Why won't anyone admit to being a republican?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Xanthious:

Meanwhile if people want to pay so the poor can have things like cable television and iPhones I say more power to them. They should go file their 990 paperwork and start up collecting money for just that cause. However, private citizens should not be forced into paying for these things by the government.

I'm relatively relaxed about this sort of thing, largely out of pragmatism rather than ideology.

If you're talking about the unemployed, yes they can be trimmed down close to the basics. However, perhaps 15% of the USA is in poverty, but only 5% of US adults are unemployed (normally, ex-recession). That suggests to me the majority of American households in poverty have a job-holder. Realistically, plenty of the 5% unemployed will have a job at some point in the average year.

This makes for the first point, that the rewards for having a job need to be greater than those for being unemployed. If the unemployed can have a TV and ceiling fans, the employed poor can have HBO and A/C. Neither have holidays to Bermuda.

There are also going to be issues impossible to bureaucratically control for. If a family has bought some household knick-knacks during a period of relative prosperity but since fallen on harder times, I don't think it is moral or practical to financially penalise them for it. Similarly if they receive gifts from friends and relatives. Households may be subjected to differences in living costs within similar administrative boundaries. And whatever else.

These and many other issues mean that a sum to give one family just enough to get by might mean the same sum leaves another superficially in the same position with a level of luxuries. But the administrative effort and costs to means test on a case-by-case basis to enforce parity is very likely to be ineffective and/or inefficient.

* * *

I would stress, however, I am not disagreeing with your objections to specificities such as food stamps or fraud problems in the US welfare system. I simply don't know enough about them to comment.

WHy they wont admit it on the Escapist? Because they usually get eaten alive. I've kinda been down that road, and it's not fun having over 8 different people quoting you and expecting an answer for what you think.

Outside of the Escapist? There are quite a few rational thinking republicans that wont admit it because they will be automatically thrown into the same bin as the crazy republicans.

I'm a republican, I also hardly come on here. It's a bit too liberal for my tastes. A "possible" explanation for "possible" republicans claiming not to be is that it would give their posts validity. In the same way that it would be more effective for someone who was taking a defensive stance in an pro/against religion argument to claim not to be religious regardless of whether or not the person actually was religious, to avoid being dismissed as biased.

Maybe republicans just need to out themselves? I mean, how hard can it be to sit everyone down and go "Mom, dad, there's something I need to talk about. I've always known that I've been weird and different, but now I know what it is. I'm a republican".

Sure the "What have we done wrong?" laments and sane friends abandoning you after that can be uncomfortable, but at least you won't have to make excuses anymore.

Hatter:
I'm a republican, I also hardly come on here. It's a bit too liberal for my tastes. A "possible" explanation for "possible" republicans claiming not to be is that it would give their posts validity. In the same way that it would be more effective for someone who was taking a defensive stance in an pro/against religion argument to claim not to be religious regardless of whether or not the person actually was religious, to avoid being dismissed as biased.

So, you don't come here because it's "too liberal"? Most of the topics we discuss here usually aren't about US-Politics (they tend to be international, or religion), so what bothers you?

Blablahb:
Maybe republicans just need to out themselves? I mean, how hard can it be to sit everyone down and go "Mom, dad, there's something I need to talk about. I've always known that I've been weird and different, but now I know what it is. I'm a republican".

Sure the "What have we done wrong?" laments and sane friends abandoning you after that can be uncomfortable, but at least you won't have to make excuses anymore.

Coming-out reference aside, let's be honest. If some of the posters that get the most hate would say they were Republican, they would be flamed and trolled out of the board and not come back. I think them telling would be a bad idea.

Wow, looking over that, that sounds like it could really be read the wrong way.

If donating $500 to the Republican Party makes me one ... but I don't think of myself as a Republican but the GOP is closest to my own beliefs. I'm more happy to see a liberal Democrat get defeated than a Republican put in office.

I find it disgusting that we still stick to a party system to begin with.

From what I'm seeing, nobody likes to stand up for their own beliefs and would rather run a smear campaign on the opposite group/religion/government/candidate/whatever than actually have faith in their own campaign.

Grathius22:
I find it disgusting that we still stick to a party system to begin with.

Well that shows a lack of understanding of human nature. What other system do you think there is? Humans naturally form into packs/tribes. Heck, in the province I live in it is illegal to run as a party candidate in municipal elections and yet it doesn't take very long to see people forming up into their little clusters of like minded people, just as if there were official parties.

From what I'm seeing, nobody likes to stand up for their own beliefs and would rather run a smear campaign on the opposite group/religion/government/candidate/whatever than actually have faith in their own campaign.

