I've noticed something about "Republican" people here in America

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

So, as a foreword I go to a pretty politically and religiously diverse school. And I feel I've had enough interactions with some of the "Republican born an raised" students here (along with a few people I've met outside of school) to come up with a few observations I've noticed about each of them.

Now, before I begin I feel it's best to talk about my beliefs and how my personal life has shaped me, before comparing it to the beliefs of some Republican friends (and... "Associates") of mine.

In recent years I've learned about Social Democracy, it's ideals of using Capitalism and Taxes for the bettering of society as a whole and ensuring that no one is excluded from Education and Healthcare. I've come to accept Social Democracy as my political ideology and happily call myself a Social Democrat.

Now, let's contrast this with a republican friend of mine, who I'll refer to as "R".

I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff. While I can appreciate the "just work through the suffering" attitude many of them seem to have, there's just this genuine idea of saying "Oh well, suck it up you whiners" no matter how many injustices other people have to suffer.

In short, it just genuinely seems like there's a minor degree of "sociopathy" in the modern republican party. This "sociopathy" manifests itself in seeing people who are poorer as just "not working hard enough" and no matter how inhumane people are treated, actually raising their voice against it is just "whining".

Does anyone else see this as a common trend in Republicans? No offense, but I honestly think that Republicans have a very VERY minor case of sociopathy (I don't mean in the "kills for pleasure" sense but in the "don't give a damn about your problems" sense)

Witty Name Here:
No offense, but I honestly think that Republicans have a very VERY minor case of sociopathy (I don't mean in the "kills for pleasure" sense but in the "don't give a damn about your problems" sense)

Yeah, you don't get to accuse people of being minor sociopaths and then claim that you don't mean to offend.

I could easily make a thread about how I find the liberals around me to be walking sheep who chug the Democrat Kool-Aid as ferociously as they can, but I don't. The reason is very simple: it would be little more than a form of ideological masturbation. Anecdotes don't mean shit, and I know for a fact that there are sensible liberals out there who constantly question the motives of the Democrats (I've met some on this forum). All I would do is offend the people who don't fit the stereotype I would be perpetuating.

You know, like the way you are now.

Eh, I'm in the psychopathy camp on that issue, and I seriously doubt there is a mass mental illness related to one specific party.

Witty Name Here:

I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff.

Funny you say that, because I have noticed whenever a young person in the US doesn't conform and blindly agree that Democrats are the only "real" choice, they get harassed by their peers. The attitude that other people have to them is that they "can go jump off a cliff".

Eh, what do you know?

In 2001, when many of you were probably still in grade school I took this picture:
image

I hated George Bush before it was cool.

In 2012, I voted for Mitt Romney.

Helmholtz Watson:

Witty Name Here:

I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff.

Funny you say that, because I have noticed whenever a young person in the US doesn't conform and blindly agree that Democrats are the only "real" choice, they get harassed by their peers. The attitude that other people have to them is that they "can go jump off a cliff".

Thats a victim mentality, the same mentality conservatives supposedly hate. The conservatives I've seen in college are usually people that want to ring their viewpoints to the top of the world and get yelled at by an equally noisy liberal. To give an example I'm sitting in the engineering computer lab and here a group of mech e's talking about how they can't believe how many people voted for Obama and how it was a set up and there was voter fraud and how those retards don't realize their destroying nation by voting for him. The very next day I sit in the same room and here a BME state that she can't believe how ignorant people are for not giving a woman the right to choose. Do you know what happened in both those circumstances? Absolutely fucking nothing, no big shouting matches over who is right or who is wrong with insults. However if those two people had been in the room at the same time and overheard one another it would have been armageddon in the room.

My point, most people keep their mouths shut because you don't need to say anything when someone else is have an ignorant conversation about people they think are ignorant. Is it true that in most colleges the people there are liberal? yes. Is it true there are verbal wars over it between individuals in a room? Yep. So given those two statements conservatives say that college and young people are hostile to people that aren't conservatives. Just because half a room disagrees with you doesn't mean they are against you or they would have verbalized in the manner I stated.

I grew up in a conservative household and based off what my parents views where I decided that they where too uncaring and over the top. Who knows maybe if my parents where more tactile and less racist about the ways they presented their conservative views I might be a conservative right now.

Plain and simple Republican positions are devisive, they think there views matter more than the groups their views hurt. Union workers, black people, hispanics, women, gays It's like saying as long as this works for me I don't need these people because their not like me.

scotth266:
snip

I don't hate Republicans, I can appreciate their work ethic and I find "R" is a nice enough fellow when you aren't talking politics with him. I realize my opinion is most likely biased due to my "leftist" views, and I probably came out sounding like "R" was worse then he actually was, however I genuinely believe there's some very small degree of apathy (a much better word then "sociopath" I suppose) from Republicans towards anyone who isn't a close friend or family member.

Take this, for example.

A young man who's only crime was not getting health insurance and ending up sick and in dire need of medical treatment, and the crowd actually cheers "let him die!", honestly there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't want to say all Republicans are like that, but when a crowd cheers at this idea of letting someone die just for not getting health insurance, I think there's something seriously wrong there.

Oh boy. Here we go again.

Helmholtz Watson:

Witty Name Here:

I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff.

