To Republicans past and present. Why are/were you a republican?
- Thread starter TTQ64
- Start date
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
I suspect the only answer you will accept is “I hate black people and want to bring back slavery”
So why don’t you go with that
No other answer will satisfy you
So why don’t you go with that
No other answer will satisfy you
Anti-communism.
At age 18, I was influenced by my father and older relatives, who were immigrants who had direct and adverse experiences with totalitarian Soviet and Chinese communism. On top of that, they came from a socially conservative, orthodox background which was generally not consistent with some of the liberal, free-thinking, secular traditions that came out of the 1960s.
My father was convinced that the Republican Party was more committed to resisting Soviet communism - and I went along with it. I am probably one of the few people here who have cast a vote for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.
As I got older, wiser, and more experienced, I realized that the Republican Party, especially beginning in the late 80s and early 90s, was becoming a Reactionary rightwing party beholden to our corporate overlords and fully willing to make common cause with racists and bigots. I wanted no part of that. The progressive John Andersons and Lowell Wickers of the party simply ceased to exist.
The modern Republican party is the party of George Dumbya Bush, Sarah Palin, and Donald J. Trump. There is not a thoughtful, tolerant, and free-thinking person alive today who could possibly be comfortable with that.
CharacterAssassin
Verified User
You should really get help for your drinking and intellectual cowardice.
I am glad you asked that question. I began life in my youth being very liberal. Then, as I got older and went to college to study sociology, business and economics, and learned much more about our founders beliefs and the Constitution, I realized that liberalism was based on a lie.
What is that lie you might ask? The lie that Government should provide for the people. This is exactly what our founders feared the most and, I believe, why they stated that America's demise would not come from outside of her borders, but from within. The insidious ideology of the liberal left that argues that we should trust Government to protect us and provide for us which breeds professional politicians who realize that with low information voters, they can get and stay elected by promising them stuff extracted by the government from others who "have too much."
Our Democratically controlled urban sewers are a small microcosm of the result these policies would bring to the rest of the country. Our founders didn't trust the voters, therefore, the electoral college. Our founders didn't trust politicians, therefore, the idea of a PART time legislature.
I realized that the Democratic Party was morphing into everything our founders warned us against. It's end game is a Marxist Fascism where the Government controls everything of importance and controls what is considered politically correct speech.
While the Republicans have not had a stellar record, they still represent much closer, the original intent of our founders. Therefore, I tend to vote Republican. The ultimate goal of Conservatism should be to prevent the left from gaining political power and putting their anti-Constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The left cannot win honestly anywhere it runs; therefore, it turns to dishonest jurists who attempt to legislate from the bench.
That is why I seldom vote Independent even when there are times they are not lunatics and actually make Constitutional sense.
I believe that individuals do much better when they are educated and independent with a limited Government and have choices in a free market. I believe that a Government that is limited to defending our nation, our borders, creates and defends our laws and copyrights and patents is best for the people.
Liberals will argue that they care more when they create dependency on Government handouts. I say they are creating slaves and nourishing poverty and societal decline. History is littered with the failure of the Liberal progressive ideology; why anyone would foolishly believe it is a good thing defies commons sense, intelligence and logic.
That, is what drew me into the party.
Didn't learn a damned thing all those years and grew more intolerant and ignorant. 
Yo seriously dumb dimwit; he didn't ask what made you leave the Republicans. Liberals are the most pathetic dense people on the planet.
.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Carter vs. Ford. Ford was far better.
Reagan vs. Carter. No contest there.
Reagan vs. Mondale. Mondale wasn't a bad candidate, actually probably one of the better dems in my lifetime, but Reagan had been doing a very good job.
Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis. I knew nothing about Dukakis. Bush Sr. seemed OK .
Clinton vs. Bush Sr. I considered BJ to be a low class white trash scalawag typical of Southern democrat politicians of that time (I grew up in Louisiana, google Edwin Edwards). Turned out I was right.
Bob Dole vs. Clinton. See above ^
Then I left the party. Or should I say the party left me.