I mostly agree with you on this one. I think its horrible that more and more campaigns are smear driven, but I think you have the reason wrong. It's not that they don't want to promote their own beliefs, its just that history has shown that the public, in large numbers, is gullible and has a very short attention span, and thus its easy to win elections by smear than by fact.

Just think about it, what's easier, saying "that guy sux and will lie to you" or "I'd like to raise your taxes..." and then hope people will listen long enough to understand why that might be a good idea instead of knee-jerking to NOOOOOOOOOOO. Heck, the public might not even see your reasons because the press clip on the net/TV might just be that first statement about raising your taxes by xx%.

And it works the same on both sides of the spectrum, its easier to say "they guy sux and will raise you taxes to line his friends pockets" than to say "I'd like to cut government spending..." and hope they stick around long enough to hear your reasons for doing it, the long term benefits, how you will target those cuts so they aren't a problem, etc before they knee jerk too "OMG, they hate the poor/[insert racial group]/whatever".

Grathius22:
I find it disgusting that we still stick to a party system to begin with.

From what I'm seeing, nobody likes to stand up for their own beliefs and would rather run a smear campaign on the opposite group/religion/government/candidate/whatever than actually have faith in their own campaign.

That's mostly a local thing. Around here for instance, many parties have had smashing succeses with positive campaigns. Our version of the social-democrats for instance won a landslide victory in the elections for the European Parliament with a clear 'Europe yes' message, whereas most others had a mostly negative campaign because they're either isolationists, or think that a critical stance got them more votes.

And the two biggest parties have both chosen a leader who's all positive and all smiles, not really any attacks on another. One won a huge victory, became the largest party and is our current prime minister. I met the guy a few times before he got big and I have to say his optimism was rather infectious. It influenced you. Also I ussually notice when people are playing friends due to media and communications training, but Rutte seemed sincere in his interest in others. Whether that's true or just a really well played interest, I don't know, but the important thing is the positive attitude made him the most important guy in the country untill the next election.

Actually we have only one sizeable party that involves themselves in smear campaigns, and they target mostly conservative uneducated paupers, so for them that sort of demagogue stuff makes sense.

I'd say positive campaigning is alive and kicking. It all depends on where you look.

Because the republican party in it's current state seems to promote oppression of people without giving them a fair chance, rewarding people who are undeserving, undermining merit at every possible level, hoarding resources, stacking the deck of advantages in the favor of a few so no one else even has the opportunity to compete.

Anyone promoting that would probably be frowned upon because it represents all that is bad in humanity. I don't side with either political party but the Republican party is very off-putting due to the fact that they do not believe in merit or honest competition at all. It's almost as if they are trying to cling to power deep down they know they don't deserve.

Its repulsing.

w9496:
WHy they wont admit it on the Escapist? Because they usually get eaten alive. I've kinda been down that road, and it's not fun having over 8 different people quoting you and expecting an answer for what you think.

Outside of the Escapist? There are quite a few rational thinking republicans that wont admit it because they will be automatically thrown into the same bin as the crazy republicans.

If the crazy are in control of the party, can those who remain and won't speak out be considered rational?

nyysjan:

w9496:
WHy they wont admit it on the Escapist? Because they usually get eaten alive. I've kinda been down that road, and it's not fun having over 8 different people quoting you and expecting an answer for what you think.

Outside of the Escapist? There are quite a few rational thinking republicans that wont admit it because they will be automatically thrown into the same bin as the crazy republicans.

If the crazy are in control of the party, can those who remain and won't speak out be considered rational?

Yes, because the reason they won't speak out is because nobody will listen to what they have to say and judge them the same as the crazies.

w9496:

nyysjan:

w9496:
WHy they wont admit it on the Escapist? Because they usually get eaten alive. I've kinda been down that road, and it's not fun having over 8 different people quoting you and expecting an answer for what you think.

Outside of the Escapist? There are quite a few rational thinking republicans that wont admit it because they will be automatically thrown into the same bin as the crazy republicans.

If the crazy are in control of the party, can those who remain and won't speak out be considered rational?

Yes, because the reason they won't speak out is because nobody will listen to what they have to say and judge them the same as the crazies.

Well, if you are on ship, voluntarily, and capable of leaving anytime, and know that the captain, and most of crew, are insane.
How is it rational not to speak out and try to change things?
Only other explanation i can come up with is cowardice.

Now, i admit i have no liking for Republicans, even rank and file "sane" people, because they are, and remain, willingly part of a group that by and large keeps doing insane, stupid, useless and harmful things, and won't speak out against that.

nyysjan:

w9496:

nyysjan:

If the crazy are in control of the party, can those who remain and won't speak out be considered rational?

