Why do people continue to vote for Republicans?

183 posts / 0 new

Check out my blog, posing the question: www.chuckingrocks.com

chuckingrocks
Joined:
Aug. 25, 2011 8:52 am

Comments

Re:"Is our nation really that stupid? Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

The short answer: YES.

pshakkottai's picture
pshakkottai
Joined:
Jul. 11, 2011 11:27 am

The are a whole lot of us out there who distrust government and want them to have as little power and money as possible. Look at what happened in 1994 and the 2010 eletion. Democrats had it all for two years, and the eletorate threw them out in a big way in those two elections. The voting public saw what the Democrats really were and showed up in mass to kick them out of office ASAP.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Yep. Two years from 1981 to 2008. That's how we got there.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mauiman58:

The are a whole lot of us out there who distrust government and want them to have as little power and money as possible. Look at what happened in 1994 and the 2010 eletion. Democrats had it all for two years, and the eletorate threw them out in a big way in those two elections. The voting public saw what the Democrats really were and showed up in mass to kick them out of office ASAP.

The are a whole lot of us out there who distrust big business and want them to have as little power and money as possible. Look at what happened in 2006 and the 2008 eletion. Republicans had it all for six years, and the eletorate threw them out in a big way in those two elections. The voting public saw what the Republicans really were and showed up in mass to kick them out of office ASAP.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mauiman58:...Look at what happened in 1994 and the 2010 eletion. Democrats had it all for two years, and the eletorate threw them out in a big way in those two elections. The voting public saw what the Democrats really were and showed up in mass to kick them out of office ASAP.

You simply can't be that stupid. The electorate through out the Republicans two years early for causing the Great Recession.

The people - being even stupider than you - blamed the Democrats for the Republican Great Recession (which they did not do in the Great Depression because their minds were not polluted by our media and internet), and will likely to do so in November.

The only way you can explain this stuff - the people voting in Republicans one year and a few years later voting Democrats - or, for example, loving Clinton and then voting for Bush - is to admit the people are profoundly, utterly and fantastically misinformed idiots.

They are going to vote for the Ryan budget people, even though 80% of the people think social security and medicare were good and are good for the people, and that tax increases on the rich are a good idea.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:

The people - being even stupider than you - blamed the Democrats for the Republican Great Recession (which they did not do in the Great Depression because their minds were not polluted by our media and internet), and will likely to do so in November.

ROTFLMAO..... I love liberals.... Thier dependence upon government is seemingly justified

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Well, since it's government that controls the money supply and where it resides, there is some justification for electing one that has some sense.

Having one that assures it's sucked into fewer and fewer pockets is probably rather stupid from the majority standpoint..

Wealth and where it resides has been a matter of government policy from the very beginnings of nation-states....starting with the first one, Ancient Egypt.

The right likes to ignore that ancient truth...with lots and lots of theories and ideologies. it doesn't change the historical truth that remains in operation to this day.

The wealth distrubution of any nation state is determined by those who control government.. That's just how it is.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote pshakkottai:

Re:"Is our nation really that stupid? Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

The short answer: YES.

The answer is no.

They can't do it again. Bush is not running. Obama has been a complete disaster. Anyone else under these conditions would be polling at about 25%. Obama is over matched. A minor leaguer trying to play in the big leagues. He claims to know more about business than people who actually have run a business.

But as I said before. Here is why people vote republican.

Why do people vote for republicans? Because we are stuck with two crappy choices. We can vote for a greedy, rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with a D behind his name. Or we can vote for a greedy,rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with an R behind his name. Neither one places anything above his party or himself.

The rich democrat claims to be anti rich.

The big spending republican claims to be anti goverment.

They are both liars. Public service my ass.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote pshakkottai:

Re:"Is our nation really that stupid? Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

The short answer: YES.

The answer is no.

They can't do it again. Bush is not running. Obama has been a complete disaster. Anyone else under these conditions would be polling at about 25%. Obama is over matched. A minor leaguer trying to play in the big leagues. He claims to know more about business than people who actually have run a business.

But as I said before. Here is why people vote republican.

Why do people vote for republicans? Because we are stuck with two crappy choices. We can vote for a greedy, rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with a D behind his name. Or we can vote for a greedy,rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with an R behind his name. Neither one places anything above his party or himself.

The rich democrat claims to be anti rich.

The big spending republican claims to be anti goverment.

They are both liars. Public service my ass.

If they are both "greedy, rich, power hungry, blowhards, then I assume you believe both sides result in "complete disaster," so why do you push the "complete disaster" with an R beside his name, rather than the one with a D?

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Dr. Econ:

The people - being even stupider than you - blamed the Democrats for the Republican Great Recession (which they did not do in the Great Depression because their minds were not polluted by our media and internet), and will likely to do so in November.

ROTFLMAO..... I love liberals.... Thier dependence upon government is seemingly justified

If you could prove anything I said was wrong, you would have done it by now.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote pshakkottai:

Re:"Is our nation really that stupid? Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

The short answer: YES.