As far as local politics I don't vote along party lines although lately dims seem hell bent on catering to public inebriates, criminals and ensuring lifetime wealth for muni employees that put in 20 yrs with no advanced education.
I'm a card carrying libertarian because I've seen personal and up close the inefficiency and corruption of gubmint at all levels so I'm basically anti-gubmint.
Last edited:
I was in the military when Reagan was giving us good pay raises, but I was too young to understand politics. Most of the higher ranking folks pushed the younger and newer military members towards voting Republican since Republicans were giving us better raises at that time.
After the 2014 midterms where the landslide Repub victory gave us a bunch of Repubs that wouldn't follow through on what I voted for, I knew I was done voting for Repubs, but I also knew that I wouldn't be voting Democrat either. This was the perfect storm for Trump to hijack the Repub platform, since he was fighting both the establishment Repubs that I was so angry with, AND the Democrats. It was like a completely different party, and Trump was killing two birds with one campaign. I only voted Repub this last time around because I wanted to see Trump beat both parties.
Another great argument of the Conservative point of view:
Let’s start with the concept of limited government; perhaps the most ubiquitous of conservative arguments.
It is indisputable that the framers of the Constitution believed that a limited national government was what they had designed. Hamilton may have harbored a different view, but he skipped the bulk of the deliberations in Philadelphia, and the reception to this 18 June, 6-hour monologue showed he was in a distinct minority, probably even a minority of one. I don’t want to deluge you with the numerous Founders quotes which prove this point; you’ve seen them if you are truly “open minded.”
Although the attribution of the quote is disputed, its truth forms the core (to my mind) of conservatism: “That government is best which governs least.” The national government was to focus on “external objects” such as relations (including trade) with with foreign nations and defense; the states were to focus on managing, to the minimal extent necessary, nearly everything else (see 10th Amendment).
The present size and jurisdiction of the national government is proof-positive that we have departed from the Framers design. True conservatives wish to return to that design. The mainstream GOP? Not so much. Are you, Mr. Liberal, content to have 4500+ federal crimes on the books? Really? I will presume you to be among the roughly half of Americans (55%) who actually pay federal income taxes. Are you content with the percentage of your income that the national government lays claim to? Are you content with the U.S. having among the highest corporate taxes in the world? Are you content with the nation being $20Trillion in official debt and having $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities? That doesn’t bother you? You don’t see any moral argument there? I shall forever be grateful to former Congressman Peter Stark who was honest enough to admit that “yes, the federal government can do most anything in this country.”
How did we reach this point? The national government was to attend to the things the states were “incompetent” to undertake, such as raising an Army and maintaining a Navy. Can the states not establish rules to protect their citizens? Can the states not do most of the myriad things the national government today claims the power to do?
Here is my final argument in favor of limited government (for today), and it applies to governments of all levels: All political power originates with the people (I hope we can agree on that). Government thus derives all its legitimate power from its citizens (“deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed”). If so, how did we reach the point in this country where government can demand things of me which you yourself have no right (or power) to demand? Can you yourself demand that I only use certain types of light bulbs? Can you demand that my toilet only flush so much water? Can you demand I only build my fence so high? Can you demand I not install a pond on my land? If you lack the legitimate right (and power) to order these things, where does government obtain the power to inflict this level of control?
Of course, my view of liberals is that they are quite content with a government that controls every aspect of their lives, that tells them what to do — the more control the better — the bigger the government the better. “Whew! that takes so much responsibility off my shoulders,” they seem to be saying.
Conservatives want less government, you liberals want more. What’s your”cogent, coherent, fact-based argument” in favor of even more government?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...tively-and-earnestly-championed-by-todays-GOP
Let’s start with the concept of limited government; perhaps the most ubiquitous of conservative arguments.
It is indisputable that the framers of the Constitution believed that a limited national government was what they had designed. Hamilton may have harbored a different view, but he skipped the bulk of the deliberations in Philadelphia, and the reception to this 18 June, 6-hour monologue showed he was in a distinct minority, probably even a minority of one. I don’t want to deluge you with the numerous Founders quotes which prove this point; you’ve seen them if you are truly “open minded.”
