad.
*Government should do military strikes on North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons.
*America should keep Guantánamo prison open.
*Torture is ok.
*Death penalty is ok as is.

*For-life.

You see my confusion here? Also, I was looking about, holy mackarel, GOP is now taking blatant anti-parting of faith and theode, and giving special likeness to Christians.

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/Resolution_Christian_Genocide.pdf

Edited 4/1/2016 04:10:04

They're both conservative principles

There's a lot of different flavors of conservatism out there. There's not really a unified "Conservative" platform, only points of usual agreement.

and each Republican (I don't recall if Kasich is for-abortion or not, but I doubt he is) left supports both a bigger military force/more military misdeeds, and it's been pretty much that way for the last few decades (with notable but no-chance Republican exceptions like Rand Paul).

The problem with Republicans is that they have to keep several different factions in line, and in the end they don't properly represent anyone. The Democrats have the same problem.

All you better be for the Libertarian group, then, since based on these two things, you're fit much better to them than Republicans.

I disagree with Libertarians quite often when it comes to economic issues (And a few social ones as well). However, I understand the appeal to Libertarianism and I often find Libertarians to be some of the most consistent people in politics. I respect the group, but I don't know if I'll ever be a member.

Also, I should point out that I'm not officially with any major party. I generally lean Republican because of my social views. Almost all Pro-Life candidates are Republican, for example, and that's a big selling point for me (Not the only thing I judge candidates on mind you, but it's a major factor). If it wasn't for the Social Conservative side of things I probably would never vote Republican. I disagree with them both on economics (usually) and foreign policy (usually).

Official GOP stances:

*Foreign terrorism suspects should not be given constitutional rights.
*Government needs to grow military spending.
*Military forces needs to fly more drones over countries to kill suspected terrorists.
*America should upscale the war on Mashriq.
*America should lower foreign help spending.
*America should send footsoldiers to Syria as long as it's part of an international coalition.
*After slaying Mashriq, America should overthrow Bashar Assad.
*Government should do military strikes on North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons.
*America should keep Guantánamo prison open.
*Torture is ok.

1. Everyone deserves rights until proven guilty.
2. There's no need to increase military spending.
3. It's a problem that has to be dealt with, I won't say I have the best answer but "Doing nothing" definitely isn't the solution.
4. It accounts for less than a percent of our budget.....
5. Stay the heck out of Syria unless it's to fight ISIL, even then, keep distance.
6. Everytime we overthrow a dictator in the Middle East that country just gets worse. Let them keep the blasted dictators and just pull out of that bloody mess.
7. That would give North Korea the excuse to actually use said weapons, and Kimmy might just be crazy enough to do it.
8. Maybe.
9 Depends on the situation, generally not okay.

For the most part, I hate GOP foreign policy. Stop ISIL, then pull out of the Middle East and stay out of there. Seriously, that region is just a Pandora's Box and we need to stop digging ourselves deeper.

There's a lot of different flavors of conservatism out there. There's not really a unified "Conservative" platform, only points of usual agreement.

Unified conservative principles = bigger and more powerful government, right economy. Anything that falls in those umbrella are conservative principles (including taking away guns, but in America, both conserves and liberalists usually are unheard of supporting that).

The problem with Republicans is that they have to keep several different factions in line, and in the end they don't properly represent anyone. The Democrats have the same problem.

That's why there's supposed to be different candidates with moderately different outlooks, unfortunately their outlooks are pretty much the same, and all the Republican candidates this year except B. Carson and R. Paul supported agressive foreign policy to my knowledge.

Also, I should point out that I'm not officially with any major party. I generally lean Republican because of my social views.

Why do you value relatively insignificant things like should gay folk vote over should these lives be ended?

Anyhow, you just happen to hate mostly Republican foreign and economic policy more than other policies, noone will have 100% agreement with them (actually, many falsely will, since they don't bother to do some research and there's strong party bonds), but the point is, you're an exception, and a true Republican (as you said before was who you leaned most towards, I don't really like Democrats or Republicans, but it's a matter of picking the relatively better). A true Republican will have much more support for what they stand for. See GeneralPE for example, I bet he would agree with 9/10 these points.

