- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The evangelical right is also melting
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:44 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
What we know of Jesus
Come on...
0
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:44 am to Peazey
quote:Not at all. If you think that way, you're just as ignorant of the Bible as those who think Jesus would be a Democrat political savior.
A likely excuse for you to treat people who have less than you like shite while you are on Earth. What incredible mental gymnastics.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:46 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Wrong. I want the Republican party to stop pandering to the religious right and move forward.
i'm a religious right who agrees.
we need to stop trying to swing our big moral dick around and let the church be the church and the government be the government.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:50 am to OMLandshark
quote:
They had plenty of choices between Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Scott Walker.
I know a lot of the evangelical right that we're huge Carson supporters. I'm probably part of the evangelical right, but you also have to realize the person just can't be a moral leader.
Carson had great moral qualities but he was clearly unfit as far as knowledge (especially when it comes to foreign policy) to be our president.
Cruz spews way too much hate for a lot of evangelicals and Walker never really had a chance.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:56 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
In you judging an entire group of people in the post where you are telling other people not to judge? I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through common sense.
See what you did was assume that I played by those rules. I dont buy into that bullshite, but I do find it funny that the people who do play by those rules are full of complete shite. Defend them all you want, but you are all the same.....Hypocrites!
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 10:00 am
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:56 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Yet, it has largely done just that.
Only because the Republican party still aligns with our ideals.
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 9:57 am
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:58 am to LSUaFOOL
quote:
See what you was assume that I played by those rules. I dont by into that bullshite, but I do find it funny that the people who do play by those rules are full of complete shite. Defend them all you want, but you are all the same.....Hypocrites!
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:59 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Only because the Republican party still aligns with our ideals.
You could've just said I was right from the start.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:00 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You could've just said I was right from the start.
But you aren't. You are extracting past behavior to future results.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:00 am to 3nOut
quote:
we need to stop trying to swing our big moral dick around and let the church be the church and the government be the government.
Agreed. Anyone that argues the morality of a political issue from a religious position is almost always removed from serious discussion with me.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:02 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
You are extracting past behavior to future results.
I used overwhelming empirical evidence to make a statement. When, if ever, I'm proven incorrect I'll admit to it.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:02 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Only because the Republican party still aligns with our ideals.
Or at least they pretend to...
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:07 am to 3nOut
I was pretty consistent about saying that the 2016 polls were going to be subject to higher variance than in 2012 because of the larger number of undecideds and third-party voters. I was just echoing Nate Silver on this point, who got a lot of shite from the left for giving Trump a 30% chance on election night.
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 10:07 am
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:10 am to Iosh
Wasn't calling you out. I was calling you two non raging liberal conscience objectors nor trumpkins.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:13 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
When, if ever, I'm proven incorrect I'll admit to it.
Let the Republican Party move away from Christian ideals, as you seem to be calling for, and you will be proven to be incorrect.
LINK
Looking at white, born-again Christians, what I see is a 3% increase from Romney to Trump along with a 5% decrease from Obama 2012 to Clinton. That's an 8% swing from 2012 to today. The numbers for the 2004 race are the same as the 2012 race.
The difference is greater between McCain (who I personally refused to vote for) and Trump when 74% voted for McCain and 24% voted for Obama. That is a 7% increase for Trump and an 8% decrease for Clinton. You are looking at only one part of the statistic, extracting it to future events, and then claiming this is a group of individuals who vote in lockstep. It just isn't the case.
I'm not sure I agree with the original poster that "evangelicals" lost the election for Romney, but we certainly weren't thrilled with McCain.
ETA: What this doesn't tell us is turnout numbers. I would suspect the turnout was lower for the Romney and McCain elections. I stayed home instead of voting for McCain, and would not have been even available to be polled.
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 10:17 am
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:14 am to gamatt53
This respected theologian quoted scripture wrong
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:15 am to ForeLSU
quote:
Or at least they pretend to...
Some are definitely wolves in sheep's clothing, that is true.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:19 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Let the Republican Party move away from Christian ideals, as you seem to be calling for, and you will be proven to be incorrect.
You don't think that happened with the 2016 election?
quote:
Looking at white, born-again Christians, what I see is a 3% increase from Romney to Trump along with a 5% decrease from Obama 2012 to Clinton. That's an 8% swing from 2012 to today. The numbers for the 2004 race are the same as the 2012 race.
The difference is greater between McCain (who I personally refused to vote for) and Trump when 74% voted for McCain and 24% voted for Obama. That is a 7% increase for Trump and an 8% decrease for Clinton. You are looking at only one part of the statistic, extracting it to future events, and then claiming this is a group of individuals who vote in lockstep. It just isn't the case.
I'm not sure I agree with the original poster that "evangelicals" lost the election for Romney, but we certainly weren't thrilled with McCain.
This is perfect. The Republican party has indeed moved further away from evangelicals, and those numbers have strengthened.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:22 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
What this doesn't tell us is turnout numbers.
2016: 26%
2012: 26%
2008: 26%
*edit*
As a percentage of the total turnout.
It should also be noted that 2008 had the highest turnout of the three.
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 10:23 am
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:22 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You don't think that happened with the 2016 election?
Absolutely not. Have you seen the Supreme Court short list?
quote:
The Republican party has indeed moved further away from evangelicals, and those numbers have strengthened.
You may believe this, but I would say that has more to do with Hillary than the Republican Party.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News