What makes people vote republican

[ninetysixcavy]

That's interesting Mr P. Your experience of the Clinton years is the complete opposite of mine, as well as the opposite of just about everybody I know :dunno:



At times it really does feel like we're circling the drain, which I'm sure is one of the reasons Obama's so popular. At the very least he seems dedicated to interrupting that cycle. While he might turn out to be a collossal failure, he also has a potential upside that McCain simply doesn't offer.


Bombadier - I read the article. I thought the author made some good points, but that at intervals his reasoning was a bit weak, even a bit convoluted. Among other things I wasn't moved by him using the functionality of the intensely stratified, authoritarian Indian culture to justify a desire in modern american republicans for the kind of structure they tend to favor.

If Obama was so popular he wouldnt' be 50/50 with an old white dude wearing diapers right now...:thefinger

Well, like, in your opinion dude.

I personally can't understand why people think there is a difference between Republican and Democrat - they are both parties which are pro-State, pro-government, pro-militarism, anti-liberty. There is no measurable difference.

cheers,

Lets not forget who supported the Iraq war. There was only a handful of democrats that voted 'nay' on one level or another for the conflict. Most of them were for it. It wasn't just Bush.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

edit.

 

[meesterperfect]

Even if every politician in the GOV was a republican abortion would still be legal.
Its partial birth abortions that would be ilegal ( I believe they are already in most states)
thats when the baby usually fully developed, is delivered up to the head then stabbed in the skull.
I can't think of how anyone could have a problem with that being illegal.
This is done often when the mother finds out the baby has Downs


Also parents of minors getting abortions would be notified if their daughter is getting an abortion.
I do see that as reasonable, especially for a child under say 16.
Also "planned parenthood" programs would also probably recieve much less public funding.
From what I've seen fron planned parenthood is they are not what the name implies at all, but really just an agent in setting up abortions for underage girls.

So take this election for example. We have Palin who is not in favor of abortion but has not tried to pass any laws making it illegal, only the things I mentioned above.
And Obama, who has voted for partial birth abortions, against parents right to know.
He couldn't or wouldn't even vote on whether a child has the right to live after it is born.

On that again I can relate to the overall republican way of thinking much more.

 

[Friday on my mind]

If Obama was so popular he wouldnt' be 50/50 with an old white dude wearing diapers right now...:thefinger

Most people have not focused on the election yet so polls are not as valid as they will be later.But we all know why this election will be close, as Obama has said he don't look like all the Presidents on the money and in the past,being black is a hurdle for many still but there is still time to get people past that.Lets wait and see how things look poll wise middle of next month after some debates between Biden and Palin where I think she will end up looking a lot more extreme with a lack of depth and knowledge to many, and Obama the young bright guy is on stage with the dottering old fool.The economy and the implosion of the financial system is going to be a key factor in the election and that may very well wipe away peoples others concerns over Obama and sweep him into office as it did Bill Clinton.

Lets not forget who supported the Iraq war. There was only a handful of democrats that voted 'nay' on one level or another for the conflict. Most of them were for it. It wasn't just Bush.

I don't know that I accept that giving Bush the authorization to threaten Iraq is the same as voting for war.I think many thought he would just use that as a big stick to get them to be more cooperative with inspectors or maybe even some air strikes.But a full scale invasion and occupation I think many thought was fool hearty and that even Bush was not that foolish.I could be wrong about that as I was wrong when I thought that even with the authorization we would not do what was done with the invasion. I really thought that GWB like his father did would see the folly in "going to baghdad".

 

[AFA]

Most people have not focused on the election yet so polls are not as valid as they will be later.But we all know why this election will be close, as Obama has said he don't look like all the Presidents on the money and in the past,being black is a hurdle for many still but there is still time to get people past that.Lets wait and see how things look poll wise middle of next month after some debates between Biden and Palin where I think she will end up looking a lot more extreme with a lack of depth and knowledge to many, and Obama the young bright guy is on stage with the dottering old fool.The economy and the implosion of the financial system is going to be a key factor in the election and that may very well wipe away peoples others concerns over Obama and sweep him into office as it did Bill Clinton.

I think that's a pretty good take on a possible future of the election, when Bubbles starts to look more and more shallow, and McCain just becomes older and more questionable about his health.