Edited 4/1/2016 04:28:10

A human life is not worth much on the free market.

Not much to the socialists either.

Unified conservative principles = bigger and more powerful government, right economy. Anything that falls in those umbrella are conservative principles

Xpapy, stop spreading blatant lies. Big government is not a pillar of conservative belief; they believe in a limited government. To say that taking away guns would be conservative is ludicrous. You are so wrong.

For me:
Conservative = small gov't; constitution; capitalist; closed borders
Liberal = big gov't; do whatever seems good, not what our laws are; semi-socialist; open borders

Some Americans obsess over the constitution so much. They need to realise that it has some major flaws that are outdated, that need to be ironed out by now. The constitution isn't a person, it's an object that needs to adapt as the years pass. We're no longer in a world where people can own guns to keep their slaves quiet. Guns are bad because they kill people, and were designed to kill people; nothing else. This is where the argument of "You can kill people with bricks!" falls flat on its face. Bricks have alternative uses. Guns are designed to kill people, and are always people's weapon of choice in a mass-killing. Knives have alternative uses, and people can't kill as much with knives, as they can with guns.

To the point: The constitution doesn't breathe. You always need to change it, and you shouldn't defend it when it has obvious flaws. It was written hundreds of years ago and doesn't have nearly enough amendments. "Our laws" generally means "constitution", and the constitution is inherently bad because it has outdated policies.

We're no longer in a world where people can own guns to keep their slaves quiet.

That's what the police and military are for, and you are trying to make it easier for the blue shirts. Also funny that you want to call gun ownership racist, when Martin Luther King most likely would have been attacked earlier if the Deacons For Defense and Justice hadn't been there.

Guns are bad because they kill people, and were designed to kill people; nothing else.

Except you can easily use them for sport (hunting) and recreation.

Guns are designed to kill people, and are always people's weapon of choice in a mass-killing

Oh you must have not heard of explosives. You can strap them on your body or throw them at people and it helps a lot with mass killing.

To the point: The constitution doesn't breathe. You always need to change it, and you shouldn't defend it when it has obvious flaws. It was written hundreds of years ago and doesn't have nearly enough amendments. "Our laws" generally means "constitution", and the constitution is inherently bad because it has outdated policies.

When it has good policy designed to stop the government from squeezing people's freedom's. It's failed because the American people are actively complacent in it's enforcement.

It's failed because the American people are actively complacent in it's enforcement.

This. All of the protections and freedoms granted by the Constitution are still relevant today. The only reason the Constitution has failed is because of poor enforcement and people twisting its meaning for political agendas.

If you want your country to rewrite it's framework every 50 years, fine, that's your choice. We'll stick by our core principles that have worked since founding.

DIdn't read the 2nd page, it certainly wasn't Trump's finest moment, although the controversy receiving more attention here is him backtracking on his stance.

He's always been very vague on abortion, he's been flipping around pro-life and pro-choice for many years and then he was caught off guard on the question.

Not very researched on the issue, but from memory there is a period of time a fetus is sufficiently devIoped and capable of feeling emotions such as pain, that I think that is the limit when abortions should be illegal. Anytime before that I don't think the government should have a controlling hand, cases of incest, rape, contraceptive failures are reasons why abortion pathways should be allowed at the very least, and of course abortions should always be legal if the mother's life is under threat.

Doctors are obviously the one that should be punished if any law on abortion is broken, they operate with their medical experience and judgement and also in full legal awareness. Consumers shouldn't be held accountable because of the failure of firm to practice in a legal manner.

Edited 4/1/2016 15:24:57

This. All of the protections and freedoms granted by the Constitution are still relevant today. The only reason the Constitution has failed is because of poor enforcement and people twisting its meaning for political agendas.

If you want your country to rewrite it's framework every 50 years, fine, that's your choice. We'll stick by our core principles that have worked since founding.

+1.