The answer is no. They can't do it again. Bush is not running. Obama has been a complete disaster.

You mean because he didn't fix Bush's mess as fast as you would have liked him to?

The arguement that you simply ignored - like so many - is "Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

I just don't see how you can respond that. I guess you didn't, and we know why.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:... But as I said before. Here is why people vote republican.

Yes, you did say that before, I did answer you twice or three times and you mumbled something about 'liberty' or some other one sentence piece of irrelevency.

I will take the country we had under Clinton than the one we had under Bush any day.

And the reason why Obama is having a hard time is because he is not cleaning up the mess Bush left fast enough for you.

Wonderful.

The question is, if you can't respond, debate, argue, why do you continually repeat your nonsense? Why don't you go to some conservative site that agrees exactly with every point you make, and just sit around and say 'ooohh, free markets are so hot'.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote al3:
Quote rigel1:
Quote pshakkottai:

Re:"Is our nation really that stupid? Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

The short answer: YES.

The answer is no.

They can't do it again. Bush is not running. Obama has been a complete disaster. Anyone else under these conditions would be polling at about 25%. Obama is over matched. A minor leaguer trying to play in the big leagues. He claims to know more about business than people who actually have run a business.

But as I said before. Here is why people vote republican.

Why do people vote for republicans? Because we are stuck with two crappy choices. We can vote for a greedy, rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with a D behind his name. Or we can vote for a greedy,rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with an R behind his name. Neither one places anything above his party or himself.

The rich democrat claims to be anti rich.

The big spending republican claims to be anti goverment.

They are both liars. Public service my ass.

If they are both "greedy, rich, power hungry, blowhards, then I assume you believe both sides result in "complete disaster," so why do you push the "complete disaster" with an R beside his name, rather than the one with a D?

Because I don't like the goverment taking over more of my life. I don't want anymore out of control debt. I don't like federal employees abusing my money. I don't like the way Obama pits different groups against each other. I think that's a bit evil. He appears to be a tad bit Marxist. Obama claimed that Bush was irresponsible for running up the debt. And he was. Then Obama did the exact same thing, only much,much worse. The country by all measures has gotten worse over the past four years. We can't take another four years of this "change."

I'm no fan of the R's. In fact I despise them. They are only slightly better than the D's. If at all. Will Romney be any better? I can only hope so. But Obama has already proved that he is not up to the task.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

One Party runs on hope for the future. The other runs on hope for a return to an imaginary past that never existed.

Both offer more of the same.

Get involved in your local precinct...and change the one you personally favor. Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The people actually aren't as dumb as some on this thread show. Americans did not want W, and did not vote for W. W lost FL, too after a state wide recount, so even the abomination known as the electoral college didn't want W. The same thing that happened in 2000 is happening now, only on steroids. In 2000 only FL purged the voting records of democrats [and Gore still won], this time some 13 to 17 states are denying Obama voters access.

The majority do not want to raise their own taxes to give a tax cut to the 2%. Romney and Ryan do. The majority don't want to end medicare, Romney and Ryan do. Majority opinions and desires only count in a functioning democracy.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote al3:
Quote rigel1:
Quote pshakkottai:

Re:"Is our nation really that stupid? Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

The short answer: YES.

The answer is no.

They can't do it again. Bush is not running. Obama has been a complete disaster. Anyone else under these conditions would be polling at about 25%. Obama is over matched. A minor leaguer trying to play in the big leagues. He claims to know more about business than people who actually have run a business.

But as I said before. Here is why people vote republican.

Why do people vote for republicans? Because we are stuck with two crappy choices. We can vote for a greedy, rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with a D behind his name. Or we can vote for a greedy,rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with an R behind his name. Neither one places anything above his party or himself.

The rich democrat claims to be anti rich.

The big spending republican claims to be anti goverment.

They are both liars. Public service my ass.

If they are both "greedy, rich, power hungry, blowhards, then I assume you believe both sides result in "complete disaster," so why do you push the "complete disaster" with an R beside his name, rather than the one with a D?

Because I don't like the goverment taking over more of my life. I don't want anymore out of control debt. I don't like federal employees abusing my money. I don't like the way Obama pits different groups against each other. I think that's a bit evil. He appears to be a tad bit Marxist. Obama claimed that Bush was irresponsible for running up the debt. And he was. Then Obama did the exact same thing, only much,much worse. The country by all measures has gotten worse over the past four years. We can't take another four years of this "change."

I'm no fan of the R's. In fact I despise them. They are only slightly better than the D's. If at all. Will Romney be any better? I can only hope so. But Obama has already proved that he is not up to the task.

