Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Scott Esk Wants Homosexuals Put To Death

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm guessing you're a white, straight male. That might be a big reason why social issues are less of a concern to you than economic ones.

I am; however, social issues a huge concern to me, especially gay rights. Attitudes like Esk's actually make me viscerally angry. If I'm honest my first reaction to the thread title was that I want HIM executed along with everyone who agrees with him, though that's not a productive reaction, so I tempered it in my post a bit to "I hope all these guys die off and their views made extinct demographically".

I just try to be practical when it's time to vote, and ask what the actual real-world impact of X candidate being elected will be. If I'm convinced that in spite of their holding social views I don't agree with, none of those will actually be put into practice, the impact of the candidate's economic policy massively outweighs any antiquated social perspectives.

Maintaining a litmus test on social issues has caused and continues to cause a lot of problems as far as I'm concerned in the political discourse because it allows these things to be used as wedge issues on which elections are decided when they have a much smaller overall impact than other, less emotionally charged issues. In my opinion it's important not to fall into all or nothing thinking.

For example, if I like everything a staunchly pro-life, abortion is murder candidate has to say on other issues, and he's clear that in spite of his views the law is settled and he will not support anti-abortion legislation, I won't let our different perspectives prevent me from voting for him.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I am; however, social issues a huge concern to me, especially gay rights. Attitudes like Esk's actually make me viscerally angry. If I'm honest my first reaction to the thread title was that I want HIM executed along with everyone who agrees with him, though that's not a productive reaction, so I tempered it in my post a bit to "I hope all these guys die off and their views made extinct demographically".

I just try to be practical when it's time to vote, and ask what the actual real-world impact of X candidate being elected will be. If I'm convinced that in spite of their holding social views I don't agree with, none of those will actually be put into practice, the impact of the candidate's economic policy massively outweighs any antiquated social perspectives.

Maintaining a litmus test on social issues has caused and continues to cause a lot of problems as far as I'm concerned in the political discourse because it allows these things to be used as wedge issues on which elections are decided when they have a much smaller overall impact than other, less emotionally charged issues. In my opinion it's important not to fall into all or nothing thinking.

For example, if I like everything a staunchly pro-life, abortion is murder candidate has to say on other issues, and he's clear that in spite of his views the law is settled and he will not support anti-abortion legislation, I won't let our different perspectives prevent me from voting for him.

Interesting.

I think social policies beget economic polices and not the other way around. many economic policies are inherently social policies in and of themselves. Taxation, civil rights, infrastructure projects, all stem from a social need or decree. Universal health care, environmental, and justice legislation as examples.

[Aarongavey]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5486678

I cannot believe his wife divorced him, some strong GOP ideas in there, why the GOP is wasting him on a state race, this guy has national potential.

Some highlights

- Jury trials for divorce (he was happily married until frivolous divorce raised its ugly head in his house). He does not believe it is unfair to force someone to stay in an unhappy marriage

- he is against all forms of gun licensing

- believes the state should not pay for education (because it is not the proper role of government)

This guy says what most republicans think, he puts his mouth where his beliefs are.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Interesting. I think social policies beget economic polices and not the other way around. many economic policies are inherently social policies in and of themselves. Taxation, civil rights, infrastructure projects, all stem from a social need or decree. Universal health care, environmental, and justice legislation as examples.

100% true.

I guess I'm not being clear, because I'm not drawing a strict line between economic and social policy, but attempting to weight my voting decision based on the real-world impact of what I think a candidate will actually do when elected. As opposed to, "this guy believes X, I believe Y, notwithstanding that this will amount to nothing once he's in office, I cannot vote for him". Or in other cases, maybe it will amount to something I disagree with, but on balance I think the effect of that person being in office will work out better for his/her constituents than the alternative. It's really just a utilitarian analysis and I try not to have immediate disqualifiers.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5486678

I cannot believe his wife divorced him, some strong GOP ideas in there, why the GOP is wasting him on a state race, this guy has national potential.

Some highlights

- Jury trials for divorce (he was happily married until frivolous divorce raised its ugly head in his house). He does not believe it is unfair to force someone to stay in an unhappy marriage

- he is against all forms of gun licensing

- believes the state should not pay for education (because it is not the proper role of government)

This guy says what most republicans think, he puts his mouth where his beliefs are.

Sarcasm and hyperbole are dangerous in threads like this.

[strombad]

I think I get what 19Yeezy is saying.

I, personally, have all my political beliefs on a spectrum. If a candidate is an exact match socially, then there is a "range" if you will where his stance on other subjects can fall outside of my own and still be considered acceptable. Same goes if his economic stance matches up perfectly, I will give his social stance a certain amount of leeway of difference from my own.

That... and I live in Alberta, so I basically just always vote for the least amount of evil that actually stands a chance of winning.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I just try to be practical when it's time to vote, and ask what the actual real-world impact of X candidate being elected will be. If I'm convinced that in spite of their holding social views I don't agree with, none of those will actually be put into practice, the impact of the candidate's economic policy massively outweighs any antiquated social perspectives.

The problem is that we still need more progressive policies to address our still very present systemic and social inequalities. Addressing these issues isn't simply a matter of not enacting regressive and reactionary legislation. There's still a lot of work to be done.

Maintaining a litmus test on social issues has caused and continues to cause a lot of problems as far as I'm concerned in the political discourse because it allows these things to be used as wedge issues on which elections are decided when they have a much smaller overall impact than other, less emotionally charged issues. In my opinion it's important not to fall into all or nothing thinking.

They have lot smaller overall impact for you (and I'm using "you" in a broad sense), because you're a white dude (as am I).