If you don't have the Rule of Law, you may as well be a third world nation with bureaucratic corruption at every level. A Constitution is literally the simplest document in the world to follow, yet politicians on both sides have been ignoring most of its provisions for the last 100 years.

Xpapy, stop spreading blatant lies. Big government is not a pillar of conservative belief; they believe in a limited government. To say that taking away guns would be conservative is ludicrous. You are so wrong.

To call me wrong when you implied conservatism began in America...

Conservism is not as limited as it is in America, in Pakistan, for example, very strict gun laws and an undeniably conservative government. But in America, the Republican conserves are for keeping guns free, taking away guns altogether is extremely conservative. And yes, bigger government is a pillar of conservative belief. Libertarianism and liberalism is for less/limited government.

Republican party stances:

*Grow military spending.
*Curb and crack down on immigration. Actively deport all illegal immigrants.
*For government surveillance of the internet.
*For passing more curbing drug laws and upping the War on Drugs.
*For the government seizing private land for the "greater good" (sounds awfully socialist, if you ask me)
*Against letting incurably ill patients kill themselves.
*Against abortions.
*Against inspecting the national bank.

Out of those, Libertarians only agree with curbing immigration, and even then, less so than the Republicans.

Some Americans obsess over the constitution so much. They need to realise that it has some major flaws that are outdated, that need to be ironed out by now.

+, I've said this before

We'll stick by our core principles that have worked since founding.

Logically, why would "your" core principles that "you're" precisely not sticking by work since founding? Did the constition's writers account for the handheld automatic-fire weapon? I don't know what else is in the American constitution, so can't comment further, but it's bound to be outdated.

If you don't have the Rule of Law, you may as well be a third world nation with bureaucratic corruption at every level.

Well, if there are 0 laws, that's anarchy, as little government as it can get, and nowhere really has 0 laws. But as for generally lax countries, there's Jamaica and Iceland, both fine countries to live in (in my opinion, Iceland has the best living settings in the world).

It is quite obvious from a 1700s perspective that weapons would get better and more lethal, don't see how a improvement in the efficiency aspect of firearms justifies only the government having them, especially when the second amendment says it's for the people to fight the government.

It is quite obvious from a 1700s perspective that weapons would get better and more lethal

It's quite unobvious to forecast what will happen in the future, even more so since they do not have the statistic and forecasting means we do today. Especially thinking that 1475to1775, guns in west European knowledge slightly changed, it was groundable to think that the barrier was hit, as it was with turning lead into gold and with crystal rocks healing folk. And for example, in Esperanto/Ido, in the 1910s, it was growing fast, schools in China even began to implement it as deal of the national curriculum, but then the Xinhai revolution, the First World War and anti-Esperanto movements after that practically made it extinct until the internet times. But noone thought a major war would start in Europe since the Maxim machine gun was developed and a very frightening weapon.

Furthermore, it would be based on what was acceptable in the 1700s, what they wanted in the 1700s, which is obviously different from what is wanted in 2016 (f.e. owning folk).

Edited 4/1/2016 23:05:54

trump is one of the smartest men alive. he's actually calling on scaling back on bases we're using to protect countries such as Japan, and calling on them to protect themselves. America needs to care about itself again.

But noone thought a major war would start in Europe since the Maxim machine gun was developed and a very frightening weapon.

Oh there were folk making predictions. They didn't predict all of the happenings but they thought a war was coming.

Also, it is common for folk with little idea of the thing they're talking about to make predictions on future events. It would be pretty easy for inventors and metal smiths to think that guns would get better.

Oh there were folk making predictions. They didn't predict all of the happenings but they thought a war was coming.

No, folk taught in polit knew about the alliance system, but they thought the same, that a major war could not happen.

Also, it is common for folk with little idea of the thing they're talking about to make predictions on future events.

Rough forecasts they can make, but these are usually very innacurate, especially back then.

"No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free."

Wilhelm I of Preußen, 1864

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."

Albert Einstein, 1932

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine."

Ernest Rutherford, 1933

Edited 4/2/2016 00:20:44

"One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” -Otto Von Bismarck

Folk can make predictions, some good and some bad, but they make predictions.