How dangerous are liberal social policies?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Very dangerous, with the liberal war on the American family being the best example. It has progressed to the point where 75% of black kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

 

[the_human_being]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

 

[mgh80]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

 

[the_human_being]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

I'd call it massive. Trump's electorial win is at 306. The Dems pushed their agenda too hard and lost a lot of voters over it. Most parents do not want to see a grown man in their daughter's restroom. Most white men and white women are against late term abortion. Most white men and women actually do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most white men and women do not want to see the Hyde Act repealed forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. Most white men and women do not want the federal government forcing the Nuns to hand out contraceptaives against their religios views.

White men and white women, both the undereducated and the college educated overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic Party's stance on social issues. The Democrats ignored and lost the white working class vote.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

Republicans control White House, Senate, SCOTUS, more state legislatures then ever in history and 35 governors. That's a massive rejection hopefully because liberalism is based in pure ignorance, and will soon be illegal as our Founders intended.

 

[mgh80]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

Republicans control White House, Senate, SCOTUS, more state legislatures then ever in history and 35 governors. That's a massive rejection hopefully because liberalism is based in pure ignorance, and will soon be illegal as our Founders intended.

-Republicans do control the House easily I agree
-Republicans do control the Senate (albeit barely)
-The founders never intended for any political belief to be illegal...hence the 1st amendment (people have the right to be stupid).

 

[ding]

How dangerous are liberal social policies? Very.

Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to argue against it.

 

[mgh80]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

I'd call it massive. Trump's electorial win is at 306. The Dems pushed their agenda too hard and lost a lot of voters over it. Most parents do not want to see a grown man in their daughter's restroom. Most white men and white women are against late term abortion. Most white men and women actually do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most white men and women do not want to see the Hyde Act repealed forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. Most white men and women do not want the federal government forcing the Nuns to hand out contraceptaives against their religios views.

White men and white women, both the undereducated and the college educated overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic Party's stance on social issues. The Democrats ignored and lost the white working class vote.

The only concrete fact that you posted is Trump winning 306 electoral votes, and you cited that as being a "massive rejection" of Clinton. 306 is actually a pretty small win. Here are the last 10 presidential elections and how many electoral votes they received:

2016: 306 (Trump)
2012: 332 (Obama)
2008: 356 (Obama)
2004: 286 (Bush)
2000: 271 (Bush)
1996: 379 (Clinton)
1992: 370 (Clinton)
1988: 426 (Bush)
1984: 525 (Reagan)
1980: 480 (Reagan)

8th most out of 10 elections is not a "massive rejection" of the other person.

Would you say that the country "massively rejected" Obama's opponents?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Very dangerous, with the liberal war on the American family being the best example. It has progressed to the point where 75% of black kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

What's the danger of allowing gays to marry?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So making sure the old don't die on the street = dangerous
Making sure our kids are educated = dangerous
Making sure we have first world infrastructure = dangerous
Respecting peoples right to marry as they choose = dangerous

I'd say loserterianism is far more dangerous but that is just my opinion.

 

[ding]

Very dangerous, with the liberal war on the American family being the best example. It has progressed to the point where 75% of black kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

What's the danger of allowing gays to marry?

It is not in the best interest of society. It makes no sense to define the rule for the exception. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Very dangerous, with the liberal war on the American family being the best example. It has progressed to the point where 75% of black kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

What's the danger of allowing gays to marry?

It is not in the best interest of society. It makes no sense to define the rule for the exception. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Why"? When have gay marriages caused harm in a manner disproportionate to any harm opposite sex marriages have caused?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Very dangerous, with the liberal war on the American family being the best example. It has progressed to the point where 75% of black kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

What's the danger of allowing gays to marry?

It is not in the best interest of society. It makes no sense to define the rule for the exception. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Why"? When have gay marriages cause harm?

Yet, they want government to stop gays from marrying but don't want government to maintain our infrastructure. These people are stupid.

I am sorry but they're.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

I'd call it massive. Trump's electorial win is at 306. The Dems pushed their agenda too hard and lost a lot of voters over it. Most parents do not want to see a grown man in their daughter's restroom. Most white men and white women are against late term abortion. Most white men and women actually do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most white men and women do not want to see the Hyde Act repealed forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. Most white men and women do not want the federal government forcing the Nuns to hand out contraceptaives against their religios views.

White men and white women, both the undereducated and the college educated overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic Party's stance on social issues. The Democrats ignored and lost the white working class vote.