Yes, because the reason they won't speak out is because nobody will listen to what they have to say and judge them the same as the crazies.

Well, if you are on ship, voluntarily, and capable of leaving anytime, and know that the captain, and most of crew, are insane.
How is it rational not to speak out and try to change things?
Only other explanation i can come up with is cowardice.

Now, i admit i have no liking for Republicans, even rank and file "sane" people, because they are, and remain, willingly part of a group that by and large keeps doing insane, stupid, useless and harmful things, and won't speak out against that.

Speaking out is hopeless when nobody will listen.

Also, I wasn't talking about how other people in the party would react to somebody speaking out, I was referring to the probable reaction of the Guys on the other side of the political spectrum. In my experiences, People just get thrown into the same bin as the crazies, regardless of what they actually say.

w9496:

nyysjan:

w9496:

Yes, because the reason they won't speak out is because nobody will listen to what they have to say and judge them the same as the crazies.

Well, if you are on ship, voluntarily, and capable of leaving anytime, and know that the captain, and most of crew, are insane.
How is it rational not to speak out and try to change things?
Only other explanation i can come up with is cowardice.

Now, i admit i have no liking for Republicans, even rank and file "sane" people, because they are, and remain, willingly part of a group that by and large keeps doing insane, stupid, useless and harmful things, and won't speak out against that.

Speaking out is hopeless when nobody will listen.

Also, I wasn't talking about how other people in the party would react to somebody speaking out, I was referring to the probable reaction of the Guys on the other side of the political spectrum. In my experiences, People just get thrown into the same bin as the crazies, regardless of what they actually say.

Then why do people stay in the damn ship?

Seriously, why would anyone stay in a political party they don't agree with, or claim to not be part of a political party they are agree 100% of the time, or at least defensive of anything they might do that is so insane as to be indefensible (pretty high bar these days)?

nyysjan:

w9496:

nyysjan:

Well, if you are on ship, voluntarily, and capable of leaving anytime, and know that the captain, and most of crew, are insane.
How is it rational not to speak out and try to change things?
Only other explanation i can come up with is cowardice.

Now, i admit i have no liking for Republicans, even rank and file "sane" people, because they are, and remain, willingly part of a group that by and large keeps doing insane, stupid, useless and harmful things, and won't speak out against that.

Speaking out is hopeless when nobody will listen.

Also, I wasn't talking about how other people in the party would react to somebody speaking out, I was referring to the probable reaction of the Guys on the other side of the political spectrum. In my experiences, People just get thrown into the same bin as the crazies, regardless of what they actually say.

Then why do people stay in the damn ship?

Seriously, why would anyone stay in a political party they don't agree with, or claim to not be part of a political party they are agree 100% of the time, or at least defensive of anything they might do that is so insane as to be indefensible (pretty high bar these days)?

I wouldn't say I'm even on the ship.

People would stay with a party because they like it better than the others, and everybody who does stay probably does so for different reasons.

Can we end this now? I can already tell this isn't going anywhere.

w9496:

nyysjan:

w9496:

Speaking out is hopeless when nobody will listen.

Also, I wasn't talking about how other people in the party would react to somebody speaking out, I was referring to the probable reaction of the Guys on the other side of the political spectrum. In my experiences, People just get thrown into the same bin as the crazies, regardless of what they actually say.

Then why do people stay in the damn ship?

Seriously, why would anyone stay in a political party they don't agree with, or claim to not be part of a political party they are agree 100% of the time, or at least defensive of anything they might do that is so insane as to be indefensible (pretty high bar these days)?

I wouldn't say I'm even on the ship.

People would stay with a party because they like it better than the others, and everybody who does stay probably does so for different reasons.

Can we end this now? I can already tell this isn't going anywhere.

Well you started it :p
But true, it's not going anywhere, and we were going of tangent anyway, as the question was why someone who seems to agree with Republicans in almost every damn issue, refuses to admit to being Republican, not why someone who does not agree with Republicans, would remain a Republican.

Blablahb:
snip

Too bad Rutte needed Wilders to form a government. (Well, not exactly a coalition, but "gedoogsteun"... what's that in English, Blablahb :P?)

In general, the same is true for Belgium. Parties concentrate more on explaining their own agenda, than trying to smear the opponent.

Blablahb, do you suppose this is because in contrast to the US two-party system, over here parties have to form coalitions and have to work together to form a government?