So you prefer the "complete disaster" of the GOP brand which has allowed the top 1% to amass a disproportionate amount of the power and wealth in the country? A problem that Obama and Democrats are more likely to address? And yes, the Dems have many warts also, I will acknowlege that. Are you ready to sacrifice the Medicare you've earned? How about the Social Security you've earned? Hope you're not in your 40's or 50's because then you're likely to end up on the short end of the stick with a privatized Medicare and SS. And as far as pitting groups against each other, how bout "50% pay NO taxes!" claim - that doesn't engender division? How bout comments about "Anglos" Romney's people said...that doesn't engender division....and the king of all divisive statements....."Welfare Queens.." That doesn't engender division? That's evil too, I'd say. And as far as the debt, aside from draconian cuts that would lead to a massive depression, I don't think he had much choice to help clean up the Bush mess. Now, do we need common sense cuts/adjustments to Medicare/SS/Medicaid? Of course. Means testing? Maybe. BUT ONLY WITH IF THE TOP 1% PAYS TOO! But to make the middle class, working class, and poor pay for this recession - and let the top 1% - WHO CAUSED THIS MESS- off the hook doesn't fly with me. I'd just as soon go down with the ship. After all, thhe top 1% have much more to lose than me. And that's exactly what a Romney Presidency will offer.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:
Quote al3:
Quote rigel1:
Quote pshakkottai:

Re:"Is our nation really that stupid? Did people forget what a bad President Bush was, and what happened the last time Republicans did the kinds of things they’re proposing to do again?"

The short answer: YES.

The answer is no.

They can't do it again. Bush is not running. Obama has been a complete disaster. Anyone else under these conditions would be polling at about 25%. Obama is over matched. A minor leaguer trying to play in the big leagues. He claims to know more about business than people who actually have run a business.

But as I said before. Here is why people vote republican.

Why do people vote for republicans? Because we are stuck with two crappy choices. We can vote for a greedy, rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with a D behind his name. Or we can vote for a greedy,rich, power hungry, self serving, blowhard with an R behind his name. Neither one places anything above his party or himself.

The rich democrat claims to be anti rich.

The big spending republican claims to be anti goverment.

They are both liars. Public service my ass.

If they are both "greedy, rich, power hungry, blowhards, then I assume you believe both sides result in "complete disaster," so why do you push the "complete disaster" with an R beside his name, rather than the one with a D?

Because I don't like the goverment taking over more of my life. I don't want anymore out of control debt. I don't like federal employees abusing my money. I don't like the way Obama pits different groups against each other. I think that's a bit evil. He appears to be a tad bit Marxist. Obama claimed that Bush was irresponsible for running up the debt. And he was. Then Obama did the exact same thing, only much,much worse. The country by all measures has gotten worse over the past four years. We can't take another four years of this "change."

I'm no fan of the R's. In fact I despise them. They are only slightly better than the D's. If at all. Will Romney be any better? I can only hope so. But Obama has already proved that he is not up to the task.

Well, don't let the facts get in your way again.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

rigel, the GOPimps in the House and the Senate have proved not up to the task, and you want to blame Obama for their not doing their job.

Then, you want to go back to the idiocy that caused the Crash and vote for a Wall St. Robot who is spouting all that PNAC rhetoric as if they inserted a Cheney Chip. My God! What does it take?

Were there an opposition with answers to our economic and political issues, or better yet, ready to tackle the environment to see if we can have future generations, with electoral clout, we would be glad to see Obama have to face that challenge. But, when it is Wall St. on steroids v. consumer protection and the modest limits placed on health insurer rape and pillage, we vote for Obama and work for change outside the Democratic Party.

You do not present any convincing points, and your lame dismissal of Obama as if the only choice for you was RAWMONEY is depressing. Looks and smells like a loser.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I see that people continue to talk about "government" and "big business" as if they are oppositional forces. LOL

The more things change...

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am
Quote Garrett78:

I see that people continue to talk about "government" and "big business" as if they are oppositional forces. LOL

The more things change...

The old government-business "collusion" thing....While I don't disagree with that at all...........let me guess your prescription... is to shrink government so those beleaguered, trapped, altruistic "job creators" in the big business community will shower us all with the prosperity they are so longing to bestow upon us unfortunate government-oppressed souls? That the prosperity they offer us all is just bursting at the seams of the tyrannical, confining wall big government has built to prevent exactly that? That CEOs, Hedge Funds and Bankers will cheerfully come marching back from China, build gleaming new factories, staff them with legal Americans, and offer prosperous wages and benefits, if tyrannical government is out of the way? Uh- don't think so.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote al3:
Quote Garrett78:

I see that people continue to talk about "government" and "big business" as if they are oppositional forces. LOL

The more things change...

The old government-business "collusion" thing....While I don't disagree with that at all...........let me guess your prescription... is to shrink government so those beleaguered, trapped, altruistic "job creators" in the big business community will shower us all with the prosperity they are so longing to bestow upon us unfortunate government-oppressed souls? That the prosperity they offer us all is just bursting at the seams of the tyrannical, confining wall big government has built to prevent exactly that? That CEOs, Hedge Funds and Bankers will cheerfully come marching back from China, build gleaming new factories, staff them with legal Americans, and offer prosperous wages and benefits, if tyrannical government is out of the way? Uh- don't think so.