Of course you would and you are wrong. Nothing will change of any significance. People are going to still get married, without any change. Children are going to go to school together. The government is still going to try to ensure all Americans can have affordable and accessible health insurance. In public, people are going to behave at a certain level or get grabbed by the scruff of the neck. PP will continue. Roe will not be overturned.

Trump having been elected, will now turn his back on the far and alt right and socons and move to the center where the largest plurality of voters live.

 

[the_human_being]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

I'd call it massive. Trump's electorial win is at 306. The Dems pushed their agenda too hard and lost a lot of voters over it. Most parents do not want to see a grown man in their daughter's restroom. Most white men and white women are against late term abortion. Most white men and women actually do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most white men and women do not want to see the Hyde Act repealed forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. Most white men and women do not want the federal government forcing the Nuns to hand out contraceptaives against their religios views.

White men and white women, both the undereducated and the college educated overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic Party's stance on social issues. The Democrats ignored and lost the white working class vote.

The only concrete fact that you posted is Trump winning 306 electoral votes, and you cited that as being a "massive rejection" of Clinton. 306 is actually a pretty small win. Here are the last 10 presidential elections and how many electoral votes they received:

2016: 306 (Trump)
2012: 332 (Obama)
2008: 356 (Obama)
2004: 286 (Bush)
2000: 271 (Bush)
1996: 379 (Clinton)
1992: 370 (Clinton)
1988: 426 (Bush)
1984: 525 (Reagan)
1980: 480 (Reagan)

8th most out of 10 elections is not a "massive rejection" of the other person.

Would you say that the country "massively rejected" Obama's opponents?

But the fact still remains that you lost. Suck it up.

 

[the_human_being]

Our culture and society are not going backward, eddy.

Your culture and society just got handed a massive rejection by the American people.

While I would like to believe this...it's not the case. Hillary won the popular vote, and barely lost the electoral college (most of the swing states were VERY close).

While Trump won fair and square, I wouldn't ever call it a "massive rejection".

I'd call it massive. Trump's electorial win is at 306. The Dems pushed their agenda too hard and lost a lot of voters over it. Most parents do not want to see a grown man in their daughter's restroom. Most white men and white women are against late term abortion. Most white men and women actually do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most white men and women do not want to see the Hyde Act repealed forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. Most white men and women do not want the federal government forcing the Nuns to hand out contraceptaives against their religios views.

White men and white women, both the undereducated and the college educated overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic Party's stance on social issues. The Democrats ignored and lost the white working class vote.

Of course you would and you are wrong. Nothing will change of any significance. People are going to still get married, without any change. Children are going to go to school together. The government is still going to try to ensure all Americans can have affordable and accessible health insurance. In public, people are going to behave at a certain level or get grabbed by the scruff of the neck. PP will continue. Roe will not be overturned.

Trump having been elected, will now turn his back on the far and alt right and socons and move to the center where the largest plurality of voters live.

I hear you Jake. You have been consistently wrong throughout the whole process.

 

[the_human_being]

Very dangerous, with the liberal war on the American family being the best example. It has progressed to the point where 75% of black kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

What's the danger of allowing gays to marry?

It is not in the best interest of society. It makes no sense to define the rule for the exception. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Why"? When have gay marriages cause harm?

Yet, they want government to stop gays from marrying but don't want government to maintain our infrastructure. These people are stupid.

I am sorry but they're.

While you are intelligent I suppose? You lost.

 

[JakeStarkey]

this is not true? - People are going to still get married, without any change. Children are going to go to school together. The government is still going to try to ensure all Americans can have affordable and accessible health insurance. In public, people are going to behave at a certain level or get grabbed by the scruff of the neck. PP will continue. Roe will not be overturned.

You are an idiot if you think that is not true.

While you are out shopping for bread buy some brains.

 

[ding]

Very dangerous, with the liberal war on the American family being the best example. It has progressed to the point where 75% of black kids are born into broken or never formed homes.

What's the danger of allowing gays to marry?

It is not in the best interest of society. It makes no sense to define the rule for the exception. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

Why"? When have gay marriages caused harm in a manner disproportionate to any harm opposite sex marriages have caused?

Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises. What happens when a standard is lowered? Usually nothing right away. It takes time to realize why the standard was established in the first place. In this instance, it is the children who will be harmed. Nature has established that male/female unions is how natural selection is passed down from generation to generation. That's the rule. That's the standard. Children need a male and a female role model in their lives. Does this mean that every child who does not have a male and female role model in their lives will be harmed? No. It means that as a rule, those children who do will be better served. So you can argue the exceptions all day long, but it will never change the rule, that a child's best interest is served by having a male and a female role model.