I agree. However moral relativism is a close second.

agreed

Agreed.

Truth may eventually prevail, but it may not happen within our lifetime. America has now endured an entire generation where truth has NOT prevailed. Arguably, the fraud started in 1989. Michael Crichton in State of Fear argued as summarized in the Wikipedia site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o...

"A key concept, delivered from the eccentric Professor Hoffman, suggests, in Hoffman's words, the existence of a "politico-legal-media" complex, comparable to the "military industrial complex," of the Cold War era. Hoffman insists climate science began using more extreme, fear-inducing terms such as "crisis," "catastrophe," and, "disaster," shortly after the fall of The Berlin Wall, in order to maintain a level of fear in citizens, for the purpose of social control, since the specter of Soviet Communism was gone. This "state of fear" gives the book its title."

We have lived in a world where A does not equal A ever since. The reason for Ayn Rand's surge in popularity is precisely because the truth has not prevailed for such a long time, just like it didn't in Atlas Shrugged for many years. When truth became a casualty, justice was not far behind.

While respect for property rights is certainly a big issue, and probably your biggest issue given your area of expertise, it is not the biggest moral issue out there right now. The biggest moral issue out there right now is one of the following: a) the piling on of debt onto the backs of producers, children, and grandchildren (who either did not or could not consent to it), b) the ease with which looters are allowed to perpetrate fraud (e.g. global warming, baseline budgeting, entitlement accounting gimmickry that would make Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff gasp, etc.), or c) the media backlash that one gets when someone tells the facts as they are.

Yes!!

Our Constitution is neutral toward all men and women. It is as close to perfect as can be for human being. The issues we have with the Constitution today is moral relativism and a lack of absolutes. Without a framework of right and wrong or good and bad nothing will properly govern.

What's unintelligent about saying the truth??

We should have coffee sometime. I'm by Metro Center.

The number of people in the Christian right has been few enough such that the Republican establishment has scorned them (and perhaps rightly so). Seriously, what has the Christian right blocked? Perhaps embryonic stem cell research, and precious little else. And in the meantime, stem cell researchers came up with a workaround that is not only more ethically reasonable, but relatively inexpensive and more likely to be successful in the long term. The effect of the Christian right has been ... minimal. As for the intellectual defense of capitalism, other than the current communist pope, most American Christians have embraced capitalism. It is the aforementioned mushmouthed moderate Republicans who have not only not defended capitalism, but have embraced cronyism (because it profits them). As for the defense of reason, I can't remember a time when either the Republicans or the Democrats have defended reason, except perhaps GHW Bush when he said, "It wouldn't be prudent."
(I liked Dana Carvey's impersonation better. See below.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QHHG...

Exactly.

You don't know yet what his "depth" is. The rest are weak beyond words and have proven it..( maybe not Fiorina...) a lot remains to be seen...get your panties out their twist and enjoy a good side of this political circus and learn what he's made of. Sheesh stop being a buzz kill.

I consider that a straightforward legal issue. One that has been being subverted judicially and legislatively. True, that subversion is immoral in my eyes as well.

For clarity on what I mean by social issues, perhaps cultural might be a better word. For example, who is offended by what... Social/cultural issue.

PS can someone please point out to me exactly where the "right" to not be offended is enshrined in the Constitution??

You referred specifically to protection of religionists' principles from being "violated". Religious principles are violated all the time in a free society and should not be "protected" from that. This has nothing to do with the political right to believe anything you want to. It is you who are obfuscating.

Religious principles are other worldly duties, which are rules. They are incompatible with the right to one's own life, liberty, property and pursuit of one's own happiness, which you left out. They are incompatible with American individualism and cannot be used to defend it as their opposite. The right to one's own life on earth cannot be defended with faith and duties to the supernatural.

The Christian right isn't responsible in the sense of having been in political leadership positions, it is responsible for blocking meaningful reform with their package-dealing of religious dogma (and the threat of imposing it), both in politics and in any intellectual defense of capitalism. They concede reason to the left and drive people away who don't want anything to do with their religious fanaticism. They are a false alternative dragging the country down with them.

I find Trump to be refreshing and funny, too. For a year or so I would catch his Golf Channel show and I got hooked a little. He's an interesting guy. I thought he was a bit of an ass, but the kind of guy I could probably hang with and/or work for. I really like how open he is in front of the camera. And, for better or worse, his comments about McCain didn't bother me. This is because I think McCain has really betrayed us lately.

There is no indication at all that Trump has the depth and knowledge to lead the country in the right direction. It is good that he is raising controversial topics that the establishment doesn't want discussed, and doing so in a non-pandering manner they don't know what to do with as he properly denounces them, but not good that he lacks the ability to properly follow up himself. He is right that they are "all talk and no action" -- on certain positions like Obamacare on which they refuse to keep their own campaign promises -- but proper action takes rational thought, which neither Trump nor the rest of them have. Promoting "action" without that is the dangerous demagoguery Ayn Rand warned about. This is too serious to treat it as "refreshment".

In writing this, I am not endorsing the Christian Right, but the Christian Right is not really responsible for the state of the US today, or even that of the Republican Party. The only presidential candidate that they really supported was Reagan, who definitely should not be blamed for the current state of affairs. Those in control on the right side of the political spectrum have always despised the Christian Right, often quite publicly. The Christian Right has not dictated the Republican candidates or agenda. If they had, Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum would have had more traction. Blaming the Christian Right for Republican failure is misplacing the blame. The same would be true if one were to try to blame the Tea Party (which includes some, but certainly far from all of those on the "Christian Right") for Republican failure. Look instead at who the Republicans have nominated since the 1980's: GHW Bush, Bob Dole, GW Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. In every case, it was a mushmouthed moderate, and in all but GW Bush's case, it was the most left-leaning Republican candidate out of those running. Being two months too young to vote for Reagan in 1984, you now see the list of candidates that I could have voted for, but didn't ... because I would not compromise my values to pick the lesser of two evils.

The real reason for the failures of the Republican Party are a) that they have adopted many of their prior enemy's objectives; b) that they refuse to stand up for anything (hence the ascendance of Trump and Walker to the top of the polls because they actually do stand up for something and oppose their enemies); and c) because they routinely stamp out opposition and ridicule anyone who stands up for Constitutional principles. The Republican Party deserves its fate not because it stands up for principles espoused by the Christian Right, but because it stands up for ... nothing.

The biggest moral issue today is the failure to protect/respect Property Rights

I just wish Trump would think a bit before opening his trap. If he could combine his strong independence with more intelligent dialogue, he could likely prevail.

He could have acknowledged McCain's war record with respect, but then lambasted his legacy as a sell-out politician all without backing down. The truth works.

The same with the religious thing. The truth works.

All individuals have a right to hold to the principles of life, liberty, and owning property....property includes their time.

Please stop trying to obfuscate reality to suit what you think should be principles.

Too many people confuse the term "principles" with "rules". Very often "rules" are an invitation to violate "principles" and "individual rights" and THAT is what is fundamentally wrong with this country today.

He didn't bow down and beg. omg... He thinks for himself. "I don't think in those terms"... YES!

Exactly.................

Maybe....maybe not. It's early. The point is that he's stirring things up and making the others take notice... the establishment is shocked that he's getting listened to as if they can't understand WHY. This playing nice guy, pussy footing around and having polite tones ISN'T WORKING! When Trump says "they're all talk and no action"...he's right. Enjoy the refreshment...the election isn't tomorrow...
He gave out Lindsay Graham's cell phone number!! LOLOLOL..

The government cannot represent everyone, with or without a Constitution, if the population does not respect individualism.