For example, if I like everything a staunchly pro-life, abortion is murder candidate has to say on other issues, and he's clear that in spite of his views the law is settled and he will not support anti-abortion legislation, I won't let our different perspectives prevent me from voting for him.

Right, but it's hardly ever that simple. Usually these views are rooted in patriarchal beliefs that bleed into other policies.

[CaptainCrunch]

The sad thing for the Republicans is that they have a dream democrat in the office of the president right now, and its clear there is a lot of anger at Obama with his approval rate and the situation in the mid term elections.

But instead of being smart and finding a good candidate who is heavy on the fundamentals of government and the economy, they have been hijacked by the craziest element of society.

Hillary is unfortunately going to walk into the white house un-oppossed.

[CaramonLS]

I'm not sure it is even valid to say Republican candidates are really running on economic issues. Take the ACA for example, they are running on 'Repeal and Replace' (nice little buzz word), but as of yet, there has been no substantive alternative proposed by the Republican Party.

As of right now they dogmatic in their belief of cutting taxes and really not much else. That's about the only thing they can uniformly say on economic issues.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Right, but it's hardly ever that simple. Usually these views are rooted in patriarchal beliefs that bleed into other policies.

To the extent they do this in any meaningful way wouldn't that impact my approval or disapproval of those other policies, thereby making me less likely to vote for the person? Or are you implying that I wouldn't notice because I'm white?

I guess what it comes down to is that if you maintain adamantine adherence to a particular policy point, i.e. "I won't vote for any candidate who supports gay marriage", or "I won't vote for any candidate who supports Northern Gateway", or any other individual issue, is a cause of the unfortunate state of politics. This is especially true in the USA, and it is especially true of issues that people tend to respond to emotionally and viscerally.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I'm not sure it is even valid to say Republican candidates are really running on economic issues. Take the ACA for example, they are running on 'Repeal and Replace' (nice little buzz word), but as of yet, there has been no substantive alternative proposed by the Republican Party.

As of right now they dogmatic in their belief of cutting taxes and really not much else. That's about the only thing they can uniformly say on economic issues.

Of course they aren't running on economics.

It's intentionally misleading. Republican power in the last 40-50 years has revolved almost exclusively around bigotry in one form or another. That's a bold statement that is likely to bother some posters on here whether they self-identify as republican or not, but all their major historical platforms, even now, revolve almost exclusively around social policies to limit the rights and liberty of minority groups. Black, gay, Mexican, irreligious, women. Many of the power brokers creating policy in that regard may or may not believe these things, but that is the framework the party is built on.

It is the uncomfortable truth of American politics, and it's been this way for a long, long time. The 'economics' aspect of the party is pure bull####.

[Coys1882]

Trust me - this Scott Esk fella, he wants the 'D'

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Trust me - this Scott Esk fella, he wants the 'D'

Only a matter of time before hes found with a gay prostitute. Book it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

To the extent they do this in any meaningful way wouldn't that impact my approval or disapproval of those other policies, thereby making me less likely to vote for the person? Or are you implying that I wouldn't notice because I'm white?

No, I'm saying you're more likely to sacrifice more socially progressive policies in favour of economically beneficial tactics because you have nothing to personally gain or lose from the social policies. It's all well and good for a white dude to say "Well he's a little racist and sexist, but he promises he won't implement any racist or sexist policies, and his economic platform seems solid," than say a woman of colour who may see her already disadvantaged social status/mobility stagnate under said politician.

Basically, you as a white guy are determining what level of economic vs. social trade-off is acceptable, despite not being personally affected or, in most cases benefiting extensively, from the existing social and economic structures.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

For example, if I like everything a staunchly pro-life, abortion is murder candidate has to say on other issues, and he's clear that in spite of his views the law is settled and he will not support anti-abortion legislation, I won't let our different perspectives prevent me from voting for him.

I talked to some people before 2012 election who said they were voting for Romney because he was anti abortion. That was their #1 reason for voting for him. I'm pretty sure the religious factor figured heavily and the whiteness, but they went with abortion.

[DuffMan]

GOP is the old white mans party, unfortunately for them, America is getting less white and old and man. Not to mention less religious, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist, etc etc.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

GOP is the old white mans party, unfortunately for them, America is getting less white and old and man. Not to mention less religious, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist, etc etc.

It'll be fun times when enough Mexicans move into Texas that the GOP loses their strongest base of support. They are definitely the party of short sightedness

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I talked to some people before 2012 election who said they were voting for Romney because he was anti abortion. That was their #1 reason for voting for him. I'm pretty sure the religious factor figured heavily and the whiteness, but they went with abortion.

I think it happens most on this issue too.

I see a lot of bumper stickers, moreso in Kansas than here in Montana, saying "We vote Pro-Life".

It takes a true idiot to make every democratic decision in his life on one issue....and one that is extremely unlikely to change in the eyes of the law to boot.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

It'll be fun times when enough Mexicans move into Texas that the GOP loses their strongest base of support. They are definitely the party of short sightedness

You don't even need to count on new immigrants from Mexico (legal or otherwise); there are currently nearly a million Hispanics in Texas under the age of 18. When they reach voting age in the coming years, the Lone Star State suddenly comes into play and could potentially flip blue. If that happens, the Republicans will never win the White House again unless they significantly change their policies.

[nik-]

Unless the Hispanics vote along their religion. There's a lot of poor white trash that should vote for the Democrats as a result of economic policy who still vote for the party that sells them out to corporations because they align with their good book. I'd suggest that people coming from Mexico/Central and South America are in general more religious than the average American.