I don't know that I accept that giving Bush the authorization to threaten Iraq is the same as voting for war.I think many thought he would just use that as a big stick to get them to be more cooperative with inspectors or maybe even some air strikes.But a full scale invasion and occupation I think many thought was fool hearty and that even Bush was not that foolish.I could be wrong about that as I was wrong when I thought that even with the authorization we would not do what was done with the invasion. I really thought that GWB like his father did would see the folly in "going to baghdad".

We know the plan was drawn up before 9/11 to go into the middle east to insure the flow of oil. Saddam just happened to be an annoyance parlayed into "an immediate threat", and no one wanted "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". We still know UN inspectors were pulled out by Bush near the end of their tour which found nothing of WMD.

As we find out, in this world, no one tells the truth anymore. You just wave a flag and push forward self serving interests and teach the general population new catch phrases that assure your continued benefits to a small strategic group you represent.

 

[Evil Hobo]

THIS :rofl:

 

[AFA]

THIS :rofl:

Haha! That's pretty funny. Kids are sure to believe that's true! You know the Spanish Conquistadors did just about the same stuff in South America for God and Country.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I personally can't understand why people think there is a difference between Republican and Democrat - they are both parties which are pro-State, pro-government, pro-militarism, anti-liberty. There is no measurable difference.

Exactly. The only difference are the titles. Democrat or Republican?

I think the funniest thing about politics is how hypocritical everything is. For example, both candidates running for President of the United States are doing everything they can to promote "unity" for this country, yet...ironically...they divide themselves into two seperate parties while doing so.

"Everybody is equal and we should all unite as one!"
"Don't vote Democrat, they're not as good as us Republicans!"
"Together, we can make this world a better place!"
"To hell with Republicans, they don't know right from wrong!"

:lovecoupl + :fight: = IROOOOONY!!!

 

[Friday on my mind]

Exactly. The only difference are the titles. Democrat or Republican?

I think the funniest thing about politics is how hypocritical everything is. For example, both candidates running for President of the United States are doing everything they can to promote "unity" for this country, yet...ironically...they divide themselves into two seperate parties while doing so.

"Everybody is equal and we should all unite as one!"
"Don't vote Democrat, they're not as good as us Republicans!"
"Together, we can make this world a better place!"
"To hell with Republicans, they don't know right from wrong!"

:lovecoupl + :fight: = IROOOOONY!!!

Don't worry as things get worse and the times more desperate we will very possibly get a one party state.The only question is will it be a hard right or a hard left one.One of the functions of the two party system is to bring a moderating effect to all politics and to marginalize any extremes.Systems like the parlimentary ones in europe have multiple parties that give voice much more to the more fringe groups.That has both advantages and disadvantages.The advantage is that more feel like they have a voice and are heard,the disadvantage is that it makes consensus and governing in many ways much more difficult as you need to assemble coalitions of many diverse groups in order to have the votes to get anything done.I'm not passing judgement on whether one is better than the other as to be honest the only one I have any experience living with is the american one.
There is a saying that goes "desperate times call for desperate measures" and it is one of the lessons of history that is true IMO.People will be willing to trade in democracy for economic security if they have felt they have lost it.It has happened many times in the past to many peoples.Having a job and food and shelter is higher on almost everyones list of priorties over being able to vote.Don't get me wrong I am not saying the US is anywhere close to that now but there is no guarantee we will not be in the somewhat near future eithier.Many are comparing whats going on in the economy today to the great depression and make no mistake about it our democracy was very vunerable to being discarded at that time as it was in countries like germany who had even worse economic conditions at the time.Dictators only usually rise when people get desperate and are looking for decisive action which democracies are not well suited to give.

 

[tubuler]

Yes, but the mother isn't the one paying for it with her life.

I see what you're saying here R. But the fetus doesn't even know that it's alive. For the first few months it doesn't even have a nervous system. It experiences no pain and has no thoughts or feelings of any kind. Unlike the mother who, I can only imagine, would probably experience extreme emotional and mental distress if forced to have the baby of her rapist.

I am not completely comfortable with abortion myself and I actually think it should only be legal during the earliest stages of pregnancy. As I believe a couple weeks is more than enough time for a woman to make the decision as to whether or not she is going to go through with the pregnancy. And I definately don't think that it should be used as a form of birth control. However, I do believe in reproductive justice and a womans right to choose whether or not she will go through 9 months of pregnancy and all the physical and emotional damage that it inflicts.