LOL 2.0

Some veterans of this site can tell you that I wouldn't prescribe that. If I subscribe to libertarianism at all, it is the left wing variety (i.e., libertarian socialism, or anarchy). On my blog, I've touched on that subject: http://simplerebellion.wordpress.com/. Right wing libertarians seem terribly confused, or just plain disingenuous. What they advocate as the solution to our ills is precisely what has contributed to the acceleration of those ills. They advocate what has been the status quo since The Powell Memo was written.

And then there are the Zeitgeist and Alex Jones conspiracy nuts who simply muddy the waters with nonsense. They don't see the world as it is. They ask leading questions, but are not genuinely inquisitive. Quite a few, most Ron Paul supporters but others loyal Dems or even Greens, post on this site.

CEOs and the rest imply hierarchy, a monetary system, and so on. I'd just assume do away with all of that. I advocate a change in the way we live, which likely needs to be preceded by a dramatic shift in consciousness.

Garrett78's picture
Garrett78
Joined:
Sep. 3, 2010 9:20 am
Quote Garrett78:
Quote al3:
Quote Garrett78:

I see that people continue to talk about "government" and "big business" as if they are oppositional forces. LOL

The more things change...

The old government-business "collusion" thing....While I don't disagree with that at all...........let me guess your prescription... is to shrink government so those beleaguered, trapped, altruistic "job creators" in the big business community will shower us all with the prosperity they are so longing to bestow upon us unfortunate government-oppressed souls? That the prosperity they offer us all is just bursting at the seams of the tyrannical, confining wall big government has built to prevent exactly that? That CEOs, Hedge Funds and Bankers will cheerfully come marching back from China, build gleaming new factories, staff them with legal Americans, and offer prosperous wages and benefits, if tyrannical government is out of the way? Uh- don't think so.

LOL 2.0

Some veterans of this site can tell you that I wouldn't prescribe that. If I subscribe to libertarianism at all, it is the left wing variety (i.e., libertarian socialism, or anarchy). On my blog, I've touched on that subject: http://simplerebellion.wordpress.com/. Right wing libertarians seem terribly confused, or just plain disingenuous. What they advocate as the solution to our ills is precisely what has contributed to the acceleration of those ills. They advocate what has been the status quo since The Powell Memo was written.

And then there are the Zeitgeist and Alex Jones conspiracy nuts who simply muddy the waters with nonsense. They don't see the world as it is. They ask leading questions, but are not genuinely inquisitive. Quite a few, most Ron Paul supporters but others loyal Dems or even Greens, post on this site.

CEOs and the rest imply hierarchy, a monetary system, and so on. I'd just assume do away with all of that. I advocate a change in the way we live, which likely needs to be preceded by a dramatic shift in consciousness.

Duck! Friendly fire!

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote al3:
Quote Garrett78:
Quote al3:
Quote Garrett78:

I see that people continue to talk about "government" and "big business" as if they are oppositional forces. LOL

The more things change...

The old government-business "collusion" thing....While I don't disagree with that at all...........let me guess your prescription... is to shrink government so those beleaguered, trapped, altruistic "job creators" in the big business community will shower us all with the prosperity they are so longing to bestow upon us unfortunate government-oppressed souls? That the prosperity they offer us all is just bursting at the seams of the tyrannical, confining wall big government has built to prevent exactly that? That CEOs, Hedge Funds and Bankers will cheerfully come marching back from China, build gleaming new factories, staff them with legal Americans, and offer prosperous wages and benefits, if tyrannical government is out of the way? Uh- don't think so.

LOL 2.0

Some veterans of this site can tell you that I wouldn't prescribe that. If I subscribe to libertarianism at all, it is the left wing variety (i.e., libertarian socialism, or anarchy). On my blog, I've touched on that subject: http://simplerebellion.wordpress.com/. Right wing libertarians seem terribly confused, or just plain disingenuous. What they advocate as the solution to our ills is precisely what has contributed to the acceleration of those ills. They advocate what has been the status quo since The Powell Memo was written.

And then there are the Zeitgeist and Alex Jones conspiracy nuts who simply muddy the waters with nonsense. They don't see the world as it is. They ask leading questions, but are not genuinely inquisitive. Quite a few, most Ron Paul supporters but others loyal Dems or even Greens, post on this site.

CEOs and the rest imply hierarchy, a monetary system, and so on. I'd just assume do away with all of that. I advocate a change in the way we live, which likely needs to be preceded by a dramatic shift in consciousness.

Duck! Friendly fire!

Excellent!

There are some successful co-ops, and esops, [they are not fables]. The US is a 70% consumer driven economy, Europe is about 50%. Europe has a higher standard of living, better medical care, better environmental protections and practices, less corruption, stronger family support, higher productivity, and less empire adventurism. There are also laws preventing marketing to children, to prevent a whole generation of the vulnerable from becoming obsessive consumers of products they don't need and can't afford.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So, let me guess, the way to have them return working capital, outsource less, and insource more, increase business operations here, and along with that offer thousands and thousands of new jobs and opportunities more than the current trickle,

is to maintain the world's highest corporate tax rate, and more and more 2,500 page byzantine pieces of legislation, along with eponentially expanding executive branch orders and EPA straightjackets? Uh-don't think so.

WhitemoonG's picture
WhitemoonG
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We can't compete with wage slaves in China or India. We have average effective tax rates. And all countries have EPA or the likes of it. In Europe you even have to pay a carbon tax on your car.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote WhitemoonG:

So, let me guess... ...Uh-don't think so.

Your logic is perfectly proportional, well done!

Linda, what do you think?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Linda?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

I found this interesting, a matter of frames.

" The liberal use of the term “low-information voters” reveals they need to recognize that conservatives have a moral system that is different from theirs and that they vote on the basis of it.

Second, they need to notice that many liberal Democrats vote on the basis of as little information as the Republicans they are calling LIVs. Third, they need to understand how brains work: If the facts don’t fit morally based frame-circuits, it’s the frame-circuits that stay and the facts that go out the window.

Fourth, liberals who speak of LIVs need to understand that many voters, Democrats as well as Republicans, vote on the basis of values and character rather than policies, material advantages and facts. In short, they vote on the basis of trust — trust in both whom they vote for and the sources of information about whom to vote for.

Cursing conservative low-information voters for not voting for liberal policies is a fool’s errand for all these reasons.

So how do political parties best inform and influence voters who have both moral systems but switch back and forth? The trick is what you’re already seeing on your television: the consistent and repetitive use of language that activates frames and moral systems. Never use the other side’s language. And always say out loud the moral framing needed for comprehending the facts.

For example, healthcare is a matter of freedom and life. If you have cancer and no healthcare, you are not free and you could die! With the right narrative, it is a powerful message, and one that tells a deep truth.

And, like it says on the back of the shampoo bottle — repeat as necessary. Brains don’t change without repetition." from

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/did-you-know-the-economy-is-running-a-1-2-trillion-personal-profit/

pshakkottai's picture
pshakkottai
Joined:
Jul. 11, 2011 11:27 am

[quote=pshakkottai)

Cursing conservative low-information voters for not voting for liberal policies is a fool’s errand.

[/quote]

I can agree with this statement except for the fact that it implies that conservatives are by definition low information voters. But the liberals and progresives have to realize that there are a whole bunch of us out there who distrust government and want to limit its power as much as possible. That's because we feel that the system is run by a bunch a career policiians who are just out to get re elected. When they spend tax dollars, their number one concern is "how do I spend this money so I can get re elected?"

I know that you and most on this board disagree with that thought, but the subject here is "why do people keep voting for Republicans?". That has a lot to do with it.

And by the way, like I have said before, you will find very few people who agree with your point that deficits don't matter. You have a HUGE sales job on that point before you will even get 10% of the population to agree with you on that point.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Re: "And by the way, like I have said before, you will find very few people who agree with your point that deficits don't matter. You have a HUGE sales job on that point before you will even get 10% of the population to agree with you on that point."

I agree with you.

pshakkottai's picture
pshakkottai
Joined:
Jul. 11, 2011 11:27 am

People continue to vote for Republicans for the same reason that people continue to vote for Democrats. The politicians and their pundits sell the people on things that match up with their ideals in order to get their votes and then they get back to business as usual. All the while letting us fight it out until the next election where we will do it all over again.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Mauiman2:

Quote pshakkottai: Cursing conservative low-information voters for not voting for liberal policies is a fool’s errand.

I can agree with this statement except for the fact that it implies that conservatives are by definition low information voters. But the liberals and progresives have to realize that there are a whole bunch of us out there who distrust government and want to limit its power as much as possible. That's because we feel that the system is run by a bunch a career policiians who are just out to get re elected. When they spend tax dollars, their number one concern is "how do I spend this money so I can get re elected?"

That's ridiculous. We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:

Quote pshakkottai: Cursing conservative low-information voters for not voting for liberal policies is a fool’s errand.

I can agree with this statement except for the fact that it implies that conservatives are by definition low information voters. But the liberals and progresives have to realize that there are a whole bunch of us out there who distrust government and want to limit its power as much as possible. That's because we feel that the system is run by a bunch a career policiians who are just out to get re elected. When they spend tax dollars, their number one concern is "how do I spend this money so I can get re elected?"

That's ridiculous. We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

And this proves my point that according to "Progresives", if you disagree with them it can only be because you are stupid.

However I should have pointed out that my condemnation of politicians was aimed at them as a group, and there are exceptions. However Mr. Obama is not one of the exceptions, sorry.

And my condemnation is aimed at both sides of the aisle, not just the left.

And the longer that "Progressives" keep banging the drum that if you disagree with us you are stupid, the worse it will get for your side. You need to win a few people with my point of view over to your side, and that's no way to do it.

And remember the topic of this thread is "Why do people continue to vote for Republicans?". All I am doing is answering that question. I understand that most of this board will disagree with me, that's a given. But there is a good reason why the country, as a whole, is center, slightly to the right, politically. If you choose to ignore those reasons you have that right to do that, but that will not help your cause one little bit.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:

Quote pshakkottai: Cursing conservative low-information voters for not voting for liberal policies is a fool’s errand.

I can agree with this statement except for the fact that it implies that conservatives are by definition low information voters. But the liberals and progresives have to realize that there are a whole bunch of us out there who distrust government and want to limit its power as much as possible. That's because we feel that the system is run by a bunch a career policiians who are just out to get re elected. When they spend tax dollars, their number one concern is "how do I spend this money so I can get re elected?"

That's ridiculous. We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

And this proves my point that according to "Progresives", if you disagree with them it can only be because you are stupid.

You can lead a horse to water....

I thought it was obvious that conservatives are against things that have been for their entire life - because the Republican propaganda machine has misled them into thinking that Obama is a socialist. In fact, most of his positions are consistent with hitorical conservative beliefs. That is why I said 'this proves the point that conservatives are low information voters'. In other words, I was postulating that most conservaties would agree with most of the things Obama has actually done.

Quote Mauiman2:...But there is a good reason why the country, as a whole, is center, slightly to the right, politically. If you choose to ignore those reasons you have that right to do that, but that will not help your cause one little bit.

They are center right because they have been lied to. If you look at the issues, they support social security, medicare, raising taxes on the rich and the rest of it. I think that is my whole point.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:

Quote pshakkottai: Cursing conservative low-information voters for not voting for liberal policies is a fool’s errand.

I can agree with this statement except for the fact that it implies that conservatives are by definition low information voters. But the liberals and progresives have to realize that there are a whole bunch of us out there who distrust government and want to limit its power as much as possible. That's because we feel that the system is run by a bunch a career policiians who are just out to get re elected. When they spend tax dollars, their number one concern is "how do I spend this money so I can get re elected?"

That's ridiculous. We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

And this proves my point that according to "Progresives", if you disagree with them it can only be because you are stupid.

You can lead a horse to water....

I thought it was obvious that conservatives are against things that have been for their entire life - because the Republican propaganda machine has misled them into thinking that Obama is a socialist. In fact, most of his positions are consistent with hitorical conservative beliefs. That is why I said 'this proves the point that conservatives are low information voters'. In other words, I was postulating that most conservaties would agree with most of the things Obama has actually done.

Quote Mauiman2:...But there is a good reason why the country, as a whole, is center, slightly to the right, politically. If you choose to ignore those reasons you have that right to do that, but that will not help your cause one little bit.

They are center right because they have been lied to. If you look at the issues, they support social security, medicare, raising taxes on the rich and the rest of it. I think that is my whole point.

If you think Obama is a conservative, all I can say is that you are all by yourself on that one. I can't imagine anyone making that statement with a straight face. And sorry, there are just as many lies coming from the left as there are from the right.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2: If you think Obama is a conservative, all I can say is that you are all by yourself on that one. I can't imagine anyone making that statement with a straight face.

Well, you could try refuting what I said. Which, in case you forgot was this:

We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2: If you think Obama is a conservative, all I can say is that you are all by yourself on that one. I can't imagine anyone making that statement with a straight face.

Well, you could try refuting what I said. Which, in case you forgot was this:

We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

You'll have to forgive me, but you'll have to explain how this statement "proves" Conservatives are low information voters.

You understand you a whining a losers whine. When your side loses an election it is simply a case that not enough voters bought into your side of the arguement. A long tern winner looks at what happened and tries to figure out why that happened. A long term loser whines about how everyone voting against his point of view is either a low informaion voter, or the voters got lied to. Or blames media bias.

You are textbook long term loser by your own chioce.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Mauiman, Tahuyaman, Camaroman, etc.

Always the same ridiculous crap from the man.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Dr. Econ:

Quote Mauiman2: If you think Obama is a conservative, all I can say is that you are all by yourself on that one. I can't imagine anyone making that statement with a straight face.

Well, you could try refuting what I said. Which, in case you forgot was this:

We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

You'll have to forgive me, but you'll have to explain how this statement "proves" Conservatives are low information voters.

You understand you a whining a losers whine. When your side loses an election it is simply a case that not enough voters bought into your side of the arguement. A long tern winner looks at what happened and tries to figure out why that happened. A long term loser whines about how everyone voting against his point of view is either a low informaion voter, or the voters got lied to. Or blames media bias.

You are textbook long term loser by your own chioce.

If most conservatives were smart, they would realize that Obama is a historical conservative, which I have now written twice and twice you did not refute. Now, do I have to point out that modern tea party folks are more conservative than historical conservatives? Of course. But most conservatives - and independent conservatives - are not that insane. They simply are not well informed.

Another way to prove it is to ask why so many voted for Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2000. Or all those people who supported the Republican primary circus clowns. They would support one one month, then for some reason dump then in the next month. Either they shouldn't have supported them in the first place, or, upon supporting them, should have done so longer.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2: If you think Obama is a conservative, all I can say is that you are all by yourself on that one. I can't imagine anyone making that statement with a straight face.

Well, you could try refuting what I said. Which, in case you forgot was this:

We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

You'll have to forgive me, but you'll have to explain how this statement "proves" Conservatives are low information voters.

You understand you a whining a losers whine. When your side loses an election it is simply a case that not enough voters bought into your side of the arguement. A long tern winner looks at what happened and tries to figure out why that happened. A long term loser whines about how everyone voting against his point of view is either a low informaion voter, or the voters got lied to. Or blames media bias.

You are textbook long term loser by your own chioce.

If most conservatives were smart, they would realize that Obama is a historical conservative, which I have now written twice and twice you did not refute. Now, do I have to point out that modern tea party folks are more conservative than historical conservatives? Of course. But most conservatives - and independent conservatives - are not that insane. They simply are not well informed.

Another way to prove it is to ask why so many voted for Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2000. Or all those people who supported the Republican primary circus clowns. They would support one one month, then for some reason dump then in the next month. Either they shouldn't have supported them in the first place, or, upon supporting them, should have done so longer.

Sorry I did not refute your point about Obama being a conservative because it is ridiculas. You can NEVER point out a conservative that would have proposed the 900 billion dollar bailout that he pulled off early in his presidency. Or the blatent take over of one seventh of the US economy by the government via Obamacare.

At this point if you want ot call Obama a conservative that's fine with me. If you want to call all Conservatives stupid, I'll wear that badge proudly. But you obviously miss the point of an election, it is a competition of ideas, you need to persuade persons to your point of view, and by declaring all people who disagree with you stupid, you're digging your own grave.

And at this point I thank you for doing that, the country will be better off with "low information Conservatives" in charge as opposed to :"well informed Progressives".

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:

...the country will be better off with "low information Conservatives" in charge...

You ignorant fool.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote Mauiman2: If you think Obama is a conservative, all I can say is that you are all by yourself on that one. I can't imagine anyone making that statement with a straight face.

Well, you could try refuting what I said. Which, in case you forgot was this:

We didn't elect Bernie Sanders, we elected Barack Obama. He put in Nixon's health care mandate and kept Bush's tax cuts - and Bush's war in Afghanistan. His stimulus idea is in every standard economic text book. His financial reforms barely make a dent in the deregulation made by the Republicans and Clinton. His major accomplishment in his second term if he wins - keeping social security and medicare - two programs championed by Reagan.

This proves the point: that Conservatives are low information voters.

You'll have to forgive me, but you'll have to explain how this statement "proves" Conservatives are low information voters.

You understand you a whining a losers whine. When your side loses an election it is simply a case that not enough voters bought into your side of the arguement. A long tern winner looks at what happened and tries to figure out why that happened. A long term loser whines about how everyone voting against his point of view is either a low informaion voter, or the voters got lied to. Or blames media bias.

You are textbook long term loser by your own chioce.

If most conservatives were smart, they would realize that Obama is a historical conservative, which I have now written twice and twice you did not refute. Now, do I have to point out that modern tea party folks are more conservative than historical conservatives? Of course. But most conservatives - and independent conservatives - are not that insane. They simply are not well informed.

Another way to prove it is to ask why so many voted for Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2000. Or all those people who supported the Republican primary circus clowns. They would support one one month, then for some reason dump then in the next month. Either they shouldn't have supported them in the first place, or, upon supporting them, should have done so longer.

Sorry I did not refute your point about Obama being a conservative because it is ridiculas. You can NEVER point out a conservative that would have proposed the 900 billion dollar bailout that he pulled off early in his presidency. Or the blatent take over of one seventh of the US economy by the government via Obamacare.

At this point if you want ot call Obama a conservative that's fine with me. If you want to call all Conservatives stupid, I'll wear that badge proudly. But you obviously miss the point of an election, it is a competition of ideas, you need to persuade persons to your point of view, and by declaring all people who disagree with you stupid, you're digging your own grave.

And at this point I thank you for doing that, the country will be better off with "low information Conservatives" in charge as opposed to :"well informed Progressives".

Romney put in Obamacare in Ma. Isn't he a conservative?

He got the plan from Bob Dole, who offered it up in the Senate.

Dole got the plan From Nixon.

As to stimulus plans, as I said, they are in all the text books, and the idea is not foreign to conservatives. Paul Ryan argued for one in 2002, saying "You have to spend a little to grow a little".

About a third of the Obama stimulus was tax cuts - similiar to ones put in by Bush earlier.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:

Romney put in Obamacare in Ma. Isn't he a conservative

Did he... Last I checked, that was the Mass. legislators did "romneycare" and he choose to sign it into law because states can do what the federal government (shouldn't be able to) Romney's original plan was rewritten by the Legislators and then he vetoed 8 sections of the bill in which the Legislator promptly over-rode his veto's.

So who's plan was it again?

As to stimulus plans, as I said, they are in all the text books, and the idea is not foreign to conservatives. Paul Ryan argued for one in 2002, saying "You have to spend a little to grow a little".

Ironic... Ryan was right then, just as he is right now.

About a third of the Obama stimulus was tax cuts - similiar to ones put in by Bush earlier

similar.. but not the same. that is why it failed, progressives trying to act like conservatives.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am

Why do people continue to vote for Republicans?

My guess is they do it because of a condition that is similar to the Stockholm Syndrome, where hostages begin to empathize with their captors.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

People continue to vote for Republicans for the same reason that people continue to vote for Democrats. The politicians and their pundits sell the people on things that match up with their ideals in order to get their votes and then they get back to business as usual. All the while letting us fight it out until the next election where we will do it all over again.

Bingo... the illusion of choice, of democracy where there is none.

Reagan, Bush, and Cheney/Bush destroying the working class and the poor while slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people is bad. Clinton and Obama doing the same... not as bad. Fascinating to observe...

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

To add to what norske said Mitchell says :

I, who used to vote mostly Republican, because I believed the conservatives had a better handle on business and economics, now find myself disagreeing with the conservative movement on almost every major issue:

Treatment of gays: I favor allowing gays to marry (who does it hurt?) and do not feel being gay is an “abomination” or whatever other insults the pious right throws at it. Love is better than hate.

Treatment of immigrants: I favor making U.S. citizenship much easier. I would do a background check for criminality, then let them in. It costs us far more trying to keep them out. (Hello, Arizona) We all are immigrants, and it was much easier back then. Current laws are exclusionary for no reason.

Birth control: I favor abortion rights in the first trimester, and yes, let’s do stem cell research rather than protecting microscopic cells doomed to die, anyway. Or, we can let girls have babies they can’t care for, thereby guaranteeing yet another generation of poverty and crime.

Religion in public venues: Any step toward theocracy, even a tiny step, is a move toward disaster. If you want to pray, close your eyes and pray. God will hear you. Don’t force me to listen to you.

Attitudes about aid to the poor. Recent sneering about “food stamp President” is symptomatic of distaste for people less fortunate. No, the poor are not lazy bums. They are you, but for the grace of God.

Gun control: No more BS. Guns account for most of the murders in America. The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” I see the guns and the killing, but where is the well regulated Militia to control those guns? The pious right resists any sort of regulation.

Payroll tax cut: FICA should be eliminated, forever. It has no purpose in a Monetarily Sovereign nation. Although most taxes are bad, this may be single worst tax of all. Why is the pious right so resistant to cutting it?

Unemployment insurance: Extend it. What’s the alternative? Let the people starve? Either give them money or give them jobs, but don’t let them die – or riot.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid: Why do we talk about limiting them? They are the crown jewels of a modern society. Our Monetarily Sovereign government can afford to pay for these services and the people can’t. I favor free Medicare for every U.S. resident (not just citizen) and untaxed Social Security.

The wealth gap: Cut social services and don’t tax the wealthy? Really? Well, I do agree with not taxing the wealthy – or the un-wealthy, for that matter — but we should expand social services.

Campaign contribution limits: That right wing Supreme Court is simply nuts about the rich. Simply nuts.

Preemptive war: Previous wars belonged to the Democrats, but more recently the Republicans have taken over. George Bush was a lying fool, who cost thousands of Americans their lives and limbs, all in the name of right wing “patriotism” (and to show his father something). What is there about the right that they keep waving the flag?

The environment: We need it; our kids need it. I favor strict pollution controls along with federal aid to affected industries and more federal support for energy research.

I was a conservative, but if all of the above makes me a liberal, so be it. Come to think of it, every great social initiative was passed by liberals. The conservatives have, of late, become the party of hate. Who are these people who vote Republican these days? Why are they so filled with venom?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

from

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/who-are-the-people-who-v...

pshakkottai's picture
pshakkottai
Joined:
Jul. 11, 2011 11:27 am
Quote pshakkottai:

Come to think of it, every great social initiative was passed by liberals. The conservatives have, of late, become the party of hate. Who are these people who vote Republican these days? Why are they so filled with venom?

True enough... and the ability of a handful of obscenely rich sociopaths being able to convince so many to vote and act against their own economic and social best interests is one for the ages. The disconnect begins when so many connect the Democratic Party as being representtive of liberal ideals....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote pshakkottai:

I was a conservative,

LOL...

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote norske:

True enough... and the ability of a handful of obscenely rich sociopaths being able to convince so many to vote and act against their own economic and social best interests is one for the ages.

Love that saying... "so many to vote and act against their own economic and social best interests " Jut let that sink in a moment.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 7:38 am
Quote Capital1:
Quote norske:

True enough... and the ability of a handful of obscenely rich sociopaths being able to convince so many to vote and act against their own economic and social best interests is one for the ages.

Love that saying... "so many to vote and act against their own economic and social best interests " Jut let that sink in a moment.

Keep it up you two, destroy America's faith in itself. Both sides are evil, and nothing can stop them. We should give up, according to your psy-ops team.

To everone else here. Don't give up, and don't leave the ship with the rats.

The ship will be much nicer once the rats have drowned.

And the Pharaohs walked toward the sea

which parted, incidentally.

And thinking it was safe to pass

they lifted Romney by the ass

and walked like Gods between the floods

with gold and diamonds in their mouths

to hide them from each other's eyes.

Right here, where now calm waters rise

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system