Although the attribution of the quote is disputed, its truth forms the core (to my mind) of conservatism: “That government is best which governs least.” The national government was to focus on “external objects” such as relations (including trade) with with foreign nations and defense; the states were to focus on managing, to the minimal extent necessary, nearly everything else (see 10th Amendment).
The present size and jurisdiction of the national government is proof-positive that we have departed from the Framers design. True conservatives wish to return to that design. The mainstream GOP? Not so much. Are you, Mr. Liberal, content to have 4500+ federal crimes on the books? Really? I will presume you to be among the roughly half of Americans (55%) who actually pay federal income taxes. Are you content with the percentage of your income that the national government lays claim to? Are you content with the U.S. having among the highest corporate taxes in the world? Are you content with the nation being $20Trillion in official debt and having $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities? That doesn’t bother you? You don’t see any moral argument there? I shall forever be grateful to former Congressman Peter Stark who was honest enough to admit that “yes, the federal government can do most anything in this country.”
How did we reach this point? The national government was to attend to the things the states were “incompetent” to undertake, such as raising an Army and maintaining a Navy. Can the states not establish rules to protect their citizens? Can the states not do most of the myriad things the national government today claims the power to do?
Here is my final argument in favor of limited government (for today), and it applies to governments of all levels: All political power originates with the people (I hope we can agree on that). Government thus derives all its legitimate power from its citizens (“deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed”). If so, how did we reach the point in this country where government can demand things of me which you yourself have no right (or power) to demand? Can you yourself demand that I only use certain types of light bulbs? Can you demand that my toilet only flush so much water? Can you demand I only build my fence so high? Can you demand I not install a pond on my land? If you lack the legitimate right (and power) to order these things, where does government obtain the power to inflict this level of control?
Of course, my view of liberals is that they are quite content with a government that controls every aspect of their lives, that tells them what to do — the more control the better — the bigger the government the better. “Whew! that takes so much responsibility off my shoulders,” they seem to be saying.
Conservatives want less government, you liberals want more. What’s your”cogent, coherent, fact-based argument” in favor of even more government?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...tively-and-earnestly-championed-by-todays-GOP
No, they are not. You can cling to that pile of stupid if it helps you to sleep at night snowflake. But I would argue that anyone who argues FOR Government welfare and dependency isn't smart at all. They are naive and really quite ignorant of economists, history and human psychology.
If many felt like you do and had abandoned the Republican Party for ideological purity, Hillary would be the one choosing Supreme Court Justices right now instead of Trump.
I want you to think about that and let is soak in for a moment.
If many felt like you do and had abandoned the Republican Party for ideological purity, Hillary would be the one choosing Supreme Court Justices right now instead of Trump.
I want you to think about that and let is soak in for a moment.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
If enough felt like me we would have had Ron Paul for eight yrs., smaller gubmint,
You're basically making the old argument that I wasted my vote. We all pretty much do. Our one vote one way or another wouldn't have changed a thing in any election with the exception of Florida in '00. If I lived in a swing state like Ohio or Florida I'd definitely take your advice into consideration. AK is solid red. As far is the hildebeest is concerned , she's so hated here that she got something like 10 or 15% in the caususes. Dims either voted for Trump, Johnson or stayed home.
Last edited:
I would probably have had to cave in and vote for the lesser of two evils and voted Repub, but I doubt that any of those other Repubs would have been able to survive the coup we are seeing for as long as Trump has. There were probably a dozen other dossiers in the works...
Loving91390
Verified User
I grew up ....
You are actually way too feeble and mind-numbingly boring for me to waste my valuable time on. Bye.
So I guess you missed the "providing for the ..... general welfare" and "promote the general welfare " phrases in the Constitution, funny how the Founding Fathers, who you said this is what they "feared the most," took the time to repeat the same thought a number of times in the same document
The rest of your post is pure talk radio rhetoric, which probably better describes how and why you became a Republican