Funny you say that, because I have noticed whenever a young person in the US doesn't conform and blindly agree that Democrats are the only "real" choice, they get harassed by their peers. The attitude that other people have to them is that they "can go jump off a cliff".

Depends. I think that "high level" republicans are absolutely loathsome loonies. No really. Sociopaths as well, knowing that they were quite willing to burn the country down to prove a point. They regularly like to rewrite reality and have in the recent years alienated several groups with good reason. Without empathy as well, considering their attitude to the poor. They are also industry shills ( at least even more so than the opposing side). They're also religious nut jobs, who forgot the base lesson of do to others what you would like them to do to you. What I just typed is most definitely offensive. I still think that somewhere along the line, something went wrong with the republican party.

I would like to point out that this tirade is a result of my experiences with the Tea Party, Bush and the Republican nominees. Trump and the birther camp certainly didn't help. I have very little experience with the more small town republicans who are not insane. Hopefully. As I said I have little experience.

That being said, the left or right doesn't have a monopoly in being correct. Being against someone because of the opposite political orientation is stupid. I'm also a person who is very pro-union and an environmentalist who regularly argues about the economic situation and regulations. I probably think I'm always right, but I know I can be completely blind. I can't thus dismiss in good consciousness a whole point of view and a way to approach a problem. ( Except when the way to approach a problem is stark raving mad.)
A whole party can't go mad, and hopefully things will get better. Maybe the "lower level" right would get some of the old kooks out of office. I know every side has them.

I think I may have an answer why you may be harassed if you're young and a republican. The first is because your entourage are probably young adults and college students. They're not exactly the target group of republicans for a reason. The second more important reason is because "republican" has a lot of connotations. You may be in it for the economical policies (which I still disagree with, but let's move on), but other people will hear someone who's against abortion and gay marriage or someone who may have retrograde ideas about science. It's not fair, but it's the case. It seems you can't have views from both spectrum. Yes, that's sad and it sucks.

I'm a french national, who despises Bush, so I'm definitely going to be biased. Despite the tone, I'm not actively trying to flame people. (Except the extreme far-right, because fuck those guys). I just think that the political landscape is really that bad, and that one side actually has contributed to that more so than the other. ( I have some pretty choice things to say about democrats, but whatever I dislike about them, I don't think they're of the same magnitude).

Witty Name Here:

scotth266:
snip

I don't hate Republicans, I can appreciate their work ethic and I find "R" is a nice enough fellow when you aren't talking politics with him. I realize my opinion is most likely biased due to my "leftist" views, and I probably came out sounding like "R" was worse then he actually was, however I genuinely believe there's some very small degree of apathy (a much better word then "sociopath" I suppose) from Republicans towards anyone who isn't a close friend or family member.

Take this, for example.

A young man who's only crime was not getting health insurance and ending up sick and in dire need of medical treatment, and the crowd actually cheers "let him die!", honestly there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't want to say all Republicans are like that, but when a crowd cheers at this idea of letting someone die just for not getting health insurance, I think there's something seriously wrong there.

I remember this. That was truly disgusting. Then again it was at the level when Sanatorum an Rick Perry were potential candidates. Santorum was a truly terrifying fanatic.

Look at his level of delusions. Look at his paranoia. He's a madman.

I shudder that some supported him. I don't think those are the "republican" people. At least not the average man. I hope not anyway.

dmase:

My point, most people keep their mouths shut because you don't need to say anything when someone else is have an ignorant conversation about people they think are ignorant. Is it true that in most colleges the people there are liberal? yes. Is it true there are verbal wars over it between individuals in a room? Yep. So given those two statements conservatives say that college and young people are hostile to people that aren't conservatives. Just because half a room disagrees with you doesn't mean they are against you or they would have verbalized in the manner I stated.

I would say that labeling anybody a racist for voting for McCain and not Obama pretty much creates a "us vs them" mentality, and as a moderate, that really puts me off the Democrat party when people start trying to shame others[1] into voting for the Democrat nominee. Mind you, it doesn't make me like people like McCain or Romney, but it sure as hell doesn't make me feel warm towards Obama[2].

Frission:

Depends. I think that "high level" republicans are absolutely loathsome loonies. No really. Sociopaths as well, knowing that they were quite willing to burn the country down to prove a point. They regularly like to rewrite reality and have in the recent years alienated several groups with good reason. Without empathy as well, considering their attitude to the poor.

You realize that not wanting the governmnet in your lives as much as it is in places like Europe, is not exclusively a Republican feeling, right? You do realize that many Americans are opposed to things like big brother style government.

Frission:
They are also industry shills ( at least even more so than the opposing side).

So are Democrats, or did I miss the Obama administration going after the leaders of Wall Street/CEO bankers?

Frission:
They're also religious nut jobs, who forgot the base lesson of do to others what you would like them to do to you. What I just typed is most definitely offensive. I still think that somewhere along the line, something went wrong with the republican party.

Now your generalizing, only some are like Santorum.

Frission:

I think I may have an answer why you may be harassed if you're young and a republican. The first is because your entourage are probably young adults and college students. They're not exactly the target group of republicans for a reason. The second more important reason is because "republican" has a lot of connotations. You may be in it for the economical policies (which I still disagree with, but let's move on), but other people will hear someone who's against abortion and gay marriage or someone who may have retrograde ideas about science. It's not fair, but it's the case. It seems you can't have views from both spectrum. Yes, that's sad and it sucks.

None of that is a justification for what I've seen though. I don't agree with Republicans on some very big things(I'm pro-abortion and I know global warming is a major issue), but I have a strong dislike for people who would get up on their pedestal and harass someone and make them feel ashamed because they didn't conform and follow the same line of thinking as everybody else.

[1] by labeling them a racist if they didn't vote for Obama
[2] Not that I have anything personal against the man, I do appreciate what he did for stem cell research

Have you ever heard the term 'the deserving poor'?

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/mead/V53.0395/Kahl.pdf

It's not sociopathy. Nor is it apathy. See, there's this belief that runs through many conservatives that

1. The government is going to screw up when it comes to aiding people because they're to detached and bureaucratic. You'll note the protest are against UNIVERSAL healthcare controlled by the government.

2. An individual forced to give to charity isn't really being charitable.

3. Big government is bad.

Surprisingly enough, there isn't a huge gap between liberal and conservative charity donations/volunteering...except along RELIGIOUS lines. Religious people tend to give and volunteer much more in the way of charity then their irreligious counterparts. The difference between political alignment is negligible.

Your friend has views I don't agree with, but it's interesting you mentioning him joining the military, or wanting to. Why did you bring that up?

I think my big problem is you automatically assume everything he says is wrong, despite most of it being either unprovable within reason or just opinion. Why are you absolutely sure that unions aren't greedy? Why do you assume all big business is evil? Did you know, for example, that companies that give back to the communities they work in tend to have higher profits? Surprising but true according to my economics textbook.

Also I'm curious as to what you think of as republican political stances, and what you think of as conservatives? They're sadly different things these days.

Frission:

Witty Name Here:

scotth266:
snip

I don't hate Republicans, I can appreciate their work ethic and I find "R" is a nice enough fellow when you aren't talking politics with him. I realize my opinion is most likely biased due to my "leftist" views, and I probably came out sounding like "R" was worse then he actually was, however I genuinely believe there's some very small degree of apathy (a much better word then "sociopath" I suppose) from Republicans towards anyone who isn't a close friend or family member.

Take this, for example.

A young man who's only crime was not getting health insurance and ending up sick and in dire need of medical treatment, and the crowd actually cheers "let him die!", honestly there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't want to say all Republicans are like that, but when a crowd cheers at this idea of letting someone die just for not getting health insurance, I think there's something seriously wrong there.

I remember this. That was truly disgusting. Then again it was at the level when Sanatorum an Rick Perry were potential candidates. Santorum was a truly terrifying fanatic.

Look at his level of delusions. Look at his paranoia. He's a madman.

I shudder that some supported him. I don't think those are the "republican" people. At least not the average man. I hope not anyway.

Didn't Santorum win a few states in the Primaries? I distinctly remember at least Alabama being one of them.

Son...you haven't even begun to plumb the depths of what lies in right wing America.

This is the party, keep in mind, who's presidential candidate accused almost half the country of being moochers.

And there are conservatives here (Xanthious) who not only agree with his initial statements, but says it's MORE than half.

It's not fair, but it's the case. It seems you can't have views from both spectrum. Yes, that's sad and it sucks.None of that is a justification for what I've seen though. I don't agree with Republicans on some very big things(I'm pro-abortion and I know global warming is a major issue), but I have a strong dislike for people who would get up on their pedestal and harass someone and make them feel ashamed because they didn't conform and follow the same line of thinking as everybody else.

But who's fault is that? Who let the social conservatives overrun and take over the pulpit and dictate the message? It didn't happen out of nowhere!

GunsmithKitten:

None of that is a justification for what I've seen though. I don't agree with Republicans on some very big things(I'm pro-abortion and I know global warming is a major issue), but I have a strong dislike for people who would get up on their pedestal and harass someone and make them feel ashamed because they didn't conform and follow the same line of thinking as everybody else.

But who's fault is that? Who let the social conservatives overrun and take over the pulpit and dictate the message? It didn't happen out of nowhere!

The fault lies with the hostile Democratic supporters who don't care to listen to a person who doesn't blindly agree with them and automatically goes on the attack against Republican supporters.

Helmholtz Watson:

GunsmithKitten:

None of that is a justification for what I've seen though. I don't agree with Republicans on some very big things(I'm pro-abortion and I know global warming is a major issue), but I have a strong dislike for people who would get up on their pedestal and harass someone and make them feel ashamed because they didn't conform and follow the same line of thinking as everybody else.

But who's fault is that? Who let the social conservatives overrun and take over the pulpit and dictate the message? It didn't happen out of nowhere!

The fault lies with the hostile Democratic supporters who don't care to listen to a person who doesn't blindly agree with them and automatically goes on the attack.

Excuse me, but how does bad behavior from Dem supporters somehow enable social conservatives to become the dominant mindset in the GOP?

GunsmithKitten:

Helmholtz Watson:

GunsmithKitten:

But who's fault is that? Who let the social conservatives overrun and take over the pulpit and dictate the message? It didn't happen out of nowhere!

The fault lies with the hostile Democratic supporters who don't care to listen to a person who doesn't blindly agree with them and automatically goes on the attack.

Excuse me, but how does bad behavior from Dem supporters somehow enable social conservatives to become the dominant mindset in the GOP?