TheBelgianGuy:
Blablahb, do you suppose this is because in contrast to the US two-party system, over here parties have to form coalitions and have to work together to form a government?

i think its generally accepted by the folks who weigh such things academically that governing through consensus building leads to more mature and pragmatic politics and usually better overall governance.

in Scotland, when we looked around to create our new parliament, that thinking was one of the main reasons we ended up with PR and a system that pretty much guarantees coalition and/or minority government.

then the lib dems who were one of the main cheerleaders for this consensus building style of politics and the structuring of the parliament and its voting system in such a way so that an overall majority wasn't even needed started suggesting straight after the first election there simply had to be a overall majority for some unmentioned reason (the complete opposite of what they had previously said)...made up of a signed up coalition government with them in it ofc...wankers...

but ye this kind of stuff serves a great many countries in Europe very well (like Germany for example) where as the more bi polar you go the less competent government tends to look and the less healthy political debate tends to look.

most people can't seem to wrap their head around the idea that someone not winning an election outright is actually a good thing...as long as your politicians are mature enough to be able to talk to one another...

it means the policies that actually become law are the ones with widespread support both inside and outside the legislature plus i think the catch of problem solving and ideas is sourced from a wider net and generally it just works better and provides long term stability because its means governance through nudges and drift rather than polarising swings.

just my 2 cents.

Blablahb can ofctalk for himself :) i just fancied jumping in on the subject.

PS positive campaigning has been romping home against negative in Scotland in recent years.

Because around here thats practically saying that you are against abortion, gay rights, are racist, hate poor people, and are generally a nasty human being.

All of it can be bullshit of course but that sure as hell doesn't stop snide remarks from flooding on it.

I'm neither Demo nor Repub, because neither one reflects my views.
That's the inherent flaw of our current two party system: There's no room at the top for better parties so it comes down to choosing one or the other because otherwise your vote won't matter anyway.
I'd vote libertarian if people gave it a chance to be relevant. Heck, I might even vote communist just for the novelty of the thing if they managed to get enough support to stand up to the big two: Tweedle (D) and Tweedle (GOP).

Because I have no other options, I tend to vote Republican. It's not like the two factions behave any different in practice anyway.

TheBelgianGuy:

Blablahb:
snip

Too bad Rutte needed Wilders to form a government. (Well, not exactly a coalition, but "gedoogsteun"... what's that in English, Blablahb :P?)

In general, the same is true for Belgium. Parties concentrate more on explaining their own agenda, than trying to smear the opponent.

Blablahb, do you suppose this is because in contrast to the US two-party system, over here parties have to form coalitions and have to work together to form a government?

The way the US election system works, 2 parties, first past the post, Electoral College and low voter turnout forces the campaigns to be negative.

With 2 parties and first past the post you only have to get more votes than the other guy. Each candidate is always going to get a certain amount of votes due to the party alignments. The best method of winning in such a situation is not to get people to vote for you, it is to convince others to not vote for the other guy.

If you follow US elections closely you will hear 'turnout' discussed as a major factor the closer the election gets. The reason for this is low turnouts favour Republicans. Two key demographics for the Democrats have very low turnouts, Hispanics had a turnout rate of 49.9% in 2008 (higher than normal) and 18-24 year olds were at 48.5%. On the flip side, voters aged 55-75, a group that tend to vote Republican, had a turnout of over 70%.

This voter turnout is probably the reason the Republicans have typically dominated the Democrats in terms of effective negative campaigning, they need to keep the turnout low to win. In order to do that they need to run a negative campaign.

Summary, the largest factors in determining the winner of the US election is turnout and first past the post voting. It is much more efficient to convince people to not vote for the other guy than to switch their votes to you. Negative campaigns are a result of the US system.

Shock and Awe:
Because around here thats practically saying that you are against abortion, gay rights, are racist, hate poor people, and are generally a nasty human being.

All of it can be bullshit of course but that sure as hell doesn't stop snide remarks from flooding on it.

Stating you are a republican 'would' put you in the same camp as Xan. Xpowderx, Gorfias. Etc etc. . . And while they might not fill all the requirements, they sure get the majority down. The most important ones anyway.

Nikolaz72:

Shock and Awe:
Because around here thats practically saying that you are against abortion, gay rights, are racist, hate poor people, and are generally a nasty human being.

All of it can be bullshit of course but that sure as hell doesn't stop snide remarks from flooding on it.

Stating you are a republican 'would' put you in the same camp as Xan. Xpowderx, Gorfias. Etc etc. . . And while they might not fill all the requirements, they sure get the majority down. The most important ones anyway.

Which is why no one will do it. I honestly don't know who most those users are but its obvious that saying "I'm a Republican" around here makes people think negatives immediately with little evidence.

Shock and Awe:

Nikolaz72:

Shock and Awe:
Because around here thats practically saying that you are against abortion, gay rights, are racist, hate poor people, and are generally a nasty human being.

All of it can be bullshit of course but that sure as hell doesn't stop snide remarks from flooding on it.

Stating you are a republican 'would' put you in the same camp as Xan. Xpowderx, Gorfias. Etc etc. . . And while they might not fill all the requirements, they sure get the majority down. The most important ones anyway.

Which is why no one will do it. I honestly don't know who most those users are but its obvious that saying "I'm a Republican" around here makes people think negatives immediately with little evidence.

You do not consider a public confession to be evidence?
/snark

Yeah, sorry, could not resist.
Anyway, simple answer to that would be to say "I am of the party X, and i am so because of i agree with them on set of issues Y, while i disagree on set of issues Z, but Y out weights Z"

Captcha: out of sorts

yes, i guess i kinda was Cap, i'll try to be better in the future.

Kinguendo:
You dont tell the Jedi that you are a Sith.

Both are sith in my mind. So don't tell the sith on the left that your a sith on the right

Realitycrash:

Hatter:
I'm a republican, I also hardly come on here. It's a bit too liberal for my tastes. A "possible" explanation for "possible" republicans claiming not to be is that it would give their posts validity. In the same way that it would be more effective for someone who was taking a defensive stance in an pro/against religion argument to claim not to be religious regardless of whether or not the person actually was religious, to avoid being dismissed as biased.

So, you don't come here because it's "too liberal"? Most of the topics we discuss here usually aren't about US-Politics (they tend to be international, or religion), so what bothers you?

have you seen how republican or conservative posters are treated here? even if you're a moderate conservative you might as well be the devil in flesh on these forums.

Tanner The Monotone:

Kinguendo:
You dont tell the Jedi that you are a Sith.

Both are sith in my mind. So don't tell the sith on the left that your a sith on the right

You mean the Sith on the far-right and the Sith on the right.

keiskay:

Realitycrash:

Hatter:
I'm a republican, I also hardly come on here. It's a bit too liberal for my tastes. A "possible" explanation for "possible" republicans claiming not to be is that it would give their posts validity. In the same way that it would be more effective for someone who was taking a defensive stance in an pro/against religion argument to claim not to be religious regardless of whether or not the person actually was religious, to avoid being dismissed as biased.

So, you don't come here because it's "too liberal"? Most of the topics we discuss here usually aren't about US-Politics (they tend to be international, or religion), so what bothers you?

have you seen how republican or conservative posters are treated here? even if you're a moderate conservative you might as well be the devil in flesh on these forums.

You can discuss international-politics and religion (the most frequent topics, except for perhaps Gun Controll, which has little to do with where you are on the political spectrum) no matter if you are "Liberal" or "Conservative". Many seem to pull it off flawlessly.

Kinguendo:

Tanner The Monotone:

Kinguendo:
You dont tell the Jedi that you are a Sith.

Both are sith in my mind. So don't tell the sith on the left that your a sith on the right

You mean the Sith on the far-right and the Sith on the right.

Funny. From where I stand, all your political parties are a bunch of corrupt parasites to me. You are no more different than that republican base you seem to vilify.

Seriously where is a Guy Fawkes when you need him.

keiskay:
have you seen how republican or conservative posters are treated here?

Yes, and actual fiscal conservatives are generally treated with respect.

even if you're a moderate conservative you might as well be the devil in flesh on these forums.

Nope, there are plenty of fiscal conservatives on the forum, all you have to do is stop thinking with the American idea of a conservative.

Ninjamedic:

keiskay:
have you seen how republican or conservative posters are treated here?

Yes, and actual fiscal conservatives are generally treated with respect.

even if you're a moderate conservative you might as well be the devil in flesh on these forums.

Nope, there are plenty of fiscal conservatives on the forum, all you have to do is stop thinking with the American idea of a conservative.

and if you'd paid attention to this thread you would understand that it is about American political slants and not world ones. so please your appeal is useless when this thread deals with the American standards of conservative. also being conservative in one aspect does not make you a conservative as whole.

keiskay:
and if you'd paid attention to this thread you would understand that it is about American political slants and not world ones. so please your appeal is useless when this thread deals with the American standards of conservative.

And if paid attention to any of the threads you should know that you can be conservative without being a Republican. I repeat, there are many US conservatives here that are usually treated with respect.

also being conservative in one aspect does not make you a conservative as whole.

Well then, define that makes you a conservative.

Kinguendo:

Tanner The Monotone:

Kinguendo:
You dont tell the Jedi that you are a Sith.

Both are sith in my mind. So don't tell the sith on the left that your a sith on the right

You mean the Sith on the far-right and the Sith on the right.

No, I don't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked