APP - What Makes People Vote Republican

Mott the Hoople said:
If you accept the premise that it is always in their best interest to do so. I'd call that a false premise myself. There's to much evidence that that Republican economic policy, if tax cuts can be called an economic policy, benefit mainly the wealthy. Often at the expense of the poor and workign classes.

That is, unless you prescribe to the Milo Minderbinder school of economics.
Click to expand...
Nobody is going to vote AGAINST their best interests. Where you fail is in accepting others may believe different avenues are more beneficial to their respective best interests. Another place you fail is assuming that tax cuts is the only card in republican fiscal policy. There are other policies, mostly which involve "hands off" and therefore are not as apparent as writing new laws to rip people off to buy the votes of a governmentally enslaved voting block - but it is, none the less, a policy.

Another place your assumptions are, contrary to your direct lies, unproven is that tax cut benefit of the wealthy is often at the expense of the poor and working classes. Certainly when regulations are reduced to practical non-existence it gives big money interests the ability to advance themselves at the cost of those doing the work. But tax policies alone do NOTHING of the sort. Contrarily, allowing corporations to keep more of their profits also allows (when proper and reasonable regulations and enticements are in place to prevent them from sending it all over seas to avoid any taxes at all) corporations to expand. The idea that they are going to simply take the (extra) money and run is sheer ignorance. They will USE that money to expand for the purpose of making themselves MORE money. But in the process of expanding (again, if reasonable regulations and enticements help keep said expansion home) that expansion will benefit the workers, add jobs thereby benefitting the poor, and generally stimulate the economy which benefits everyone.

Of course, when said expansion is allowed by lack of regulations to move into sectors outside the U.S., then, the workers and poor and general economy STILL BENEFIT. They just happen to not be OUR workers and poor and general economy. Thus, it is other policies, and NOT the tax cut policies, which have failed to provide benefit to our economy. Policies sold to J.Q. Public and brought to being under certain OTHER, non-republican administrations...
 
Interesting.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRzU8q4M8sQ"]YouTube- The difference between the English and Americans[/ame]
 
midcan5 said:
That's even more presumptuous than the OP. :)

The above youtube hits on some whys.
Click to expand...
Yeah, wisdom can always be found on a TV show where they crush cars with pianos...

I am skeptical of the benevolence of Government, you are a Believer...

And they are entirely wrong about Justice. The Constitution doesn't elevate Freedom of Speech above Justice, it ensures what we call "Equal Justice"...
 
midcan5 said:
That's even more presumptuous than the OP. :)

The above youtube hits on some whys.
Click to expand...
Why is that? Logic and reason do not always arrive at the same conclusions - especially if one starts using different assumptions.

Liberal elitism gets you nothing - even when it comes from a couple of clueless Brits.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well why don't we just build a wall around our country, scramble all the airwaves and sattelitte networks and just inbreed ourselves to death?

Why the xenophobia dude? What are you scared of?
Click to expand...

I hope you're joking, right? By classical education, I mean, the study of Greek, Latin, and foreign languages such as French, world history and geography, reading the classics from Homer and Virgil on up to Melville, and so forth. In the past, even though Americans were politically more isolationist, they were educated with a greater appreciation for the outside world, and therefore a much better understanding of it as well.
 
Threedee said:
I hope you're joking, right? By classical education, I mean, the study of Greek, Latin, and foreign languages such as French, world history and geography, reading the classics from Homer and Virgil on up to Melville, and so forth. In the past, even though Americans were politically more isolationist, they were educated with a greater appreciation for the outside world, and therefore a much better understanding of it as well.
Click to expand...
Apparently you weren't. Why the xenophobia dude? (BTW, Melville was from New England, just ask Ishmael!)
 
Southern Man said:
They can't find a job because socialist policies have destroyed the economy, so now you advocate more socialism...
Click to expand...

Socialist policies destroyed the economy? You mean like hidden financial products? You mean like Greenspan saying not to worry about fraud? Are those the socialist policies you're talking about?
 
apple0154 said:
Socialist policies destroyed the economy? You mean like hidden financial products? You mean like Greenspan saying not to worry about fraud? Are those the socialist policies you're talking about?
Click to expand...
I mean like Bwarny Fwank forcing banks to lend to people would couldn't afford the loans.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, wisdom can always be found on a TV show where they crush cars with pianos...

I am skeptical of the benevolence of Government, you are a Believer...
Click to expand...

First sentence? explain.

Second sentence no makee no sensee. WE are government, we are a republic, 'belief' is for the religious. I was watching a hearing today on autism and its increase on cspan, and the hearing was from OUR government. Is this not good or are you so anti YOUR government that you think business cares about autism or would do anything about it except profit from it. Good people make up government too. 'Benevolence' too is irrelevant if pollutants are causing the sudden increase in autism. Criminal or incompetence is more likely from your good guys. Or in fairness do you distrust them equally. Or are you so blind you think the market will create all good things. See the difference here - actually points back to the OP and the emotional group think of conservatives - I noticed the thumbs up for the non reason from a real gem of a poster. LOL


"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes




"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey
 
Good Luck said:
In short, you agree with the tenet that conservative thought is dead assed wrong, so you see nothing wrong with labeling it "dysfunctional" and therefore liberals are right, democrats are right, and conservative republicans should STFU and let liberals take control of everything.
Click to expand...

Talking about Obama's statement "don't come with tired, worn out arguments" Conservative arguments of the past have been dead wrong just as Greenspan's arguments over the last two decades have been shown to be dead wrong as witnessed by the near financial collapse.

When something has been shown to be wrong, when dire circumstances arise due to faulty arguments, most sensible people do STFU.

(Did you see the segment on Jon Stewart about the Conservative prognostications regarding Iraq? I don't have the clip handy but besides being hilarious I think (hope) you'll find it enlightening. Check it out.)

And to answer a specific claim of yours:
"Distant authority, which covers authority over larger groups of people, tends to be less rigid and more accommodating. It has to consider a variety of differences among people. "
You are completely off your rocker if you actually believe this. Have you ever once in your LIFE dealt with federal regulations? They are the LEAST flexible, and MOST likely to not fit a particular situation. Not to mention distant authority is least controllable by the people.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said more accommodating and less nit-picking. It is local authority that interferes in the every day lives of citizens. As to be less controllable by people that is a good thing precisely because local authority interferes more.

Distant authority has to make laws that include a large population meaning it's not left up to a small group of tyrants wanting to impose their will on others like small town councils frequently do. For example, why I should I be permitted to build a fence if I live in one community but prohibited to do so if I live in another community? Either having a fence is good or not good and should not be left up to those who are on power trips.

But you missed the point anyway. Haidt claims conservatives LIKE authority because it provides stability. He claims that authority/respect is a psychological system of conservative philosophy. "authority/respect (involving ancient primate mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates" Given that claim, how do you explain Conservative demands for smaller government? How do you explain the fact that one of the largest current complaints of conservatives is they do NOT trust government (ie: authority) to do right by the People? Conservative philosophy believes in personal authority, not institutional. We believe that any hierarchies needed for government or private institutions to run are artificial, and therefore should be fluid. We do NOT automatically respect authority, we mistrust it and demand the system be set up so as to maximize the People's control over it, even while acknowledging the need for hierarchical authority.

And, conversely, how do you explain the liberal philosophy that bigger, more regulatory government is GOOD, coupled with the attitude that people who are financially successful have an obligation to those who are not ("obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates"), and it is therefore government authority's job to force those with economic authority to provide for their "subordinates"?

In short, Liberalism is the philosophy that promotes the idea of attaining security through authority and a forced obligation of superiors toward subordinates, not conservatism. Therefore claiming conservatives are motivated by some basic "psychological system" of respect for authority are so far off the mark as to be beyond belief - unless it is a deliberate lie to support the basic liberal concept that they are the sole holders of "truth".
Click to expand...

The difference is Conservative authority focuses on the behavior of others. It is the Conservative whom likes town councils, the fluidity to change things to suit their personal preferences, direct interference in other people's lives. Stated another way they want to run the people in their little corner of the world their way. They want direct authority over people in matters that should not be their business.

Liberals, or at least I, believe in a few, general laws that apply to everyone. Passing a law should be the last resort after exhausting other solutions. The same laws should apply across the board.

The laws Liberals favor are laws that protect people as opposed to laws that satisfy a person's preference. For example, laws regarding pollution. They concern everyone. Laws treating people fairly. They concern everyone.

A good example is charity. If Conservatives believe in helping people and are, as they claim, big charity givers why the opposition to government supervised programs? Well, the reason is Conservatives are big charity givers to the charities they like, not necessarily to charities, in general. For example, many Conservatives are against social programs for single mothers. Are they likely to give to a charity supporting single mothers?

Social programs is one of the main reasons I prefer government involvement. Help is determined by a person's financial status, not why they are poor. Who is a town most likely to help; the widow who plays the church organ or a lady like this? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szsA1DA9cF8"]YouTube- HICKORY HOLLERS TRAMP[/ame]
 
Southern Man said:
I mean like Bwarny Fwank forcing banks to lend to people would couldn't afford the loans.
Click to expand...

If the banks had not sold those loans under the false pretense they were triple A investments they wouldn't have had all that money to loan. If those transactions were government supervised the banks wouldn't have had so much money to loan. If Greenspan had listened to Brooksley Born instead of allowing fraud to proliferate....
 
apple0154 said:
If the banks had not sold those loans under the false pretense they were triple A investments they wouldn't have had all that money to loan. If those transactions were government supervised the banks wouldn't have had so much money to loan. If Greenspan had listened to Brooksley Born instead of allowing fraud to proliferate....
Click to expand...
Bwarnry was warned that the existing government regulations were being ignored.

Falcon was the chief regulator attempting to bring order to the houses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the first four years of this decade, and had he been listened to, a significant part of the housing crisis could have been mitigated. Instead his agency was denied serious regulatory power by Democrats in Congress including liberals such as Reps. Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, both of whom assumed he was undermining public support for more affordable housing.
Click to expand...
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_whistleblower_they_ignored_20100414/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top