 

[AFA]

Don't worry as things get worse and the times more desperate we will very possibly get a one party state.The only question is will it be a hard right or a hard left one.One of the functions of the two party system is to bring a moderating effect to all politics and to marginalize any extremes.Systems like the parlimentary ones in europe have multiple parties that give voice much more to the more fringe groups.That has both advantages and disadvantages.The advantage is that more feel like they have a voice and are heard,the disadvantage is that it makes consensus and governing in many ways much more difficult as you need to assemble coalitions of many diverse groups in order to have the votes to get anything done.I'm not passing judgement on whether one is better than the other as to be honest the only one I have any experience living with is the american one.
There is a saying that goes "desperate times call for desperate measures" and it is one of the lessons of history that is true IMO.People will be willing to trade in democracy for economic security if they have felt they have lost it.It has happened many times in the past to many peoples.Having a job and food and shelter is higher on almost everyones list of priorties over being able to vote.Don't get me wrong I am not saying the US is anywhere close to that now but there is no guarantee we will not be in the somewhat near future eithier.Many are comparing whats going on in the economy today to the great depression and make no mistake about it our democracy was very vunerable to being discarded at that time as it was in countries like germany who had even worse economic conditions at the time.Dictators only usually rise when people get desperate and are looking for decisive action which democracies are not well suited to give.

You might like to look at this, I just ordered it;

The Three Trillion Dollar War
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/0393067017

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Readers may be surprised to learn just how difficult it was for Nobel Prize-winning economist Stiglitz and Kennedy School of Government professor Bilmes to dig up the actual and projected costs of the Iraq War for this thorough piece of accounting. Using "emergency" funds to pay for most of the war, the authors show that the White House has kept even Congress and the Comptroller General from getting a clear idea on the war's true costs. Other expenses are simply overlooked, one of the largest of which is the $600 billion going toward current and future health care for veterans. These numbers reveal stark truths: improvements in battlefield medicine have prevented many deaths, but seven soldiers are injured for every one that dies (in WWII, this ratio was 1.6 to one). Figuring in macroeconomic costs and interest-the war has been funded with much borrowed money-the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion. This shocking expose, capped with 18 proposals for reform, is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how the war was financed, as well as what it means for troops on the ground and the nation's future.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description
The true cost of the Iraq War is $3 trillion—and counting—rather than the $50 billion projected by the White House.

Apart from its tragic human toll, the Iraq War will be staggeringly expensive in financial terms. This sobering study by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes casts a spotlight on expense items that have been hidden from the U.S. taxpayer, including not only big-ticket items like replacing military equipment (being used up at six times the peacetime rate) but also the cost of caring for thousands of wounded veterans—for the rest of their lives. Shifting to a global focus, the authors investigate the cost in lives and economic damage within Iraq and the region. Finally, with the chilling precision of an actuary, the authors measure what the U.S. taxpayer's money would have produced if instead it had been invested in the further growth of the U.S. economy. Written in language as simple as the details are disturbing, this book will forever change the way we think about the war.

 

[Friday on my mind]

You might like to look at this, I just ordered it;

The Three Trillion Dollar War
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/0393067017

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. Readers may be surprised to learn just how difficult it was for Nobel Prize-winning economist Stiglitz and Kennedy School of Government professor Bilmes to dig up the actual and projected costs of the Iraq War for this thorough piece of accounting. Using "emergency" funds to pay for most of the war, the authors show that the White House has kept even Congress and the Comptroller General from getting a clear idea on the war's true costs. Other expenses are simply overlooked, one of the largest of which is the $600 billion going toward current and future health care for veterans. These numbers reveal stark truths: improvements in battlefield medicine have prevented many deaths, but seven soldiers are injured for every one that dies (in WWII, this ratio was 1.6 to one). Figuring in macroeconomic costs and interest-the war has been funded with much borrowed money-the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion. This shocking expose, capped with 18 proposals for reform, is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how the war was financed, as well as what it means for troops on the ground and the nation's future.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description
The true cost of the Iraq War is $3 trillion—and counting—rather than the $50 billion projected by the White House.

Apart from its tragic human toll, the Iraq War will be staggeringly expensive in financial terms. This sobering study by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes casts a spotlight on expense items that have been hidden from the U.S. taxpayer, including not only big-ticket items like replacing military equipment (being used up at six times the peacetime rate) but also the cost of caring for thousands of wounded veterans—for the rest of their lives. Shifting to a global focus, the authors investigate the cost in lives and economic damage within Iraq and the region. Finally, with the chilling precision of an actuary, the authors measure what the U.S. taxpayer's money would have produced if instead it had been invested in the further growth of the U.S. economy. Written in language as simple as the details are disturbing, this book will forever change the way we think about the war.

The white house says 50 billion what a joke.I have heard it is 12 billion a month in direct costs.With all the other costs I would bet the 3 trillion is a fair number.Just think of what we could have done at home and to even to help the world be more safe and secure for all of us with 3 trillion.IKE is spinning in his grave.

 

[AFA]

The white house says 50 billion what a joke.I have heard it is 12 billion a month in direct costs.With all the other costs I would bet the 3 trillion is a fair number.Just think of what we could have done at home and to even to help the world be more safe and secure for all of us with 3 trillion.IKE is spinning in his grave.

It's appaling, but people do what they're told and are happy to have someone else come up with catch phrases, like freedom, democracy, war on terror, blah blah blah. Oh, it makes them feel they have conviction in something important, oh, another famous line, "Stay the course", even when going in the wrong direction. But just like Dick Cheney, I wish I had more stock in Halliburton.

I get endless emails from an old friend of mine, forwards of every patriotic, mindless piece of rhetoric he gets showing the Trade Center, troops, etc. etc. It's like a big all American, "Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet" commercial when everyone should know they're made in Mexico now because GM execs got big bonuses for cutting costs, (a.k.a. jobs).

http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/mexi_silao.jsp

 

[Friday on my mind]

It's appaling, but people do what they're told and are happy to have someone else come up with catch phrases, like freedom, democracy, war on terror, blah blah blah. Oh, it makes them feel they have conviction in something important, oh, another famous line, "Stay the course", even when going in the wrong direction. But just like Dick Cheney, I wish I had more stock in Halliburton.

I get endless emails from an old friend of mine, forwards of every patriotic, mindless piece of rhetoric he gets showing the Trade Center, troops, etc. etc. It's like a big all American, "Baseball, hotdogs, apple pie and Chevrolet" commercial when everyone should know they're made in Mexico now because GM execs got big bonuses for cutting costs, (a.k.a. jobs).

http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/north_america/mexi_silao.jsp

I'm sure he enjoyed the republican convention which was the same sort of flag waving stuff.People holding signs that said "Country first" (America Uber Alles) and breaking out into chants of USA!,USA!, USA! (sieg heil!).:eek:

Nationalism like that is always scary no matter where or who it comes from.In English or German the message is the same.

 

[AFA]

I'm sure he enjoyed the republican convention which was the same sort of flag waving stuff.People holding signs that said "Country first" (America Uber Alles) and breaking out into chants of USA!,USA!, USA! (sieg heil!).:eek:

Nationalism like that is always scary no matter where or who it comes from.In English or German the message is the same.

Like robots, really. It doesn't matter how obvious it all is. It is like that good feeling the German Youth said they felt when the Fuhrer took the stage.

Religion too. No matter what the facts, people want it. Priests blessed troops on both sides of WW2 didn't they? And we've been told Iraq is God's will through our Earthly contact in Washington.

I remember on the subject of jobs going overseas, "you know who" smirked and said we are sending the boring jobs overseas and keeping the good jobs here, and I said goodbye to radiology and hello to wiping tables at McDonalds.

A GM from Mexico update describing current plans to expand production in Central America. Now that wouldn't happen if John Wayne was still around, (uh, oh yes it would, you injuns!);

http://www.globalmanufacture.net/home/news/GM broadens.cfm

General Motors could bring hybrid vehicles and other new programs to its Ramos Arizpe operations in northern Mexico, the president of GM’s Mexican operations said Monday.

GM also is gearing up a new assembly and stamping complex in San Luis Potosi in central Mexico. Williams said the plant will be “one of the most flexible and efficient in the world” when it opens next June.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I am not completely comfortable with abortion myself and I actually think it should only be legal during the earliest stages of pregnancy. As I believe a couple weeks is more than enough time for a woman to make the decision as to whether or not she is going to go through with the pregnancy. And I definately don't think that it should be used as a form of birth control. However, I do believe in reproductive justice and a womans right to choose whether or not she will go through 9 months of pregnancy and all the physical and emotional damage that it inflicts.

No, it's definitely not.

My mom was raped twice in her teens and was impregnated both times. She didn't have either child aborted. She didn't know what to do, so she hid her pregnancy from her parents and gave the children up for adoption. She is now in her 50's and still doesn't know if what she did was right.

A few weeks to make a huge decision like that is not enough at all. Abortion is one of those issues that never has a "right" or "wrong" answer. No matter what is decided by the mother (and the father), regrets will always be there to follow them around.

That's just me, speaking from what I've seen.

 

[tubuler]

No, it's definitely not.

My mom was raped twice in her teens and was impregnated both times. She didn't have either child aborted. She didn't know what to do, so she hid her pregnancy from her parents and gave the children up for adoption. She is now in her 50's and still doesn't know if what she did was right.

A few weeks to make a huge decision like that is not enough at all. Abortion is one of those issues that never has a "right" or "wrong" answer. No matter what is decided by the mother (and the father), regrets will always be there to follow them around.

That's just me, speaking from what I've seen.

I guess as a man it's easy for me to say that a couple of weeks is enough time to make a decision like that. It seems to me like it would be. But I'll never be in that position so I can never really know.

But it is very disturbing to me when a woman procrastinates till shes 4-6 months pregnant and then decides to get an abortion. (not that I think that's common) If a woman waits that long to make the decision then she might as well just have it. Considering it's almost fully formed at that point.

Just my opinion. Tough subject.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I guess as a man it's easy for me to say that a couple of weeks is enough time to make a decision like that. It seems to me like it would be. But I'll never be in that position so I can never really know.

But it is very disturbing to me when a woman procrastinates till shes 4-6 months pregnant and then decides to get an abortion. (not that I think that's common) If a woman waits that long to make the decision then she might as well just have it. Considering it's almost fully formed at that point.

Just my opinion. Tough subject.

Yeah, same here. I 100% don't agree with or support women who wait so long to have an abortion. At that point, you kind of have to suck it up and deal with it.

 

[86150]

The earth also hasn't been destroyed by an asteroid since then either, are we supposed to attribute that to Bush? maybe we should attribute it to the power of prayer from all the faithful that kneel by their bedside every night.

sorry, but construing a (lack-of) effect to be the result of a cause to which all probability attests may very well be entirely random coincidence is not the way that thinking people operate.

Let me put it this way, there wasn't a terrorist attack on the nation for seven years before 2001 and seven years before the War On Terror; nor was there one in the following seven years under the program, so it seems just as likely that the two have zero relationship to each other.

So you are just gonna PRETEND that the World trade center WASN'T bombed before?

Let us not forget that clinton had at least two opportunities to get rid of the bastard that bombed the trade center and OH YEAH Hired 20 pieces of crap to fly planes into it 7 years ago!!!!

Revisionist history, GOTTA LOVE IT!!!!

 

[86150]

I love how you people post a question about Why people vote Republican. THEN When someone actually replies with an explanation why, the WHOLE bunch of you attack them like they are a horrible person when they do.

I personally see anybody willing to vote for obama to be less than intelligent.

The things he is promising have NEVER WORKED and history bears this out.

This even extends to some of you basically calling me stupid and oh yeah one called me a whiner because of how I believe.

The reason I believe the way I do is I believe liberalism to be a lack of intelligence, and I have yet to meet a liberal who can tell me one thing obama has actually accomplished.

Just one thing. and tell me how he is going to accomplish this "Change".

Don't ask a question about a subject if you don't want an honest answer.

I have seen people here bash republicans mercilessly, call conservatives racists, call people who believe in something higher than themselves names I won't repeat here and all in the name of a party who claims they are for "tolerance and respect for everyone".

You people can't abide anyone who has a different opinion from you. You prefer to belittle them and attack them and call names, this has happened to me more than once, though I don't figure anyone has the guts to own up to it here.

Let us not forget the Iraq war was a UN MANDATE! That means for the liberals in the audience that the UN is the one, REPEAT FOR YOU SLOW PEOPLE, THE UN is a big reason for the reason we went to IRAQ to begin with, but again REVISIONIST HISTORY will raise its ugly head again here.