Republican tribalism? Is there a place for moderates?

[DanieltheDragon]

I love my Sirius radio. The hundreds of channels available and more importantly glorious talk radio. While I'm sitting in the pickup lane for my kid as he is released from school I enjoy sitting back and listening to political talk radio.

A rather nasty trend I have been noticing is how dramatically different conservative talk radio has become. There has always been tribalism in politics whether your democrat or republican. Usually ire is directed at the other tribe. Trump has changed things. A schism if you will has formed. Instead of railing against the other tribe. Conservatives are railing against each other. What used to be a simmering distaste for the less fervent conservatives. Has turned into unadulterated ire.

The Roy Moore situation couldn't be more revealing. You have the Hannity's and Wilko's vilifying Mitch McConnel because McConnel wants a pedophile to step out of the race. Now it's not just the "libs" they are now railing against "mainstream republicans" often calling them things like the "republican wing of the Democratic Party". People like Michael Steele and Joe Scarborough are the enemy never mind that one was the head of the RNC and the other was a republican senator.

Has the extremist wing of the Republican Party taken over completely?

Is there room for moderate republicans in the New Republican Party?

[Bust Nak]

Are you making a moral argument or a legal one?

Both, I guess, but I don't understand why Moore isn't being charged.

I went and looked it up, apparently there is a statute of limitation even for molesting a minor. I found that surprising.

[bluethread]

Are you making a moral argument or a legal one?

Both, I guess, but I don't understand why Moore isn't being charged.

Given your argument I presume that you would consider many leaders around the world as not worthy of office, most notably, Brazilian president Michel Temer (76), who's wife is 34.

Nah, she was an adult when they started dating.

As you stated in a later post, there is a statute of limitations. The reason for that is that pedophilia is hard enough to prove in the year of the alleged event. Forty years later, it is nearly impossible. My point was that we supposedly have a system where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of one's peers. My second point was in response to your "half his age" comment. Do you think that age difference alone is a moral consideration? If so, on what do you base that.

I personally have moral problems with marital practices prior to the latter 20th century, but aren't you a proponent of separation of church and state?

Yes, a strong one at that. Why did you ask? You seem to be suggesting that there iIs some inconsistency with my stance.

The reason is that the "age difference" argument seems to be one of personal morality than one of social necessity. All of the other accusations are simply matters age difference.

[Wootah]

Christians often get told their religion focuses on sex too much.

But apparently so do non Christians.

Victory is the only thing that matters here. We will know this when none of the accusations go to trial.

20 years of the Bill and Hillary sex show and now lefties are moral.

Meanwhile someones daughter will get raped and tye criminal will get a mild sentence or a paedophile will be defended because its a natural impulse.

Is anyone honest enough to admit they care only because of politics and the morality is just a convenient handgrenade right now?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 23 by Wootah]

I am right there with you about the Clintons, Fraken, Trump, Weiner, Weinstein, Moore, and many others. It's not necessarily sex that bothers me it's the abuse of power. People male or Female who abuse power when given the opportunity are not fit for office plain and simple.

Would you not agree that our political leaders should be the best of us?

If someone is willing to abuse power to give themselves self gratification do you really think they are seeking more power for the betterment of the community or self engrandisment?

The me me me me politician is not someone to look up to or defend.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

My "half his age" comment was referring to one of the meme that's doing the rounds on reddit with people defending Moore against the accusations.

You should know by now I am the forum's most outspoken moral subjectivist. All moral consideration ultimately boils down to personal preferences, and that include separation of church and state, and age difference in romantic relationships.

[Tcg]

Is anyone honest enough to admit they care only because of politics and the morality is just a convenient handgrenade right now?

You mean like if someone made a statement like this, "20 years of the Bill and Hillary sex show and now lefties are moral."?

I'd be strongly suspicious of their motivation for making such an inflammatory statement. I'd also wonder why they would make the logically inaccurate mistake of accusing all "lefties" of some imaginary guilt they have assigned without justification and wonder why they think a person's political leaning has any reflection on their morality.

So yes, I am honest enough to admit that this is a clear case of morality being used as a convenient "handgrenade" right now. The bigger question is, are you willing to admit it?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

My "half his age" comment was referring to one of the meme that's doing the rounds on reddit with people defending Moore against the accusations.

You should know by now I am the forum's most outspoken moral subjectivist. All moral consideration ultimately boils down to personal preferences, and that include separation of church and state, and age difference in romantic relationships.

OK, so do you give Moore a pass on the legal dating with the 16 year olds? Is it acceptable to condemn people for acting in ways that were acceptable at the time, but are not now. How about things that are acceptable now, but were unacceptable in the past?

[Bust Nak]

OK, so do you give Moore a pass on the legal dating with the 16 year olds?

No.

Is it acceptable to condemn people for acting in ways that were acceptable at the time, but are not now.

I would argue it was not acceptable to the general public at the time either, 40 years wasn't that long ago. But to answer your question, it depends on how I feel about a particular issue - with dating a minor, when the life expectancy were in the high 30's, then it's acceptable.

How about things that are acceptable now, but were unacceptable in the past?

That's fine. Things that are acceptable now is acceptable now. I am also fine with things that are acceptable now, but might not be in the future, by then I will not be fine with it.

In case it isn't immediately clear - "acceptable" without further qualifier, to a subjectivist means acceptable by the speaker, i.e. acceptable to me. So all of the above is just a round about way of saying, if it is acceptable to me now, then it trivially is acceptable to me now - I am the sole judge on what is and isn't acceptable.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 27 by bluethread]

Do you think its acceptable for men in their 30s dating teenagers? I get why some might defend his political views I just dont get the defense of his character.

[amortalman]

Has the extremist wing of the Republican Party taken over completely?

Sadly, it appears so. I think much of the nasty animosity we're seeing between political rivals took off when Trump the Mouth started swinging personal insults at anyone who disagreed with him. When the first punch is thrown the fight is on.

Integrity and decorum retreated with red faces.

Then, the talking heads on cable television realized that the entertainment crazed masses love a good fight and the nastier it is the better. A civilized dialog was too boring.

Is there room for moderate republicans in the New Republican Party?

John Kasich offered moderation with tact and intelligence but it couldn't find it's feet in the super-charged political atmosphere.

Barak Obama's eight years of letting America down and making weaknesses a virtue had so angered most Americans that they were ripe for someone with brash promises and half a backbone to claim the throne. Too bad we elected a child narcissist with visions of grandeur.

What does all this have to do with religion? Seems all one has to do to win the evangelical vote is carry around a Bible and be willing to stuff it down someone's throut. Yea! God's man!