What are you talking about? I'm talking about overly hostile Democrat supporters on my campus that like to harass people that don't blindly agree with them at every point, and how it is disgusting to watch. It doesn't matter what a Republican voter voted for, you don't have a right to harass a fellow student who payed to go to this campus because you don't like their political views. How is that hard to understand?

Bentusi16:

Your friend has views I don't agree with, but it's interesting you mentioning him joining the military, or wanting to. Why did you bring that up?

There are some people on this site, I do not know if the OP is one of them though, that see joining the armed forces as a "conservative" thing to do, and dislike them for that reason. This is something I do not understand, as the armed services benefit everyone, in my opinion.

Did anybody mention Cheney's stance on homosexuality and his own lesbian daughter yet? Yeah. I think Polarity27 said something very interesting and true when she talked about the Just World ideology. I had heard of the idea albeit not of the specific name before then. Anyway, if you think it's a Just World, then obviously you'll only think of injusticies as injusticies that happen to yourself or yours. The other complaints are ignored or diminished. I certainly doubt you can generalize this to include Republicans overall, but is it a fair statement towards people who hold that Just World view? Absolutely. Is it fair to say that a lot of Republicans hold that view? Probably.

Skeleon:
Did anybody mention Cheney's stance on homosexuality and his own lesbian daughter yet? Yeah. I think Polarity27 said something very interesting and true when she talked about the Just World ideology. I had heard of the idea albeit not of the specific name before then. Anyway, if you think it's a Just World, then obviously you'll only think of injusticies as injusticies that happen to yourself or yours. The other complaints are ignored or diminished. I certainly doubt you can generalize this to include Republicans overall, but is it a fair statement towards people who hold that Just World view? Absolutely. Is it fair to say that a lot of Republicans hold that view? Probably.

Yeah, the Just World Fallacy is a major problem.

I'd also say that a lot of people dont want to acknowledge problems that don't affect them. I know it always ends badly whenever someone mentions the word "privilege" on this forum, but it is a problem. A lot of people get very defensive when people mention their privilege, and assume (often, it would seem deliberately) that they are being blamed for causing it, prefering to dismiss the idea completely.

Now, it seems the Republican party tends to attract people more oblivious to their privilege (or oblivious to more privilege) than the Democrats, who it seems tend to attract people that like to believe that because they aren't as bad as the Republicans, they don't have any problems.

I think part of it may be that people are taking the value of self reliance to the "asshole" level of belief. Basically by that I mean they take a perfectly good ideal and more or less imposing it on others and demonizing those who can't live up to it.

Shock and Awe:
I think part of it may be that people are taking the value of self reliance to the "asshole" level of belief. Basically by that I mean they take a perfectly good ideal and more or less imposing it on others and demonizing those who can't live up to it.

Yeah, sounds reasonable. Like most good ideals, you have to stick a bunch of caveats and exceptions in, otherwise it's a terrible ideal.

Bentusi16:

It's not sociopathy. Nor is it apathy. See, there's this belief that runs through many conservatives that

1. The government is going to screw up when it comes to aiding people because they're to detached and bureaucratic. You'll note the protest are against UNIVERSAL healthcare controlled by the government.

Fair enough. However given that a great deal of people follow that ideology seem to be in the dark as to government programs they benefit from (who else remembers the famously ironic "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare" line from tea party protestors) and I don't honestly see any argument as to why private corporations are better other than "They're fueled by greed a desire to earn a profit." Yeah, well, I wouldn't want fire departments and FEMA run by someone who looks at an earthquake or forest fire and says "Hmmm, how can I make money from this?"

2. An individual forced to give to charity isn't really being charitable.

Regardless of whether it's charity or not, it still helps provide those people with an ability to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and find a job. Redistribution of wealth will always be more efficient then private charities.

3. Big government is bad.

I understand the sentiment, however it's debatable and I personally disagree with the idea... At least economically. I feel that a "bad" big government would be more involved in peoples' social lives then economic ones.

Surprisingly enough, there isn't a huge gap between liberal and conservative charity donations/volunteering...except along RELIGIOUS lines. Religious people tend to give and volunteer much more in the way of charity then their irreligious counterparts. The difference between political alignment is negligible.

I don't see what this has to do with the great amount of apathy in the republican party towards people they don't personally know, but I can at least say I've done my "Christian Service Hours" almost the same as everyone else.

Your friend has views I don't agree with, but it's interesting you mentioning him joining the military, or wanting to. Why did you bring that up?

Because it seems to be a common trait in Republicans/Conservatives and it's something I can respect. I know that there's no way in Hell I'd be able to join the Navy SEALS and do half the things they do. I respect the armed forces and I consider it quite an honorable, brave thing to dream to be a part of it.

I think my big problem is you automatically assume everything he says is wrong, despite most of it being either unprovable within reason or just opinion. Why are you absolutely sure that unions aren't greedy? Why do you assume all big business is evil? Did you know, for example, that companies that give back to the communities they work in tend to have higher profits? Surprising but true according to my economics textbook.

I never said what he believes is "wrong", I seriously disagree with it and I dislike the way he shows apathy to other people in need of help, but I don't think it's wrong. To say "all unions everywhere are not greedy" is quite a sweeping statement, and I'm sure there are some greedy unions out there... Just nowhere near the level Republicans complain about. I never called Corporations evil either, just pragmatic in the negative sense. While some companies may benefit their communities, the higher profit is the cause, not the effect. I have no doubt that if, say, they went door to door and graffitied their logo on everyones home before breaking all the windows because higher profit could somehow be made from it, almost all of those companies would do it in a heartbeat.

Given that a great deal of modern CEOs show testable, provable signs of actual mental Sociopathy, I think this only reinforces the point home.

Also I'm curious as to what you think of as republican political stances, and what you think of as conservatives? They're sadly different things these days.

I think Republican Political Stances are some semi-objectivist tongue bath towards "corporate overlords and heavenly job creators" along with screwing over the rights of minorities that go against "good christian fundamentalism" and an overall general disdain towards any government interference but ESPECIALLY good regulations or government programs.

I think Conservatism involves a government run on common sense, one that chooses it's policies bast solely on pure, provable statistics and facts. I believe a Conservative government believes in tax breaks for everyone as the best solution towards economic woes, but only when those tax breaks don't interfere too much with important things such as education or healthcare. Finally, I think conservatism is founded on the principle that the people can do just fine on their own if they see an opportunity open to them and make the choice to take it rather than have an opportunity just given to them on a silver platter.

I may disagree with conservatives on a few ideals, but I think overall conservatism is a genuinely positive thing. You can be a conservative and be a republican, but that doesn't mean you can be a republican and you'll also be a conservative. My conservative grandparents are part of the Republican party, I have a great deal of love and respect for them. I don't, respect the "Great Republican Leaders" such as Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, or Ronald Reagan. In my opinion they just took the "make sweet sweet love to businessmen" part of Atlas Shrugged, ignored the rest of it, and ran as fast as they could with the idea.

newfoundsky:

There are some people on this site, I do not know if the OP is one of them though, that see joining the armed forces as a "conservative" thing to do, and dislike them for that reason. This is something I do not understand, as the armed services benefit everyone, in my opinion.

You're right on me thinking joining the armed forces a frequent trait in conservatives/republicans, but you're wrong on the thinking it's a negative thing part.

Witty Name Here:

newfoundsky:

There are some people on this site, I do not know if the OP is one of them though, that see joining the armed forces as a "conservative" thing to do, and dislike them for that reason. This is something I do not understand, as the armed services benefit everyone, in my opinion.

You're right on me thinking joining the armed forces a frequent trait in conservatives/republicans, but you're wrong on the thinking it's a negative thing part.

Depends if you mean "join the armed forces" or "talk about joining the armed forces".

There's a certain type of person that likes talking about that sort of thing, but mysteriously never gets around to actually doing it, and if they specifically mention elite units, I sorta suspect they are one of those.

Shock and Awe:
I think part of it may be that people are taking the value of self reliance to the "asshole" level of belief. Basically by that I mean they take a perfectly good ideal and more or less imposing it on others and demonizing those who can't live up to it.

+1

I think the basis of many of R's opinions are perfectly reasonable, it's just perhaps his ego may have influenced them a little or that he's presenting his opinion poorly (since the Kuwait government is pretty much swimming in oil money).

It's not the ideology that's off kilter, it's the person.

Other issues like Al Capone is a grey area because that was a matter of government taking greater than usual liberties with their power for a sake that seemed to call for it; the issue isn't as black and white as the OP seems to think.

thaluikhain:

Witty Name Here:

newfoundsky:

There are some people on this site, I do not know if the OP is one of them though, that see joining the armed forces as a "conservative" thing to do, and dislike them for that reason. This is something I do not understand, as the armed services benefit everyone, in my opinion.

You're right on me thinking joining the armed forces a frequent trait in conservatives/republicans, but you're wrong on the thinking it's a negative thing part.

Depends if you mean "join the armed forces" or "talk about joining the armed forces".

There's a certain type of person that likes talking about that sort of thing, but mysteriously never gets around to actually doing it, and if they specifically mention elite units, I sorta suspect they are one of those.

Thats the truth. I couldn't count how many people I know that talk/talked about joining up (always the marines) and end up doing god knows what. I think it just makes them look tough or something.

Witty Name Here:

In short, it just genuinely seems like there's a minor degree of "sociopathy" in the modern republican party. This "sociopathy" manifests itself in seeing people who are poorer as just "not working hard enough" and no matter how inhumane people are treated, actually raising their voice against it is just "whining".

Does anyone else see this as a common trend in Republicans? No offense, but I honestly think that Republicans have a very VERY minor case of sociopathy (I don't mean in the "kills for pleasure" sense but in the "don't give a damn about your problems" sense)

First of all, what you described is not being sociopathic. Here are the diagnosis guidelines from the WHO
1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
4.Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
5.Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
6.Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

Second of all, just because you do not like what a person is saying does not mean you get to link what they say with a mental illness.

BTW do you honestly not think it is wrong that the US government could not convict a man for a crime so they just dug into the tax code and found something to charge him with? The US tax code is over 70,000 pages long. No one on earth has the capability of understanding that monstrosity. If you add in the US law code, effectively, every single person in the US over the age of 18 has broken one or several US laws without even knowing it. THAT is fucked up.

If you look at the video below you see a person who has committed a felony. How you ask? By putting a forward grip onto his pistol without the requisite tax stamp. Now the ATF can come after him at any point if they start to become displeased with him. You would be shocked if you knew how many people have asked me to make modifications to their firearms that would land me in jail, not on purpose but out of ignorance.

Witty Name Here:
A young man who's only crime was not getting health insurance and ending up sick and in dire need of medical treatment, and the crowd actually cheers "let him die!", honestly there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't want to say all Republicans are like that, but when a crowd cheers at this idea of letting someone die just for not getting health insurance, I think there's something seriously wrong there.

You want to know what is wrong? You guys keep pushing and they keep circling the wagons. It happens all the fucking time. The guys on one side push and the guys on the other side become more radical. If you want it to stop, then cut the shit.

Witty Name Here:
and I don't honestly see any argument as to why private corporations are better other than "They're fueled by greed a desire to earn a profit." Yeah, well, I wouldn't want fire departments and FEMA run by someone who looks at an earthquake or forest fire and says "Hmmm, how can I make money from this?"

Most Republicans do not what that either. I am a Libertarian and I can tell you exactly why I want it. It is because companies are predictable. What government wants varies from administration to administration but companies always want profit. So they do their jobs while the government just fucks things up because you have two dozen agencies competing with 3 dozen different priorities and goals.

Regardless of whether it's charity or not, it still helps provide those people with an ability to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and find a job. Redistribution of wealth will always be more efficient then private charities.

No it isn't. Governmental taking of wealth includes large overhead costs, and payments to people who do not need it. Charities give the money where the people see it as needed. The government gives out SSI payments to children with ADHD.

In addition, government is slow as fuck. At one time I lived on the Gulf Coast. The Red Cross was handing out food and water IN HOUSTON several weeks before FEMA got there. And this was already days AFTER Katrina had hit. The Red Cross knew that many refugees were heading to Houston so they set up shop. Then when Rita hit the power companies were on the streets within hours. The Red Cross set up shop in the local high school (which had power hours after the storm was over thanks to coordination between the Red Cross and the power company) and began handing out food and water. Wal-Mart's kept their shelves stocked with food and materials. And all of this was going on before FEMA arrived.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/26/139941596/big-box-stores-hurricane-prep-starts-early

Given that a great deal of modern CEOs show testable, provable signs of actual mental Sociopathy, I think this only reinforces the point home.

Citation please.

Where are those lovely liberaterian Ayn Rand loving users that support this whole notion of, and I quote you, "I've noticed this seems to be a trend with quite a great deal of Republicans. I mean no offense to people who vote republican, but there seems to be this general idea that anyone who isn't "you" or your immediate family can go jump off a cliff. "

Oh. I think they're all gone now.

Guys, am I the only one who feels that our administration is slowly turning us into Denmark?

Anyway, back on topic - I don't think it's up to being a "republican". It's the current way of the media and officials to portray being a "republican". As time goes on the definition changes as do the people. Nowadays the most "mainstream" is going hard right and pressing "social issues" instead of talking about what's going on under the hood. It's cheap populism. "They'll take our guns!", "They'll take our Christmas!", "They'll take our freedom!".

Ladies and gents - if the people helming the government want to do so, they would have already done so without you knowing. Remember how sneaky SOPA was before it was leaked? They would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!

Helmholtz Watson:
You realize that not wanting the governmnet in your lives as much as it is in places like Europe, is not exclusively a Republican feeling, right? You do realize that many Americans are opposed to things like big brother style government.

As are Europeans. It's not a case of bring in universal healthcare today and tomorrow the Ministry of Truth is set up and room 101 opens it's doors. You can have a big government that's not too big.

If anything America is closer to 1984 than Europe (Patriot Act, SOPA-esque legislation, FOX News[1]) and yet there is less of the good side of government-run infrastructure.

The reason Americans fear big government? Because no government makes the effort to keep it running properly. This is especially true of the GOP and their ideological dislike of big government.

Imagine for a second the Republican party was given control of the UK and can run the country exactly how they want (just go with it). The NHS would likely fail within a decade, why? It's not due to a systemic problem, the NHS has been around for 60+ years and has worked fine, the problem would be the GOP don't like Government run programs. They would gut the NHS in favour of private companies then when the NHS finally collapsed they'd say "see, this is why big government is bad"

America can never have a successful big government while the Republicans have their current mindset. Quite simply any program that got set-up during a democrat-controlled period will probably get gutted next time the Republicans are in charge. It's all too easy to say "we'll ship parts X,Y&Z out to private companies and cut the funding to compensate" and then just repeating that until there's no reason to keep it around any more.

If all people have to go on is a past list of failed, poorly run programs and the old boogey man of British government stretching across the Atlantic is it any wonder they don't like the idea.

[1] While I realise this isn't part of the government the parallels with the Ministry of Truth are very relevant

I know a few people that identify more with Republicans than with Democrats and essentially admit to being sociopaths to some extent, but at the same time living in a college town I also know a fair share of people that only vote Democrat because they think that's basically a vote for legalizing weed, and among the Republicans I know that actually care about politics most are so because they believe a strong economy and a limited government is better for the poor and the working class than a lousy economy and an overbearing government. I don't agree with their perspective and I have nothing but contempt for the Republican party but I don't think anyone that ever called themselves a Republican did so because deep down they're a sociopath.

farson135:

First of all, what you described is not being sociopathic. Here are the diagnosis guidelines from the WHO
1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
2.Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
3.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
4.Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
5.Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
6.Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

Second of all, just because you do not like what a person is saying does not mean you get to link what they say with a mental illness.

Well it seems like a large majority of the Republican leadership has gotten 1, 2, 6, 5, and possibly 4 down. Secondly I'm not saying they're sociopaths "because I don't like them", I'm saying it because their policies definitely seem to have some degree of sociopathy and lack of care for other peoples' feelings within them. I've already pointed out the "Let them die" comment, but there's also the "legitimate rape" comments, the talk about how 47% of the nation are moochers living off the government, "takers and makers", "welfare", and a whole host of other things. Honestly, there seems to be a legitimate basis to believe that the Republican party, with it's current politicians and bills, is partially sociopathic in nature.

BTW do you honestly not think it is wrong that the US government could not convict a man for a crime so they just dug into the tax code and found something to charge him with? The US tax code is over 70,000 pages long. No one on earth has the capability of understanding that monstrosity. If you add in the US law code, effectively, every single person in the US over the age of 18 has broken one or several US laws without even knowing it. THAT is fucked up.

Thing is, everyone already knew Al Capone was a criminal. They knew he was a mob boss, they knew he committed crimes and ran a criminal organization, hell he practically admitted to being a criminal! The only problem is that no evidence could stick to the guy. They used one of the few times he actually was caught committing a crime and ran with it. THAT is true justice, putting a criminal, a murderer, a mob boss behind bars. In certain situations, wherein the government has trouble imprisoning a mob boss such as Al Capone, it's perfectly alright to use any legal means necessary to put the man behind bars.

You want to know what is wrong? You guys keep pushing and they keep circling the wagons. It happens all the fucking time. The guys on one side push and the guys on the other side become more radical. If you want it to stop, then cut the shit.

"If you want us to stop killing black folk, then just let us own our slaves in peace!"

Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't stand for Gay marriage rights? That we should just let people oppress and harm others because "we don't want any radicals"? No. It's important to stand up for what's right, and if the other side becomes insane radicals, then it just goes to show they were wrong in the first place.

Most Republicans do not what that either.

That's not what the man they nominated to be their presidential candidate wanted...

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/get-rid-fema-right-wingers-push-insane-privatization-scheme-wake-hurricane-sandy

"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction," said Romney in answering a question about the role of the federal government in disaster relief. He added, "if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."

I am a Libertarian and I can tell you exactly why I want it. It is because companies are predictable. What government wants varies from administration to administration but companies always want profit. So they do their jobs while the government just fucks things up because you have two dozen agencies competing with 3 dozen different priorities and goals.

Oh yes, because the most "profitable" choice is always the most "efficient" and "inexpensive". Are you kidding me? In Rome they had what was, essentially, a privatized fire-fighting service. Want to know what happened? Some rich bastard got the idea to negotiate buying the burnt out ruins of someone's home as their house was burning right next to them at low, low, low prices. All you'll get from a privatized healthcare service is companies that try to make sure you pay them, and they don't have to pay you. All you get from a privatized FEMA service is companies that pull you out of the rubble of your home, then send you a bill later. All you will get from a privatized prison service is companies that lobby for insane laws to push as many people as possible into prison.

Companies may always be motivated by profit, but that doesn't mean that whatever is the most "profitable" choice is the good one for you and me.

No it isn't. Governmental taking of wealth includes large overhead costs, and payments to people who do not need it. Charities give the money where the people see it as needed. The government gives out SSI payments to children with ADHD.

As someone with a younger brother who actually does have ADHD, and has struggled through the schooling system throughout his entire life, you have no idea how angry that comment just made me. The government is more then capable of giving money to those who need it, more so then private charities simply because the government is capable of distributing that money to a wider range of people. There's nothing that makes private charities "magically" more efficient then government one runs, it's simply whoever is employed in each sector. The government gives money where it's needed, and if something goes wrong reforms can always be passed to make things more efficient.

In addition, government is slow as fuck. At one time I lived on the Gulf Coast. The Red Cross was handing out food and water IN HOUSTON several weeks before FEMA got there. And this was already days AFTER Katrina had hit. The Red Cross knew that many refugees were heading to Houston so they set up shop. Then when Rita hit the power companies were on the streets within hours. The Red Cross set up shop in the local high school (which had power hours after the storm was over thanks to coordination between the Red Cross and the power company) and began handing out food and water. Wal-Mart's kept their shelves stocked with food and materials. And all of this was going on before FEMA arrived.

Hmm, FEMA doing poorly under a president that already had a noticeable distrust for FEMA and appointed a total moron who couldn't spell "disaster relief" even if it was written on the board in front of him? Who would've thought such a thing could happen! The only problem with FEMA during katrina was that it was being run by the same people who thought it was "evil big guvment!"

Citation please.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1222162--psychopathy-and-the-ceo-top-executives-have-four-times-the-incidence-of-psychopathy-as-the-rest-of-us

Karma168:
If anything America is closer to 1984 than Europe (Patriot Act, SOPA-esque legislation, FOX News) and yet there is less of the good side of government-run infrastructure.

Do you really want to go down that road?

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/holocaust-denying-bishop-charged/story-e6frfkui-1225787373343
and
http://www.blottr.com/breaking-news/france-police-arrest-4-muslim-women-wearing-headscarves-video
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm
And I could go on all day.

Also, comparing FOX News with the Ministry of Truth? I will need some evidence for that.

The reason Americans fear big government? Because no government makes the effort to keep it running properly. This is especially true of the GOP and their ideological dislike of big government.

Have you ever considered that maybe it just doesn't work properly to begin with? Name the most powerful governments (in terms of power over the people) and you will also be naming greatest failed states. The most powerful government that I can think of that did not fail somewhat quickly was Sparta. And even with them the power was only over the 1st and 3rd tiers of Spartan society. The 2nd tier was generally left alone.

Imagine for a second the Republican party was given control of the UK and can run the country exactly how they want (just go with it). The NHS would likely fail within a decade, why? It's not due to a systemic problem, the NHS has been around for 60+ years and has worked fine, the problem would be the GOP don't like Government run programs.

So if a government program fails it is not because of an inherent problem in the system it is because we do not believe in it enough. You see that is why I am not a statist. Y'all treat government like a religion and if anyone speaks against it you try and burn me at the stake. After all, the only reason things are not better is because I do not fall at the altar of big government the way everyone else does.

America can never have a successful big government while the Republicans have their current mindset.

So nothing is ever successful unless the people march in lockstep? Once again, a prime example of why I am not a statist.

Quite simply any program that got set-up during a democrat-controlled period will probably get gutted next time the Republicans are in charge. It's all too easy to say "we'll ship parts X,Y&Z out to private companies and cut the funding to compensate" and then just repeating that until there's no reason to keep it around any more.

Actually that rarely happens. Jefferson set the precedent and as of yet no new administration has completely undone everything its predecessor did.

If all people have to go on is a past list of failed, poorly run programs and the old boogey man of British government stretching across the Atlantic is it any wonder they don't like the idea.

And there has yet to be a counter example.

Witty Name Here:

scotth266:
snip

I don't hate Republicans, I can appreciate their work ethic and I find "R" is a nice enough fellow when you aren't talking politics with him. I realize my opinion is most likely biased due to my "leftist" views, and I probably came out sounding like "R" was worse then he actually was, however I genuinely believe there's some very small degree of apathy (a much better word then "sociopath" I suppose) from Republicans towards anyone who isn't a close friend or family member.

Take this, for example.

A young man who's only crime was not getting health insurance and ending up sick and in dire need of medical treatment, and the crowd actually cheers "let him die!", honestly there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't want to say all Republicans are like that, but when a crowd cheers at this idea of letting someone die just for not getting health insurance, I think there's something seriously wrong there.

Five people does not a crowd make. They did not cheer for "let him die" they cheered for "freedom." You'll find such a type of delusion is quite common to all political individuals. They are not psychopaths, they are, as a majority, well intentioned.

My father is an extremely radical conservative. He calls anything left of himself socialism. He worries that America is losing touch with its values. He is about as far right as you can get while still being capable of being talked to. He is motivated by all those things that motivate us all I suppose, but selfish is a word that simply does not describe him. My father desires an end to health insurance altogether. My mother sells it. That is the job she has had for decades. My father obviously sees this would destroy them personally. He doesn't mind. My father almost always has someone who is not his responsibility living in his house so that he can help them get back on their feet. Every week he cooks a meal for a rehab group. I find that in many ways he is the least selfish person I know. I'd argue that what really motivates him is just like what probably really motivates you, fear. He fears what government will do when given extensive power. You fear unrestrained business. He worries about what our health care system will be like without risk. You fear that risk, and would rather know everybody can get their healthcare. You and he are afraid. I am afraid. We are all afraid. And that's wrong. Sure, we all have more than fear to support our arguments, but we still use fear like a crutch. We're too human not to.

OP...stop. If you're going to complain about Romney calling 47% of the nation 'moochers', you've got no business calling half the country sociopaths.

You speak of your observations, yet you do not seek to understand. Conservatives are a spectrum of our nation, meaning that each given one may differ in their priorities from the others; just as liberals might. To lump all conservatives together is step one of ideological warfare and no different from the much-loathed '47%' comment.

Conservatives, by and large, simply wish to be given the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own and enjoy any fruits of their labor without undue penalty or vilification. Is that truly unreasonable?

Now obviously, they're going to pursue their own interests to the degree they can get away with (which is a human trait, not an inherently conservative one) so there needs to be a balance. Social programs and labor-force protection are important. After all, not everyone can be a business owner; nor should any one be penalized or marginalized for pursuing other interests and merely working as a simple means to earn a living.

However, again, there must be a balance. Make it too easy for someone to have a comfortable life without making any contributions themselves -in effect- penalizes those who do work for a living (and must, therefore, pay for those who don't). Allow the unions to pursue higher and higher wages beyond a company's ability to pay and you'll see the collapse of the same company in which case: EVERYBODY loses.

The government's function should be to facilitate the wealth and success of its people. It should not have the power to guarantee it; but its primary goal should be only to maintain laws, infrastructure, and a revenue stream toward that end. When that same government considers its own 'wealthy' citizens the enemy: something has gone horribly awry. When that same government takes no steps to protect its less fortunate citizens: something has gone equally awry.

Are there sociopathic conservatives? Yes. But do I really have to point out that there's another side to that coin? Are there people out there whose policies run counter to your interests? Yes. But does that automatically make them 'the enemy'?

senordesol:
OP...stop. If you're going to complain about Romney calling 47% of the nation 'moochers', you've got no business calling half the country sociopaths.

To be fair, he'd only be calling about 25% of the country sociopaths. And only if he'd say all Republicans are like that. Still, yeah, too generalized.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked