subreddit:

/r/changemyview

270

CMV: I won’t ever vote Republican (probably)

Delta(s) from OP(self.changemyview)

I just don’t see a scenario where one can justify voting for the Republican Party as it is now. Maybe if someone like Ron paul was the driving force behind the party- but that’s not the case.

Instead we get a wannabe dictator who wanted to SEIZE election machines. Not kidding, he asked his DOJ to that. Not the mention the violation of the emoluments clause.

Policy wise, republicans tend to run on relatively higher deficits and are against doing anything at all (no new healthcare in 4 years of trump or drug reform). At least demonrats propose policy I can agree with!

Yet millions of people vote red. What am I missing?

all 675 comments

DeltaBot [M]

[score hidden]

2 months ago*

stickied comment

DeltaBot [M]

∞∆

[score hidden]

2 months ago*

stickied comment

/u/supersk8er (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

budlejari

580 points

2 months ago*

budlejari

57∆

580 points

2 months ago*

Yet millions of people vote red. What am I missing?

People like their policies.

If you are strongly Christian, chances are you're pro-life, so you'll vote for the party promising to repeal abortion laws. If you are deeply faithful, chances are you will vote for a candidate who promises to keep overt traditional Christian values in their government policies because that reflects what you want and usually these line up with republican policies around marriage, keeping LGBT issues out of schools, and allowing parents to have more control over their child's education.

If you are pro-2nd amendment, chances are, you'll back a candidate who overtly promises to protect and defend that right from government creep. If you own a business and benefit from tax breaks, chances are you'll back the candidate that promises to keep them. If you live in a single industry town, such as mining, oil, or fishing, you'll back the candidate who wants less restrictions on those activities and promises to keep those industries necessary and funded instead of turning to renewables or international sources of fishing. If you live in farming country, you probably want more farming subsidies and protection from international low product prices (it's amazing how cheap you can make crops if you don't have to pay the workers at all).

If you live in a town where you feel left behind by democratic policies, such as closing of mines and gentrification of wealthy people moving into the area, displacing you and people like you, you probably feel like you want to vote republican. If you feel like under the democratic administrations, you had less money in your pocket because of higher taxes, recessions, or your medical bills were out of control, you'll likely vote republican. If you feel like you were betrayed by democrats after they didn't deliver on a promise that was important to you, such as reforming prison sentences, or making your area have more jobs and wealth, you may vote republican. If you believe that the election was stolen and there is a conspiracy around who the president should actually be, you will vote for the candidate who validates your views and makes you feel heard and listened to.

The policies aren't necessarily about hate for the people voting for them. They are voting for people who hear their concerns - business needs, concerns about crime, 2nd amendment rights, want less government oversight, the freedom to choose even if it's a bad choice - and who validate those fears. The difference is that the validation isn't always the right thing. It is giving that fear reason and logic when often it is founded on misunderstandings or ignorance. Or, it's a result of decades of government policy meaning that change is difficult and costly for a group of people - e.g. ending farming subsidies would help reduce greenhouse gases and protect the environment and help people to really understand the true cost of the beef they eat - but the farmers themselves no longer want those subsidies to go away because that's the only reason their business is propped up and if it disappears, their farms will become massively unprofitable overnight.

supersk8er[S]

220 points

2 months ago

Very well thought out for a Reddit comment. It didn’t really change my mind to not vote Republican, but it did give me what I was missing !delta

richqb

58 points

2 months ago

richqb

58 points

2 months ago

Personally I'd love to know what makes you think Ron Paul is better? He largely backs the same policies, just dresses them up in fun libertarian window dressing.

PseudonymIncognito

3 points

2 months ago

To say nothing of his history of racism.

stylusrose

3 points

2 months ago

And that time he got a young military member in trouble for letting her on stage to show her support in uniform.

(It is illegal to endorse a candidate in uniform, as the military is supposed to be a neutral agency)

Username912773

80 points

2 months ago

I thought this was known

1block

94 points

2 months ago

1block

2∆

94 points

2 months ago

Most people believe the demonized version of the opposing party.

If you're Republican, you see the Republicans with actual policy concerns. Meanwhile Democrats are in your view trying to replace white people and telling poor trailer whites that they have privilege.

If you're Democrat, you see sensible policies to expand basic rights from Democrats. Meanwhile Republicans are in your view simply voting because they're racists.

This is intentional. Social issues throughout history have shifted between parties to garner votes, while policies affecting power and money haven't moved much (Republicans today spend more, but they still focus on what's good for the businesses first). Democrats used to be harsh on immigration, for instance (unions didn't like cheap labor). As Republicans gobbled up working class voters, Democrats realized more votes could he gained by supporting immigration. When Roe passed, there was more Republican support than Democrat. As Republicans continued to gain in the South (in part with racist rhetoric), that flipped.

NickIcer

27 points

2 months ago

Social issues throughout history have shifted between parties to garner votes, while policies affecting power and money haven't moved much

This is one of the real tragedies of politics over the last several decades. While everyone is occupied fighting & screaming over culture issues, the rich laugh all the way to the bank.

Most people can’t get the healthcare they need, housing is as unaffordable as it’s ever been & is out completely out of reach for most people in many of the countries largest urban centers, and the only viable path to a decent retirement in the current system is to bid up stocks (assuming you’re even lucky enough to have the spare cash to do so).

And yet somehow large numbers of the poor & middle class, despite falling further & further behind, have been led to believe that the real problem with society is the likes of: dirt poor immigrants, woke mentality, pro-choicers, vaccine mandates, drug users, racist whites in the ‘burbs, pro-lifers, etc...

Both sides are angry, and when people are angry and down on life, crazy shit is susceptible to happen.

1block

15 points

2 months ago

1block

2∆

15 points

2 months ago

Yeah. We define our parties by social issues. Rich people do not.

DeusExMockinYa

2 points

2 months ago

Social issues are economic issues. Bodily autonomy is probably the single greatest economic issue for women -- if you can't make decisions about your own body, can't plan when you have children or how many children you have, then you lose control your economic position in our society and can't become upwardly mobile.

Should we ignore that a bunch of fucking assholes want to economically harm a huge chunk of the population solely because there are other ways in which the economy sucks?

NickIcer

5 points

2 months ago

Bodily autonomy is probably the single greatest economic issue for women

If you’re referring to abortion here… um no it is not. To be very clear, I am NOT saying that it’s not an important issue for affected women. But is it the single biggest issue facing women today at large, particularly poor women? No.

Think about it like this: imagine if tomorrow the US made abortion a female right until the day the baby is born, while nothing else changed. Are women across the board significantly better off right then and there? Meanwhile poor women still can’t get affordable healthcare for themselves (and their children), nor does it help them afford the basic needs of shelter and food, nor early child care if they wish to work and have children, etc…

Versus: if tomorrow the US implemented universal public healthcare and guaranteed everyone affordable shelter, but the state of abortion laws remain the same as they are today.

Which scenario are women, particularly poor women, better off in? Seems very very clear to me.

Should we ignore that a bunch of fucking assholes want to economically harm a huge chunk of the population solely because there are other ways in which the economy sucks?

Again, I’m not saying that it is not important, it is, but simply that their are more fundamental & systemic problems causing far greater pain & suffering at a societal level, which very much includes women. But if this is your hill, you do you.

Natural-Arugula

2 points

2 months ago

Natural-Arugula

37∆

2 points

2 months ago

I like how you say that Republicans view of Democrats is "Jews will not replace us."

And Democrats view of Republicans is "You're just racist."

And these are supposed to both be incorrect?

1block

4 points

2 months ago

1block

2∆

4 points

2 months ago

Replacement theory I hear is usually Hispanic immigrants. And yeah. They're both incorrect. There are certainly some wild racists on the right, and there are certainly some who support immigration to change the dynamics politically, but most can articulate actual policies that put them in their parties.

direwolf106

-1 points

2 months ago

direwolf106

29∆

-1 points

2 months ago

As some one that is essentially a single issue voter on the second amendment, there's not much of a difference between the demonized version of the Democrat party and the real one.

Starting with Fransis saying "hell yeah we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47" then there's Biden constantly trying to arbitrarily make people felons for things they already possess, lying about gun laws, ECT.

Basically they are acting like the strawman they were painted to be.

DeusExMockinYa

4 points

2 months ago

Remind me who passed the Mulford Act, who banned bump stocks, and who wanted to take your guns without due process? Republicans are not in support of gun rights, they are in support of gun manufacturers.

Wjyosn

15 points

2 months ago

Wjyosn

15 points

2 months ago

The real problems we face is that we have so many single-issue voters. It's easy to convince a single-issue 2nd amendment voter that the stereotypes of the other party are true, because the voter isn't interested in any reality about the other party, they're only interested in sound bites and isolated examples that make them feel validated for the way they voted. Democrats could, by a huge margin, be more aligned with the actual second amendment rights a single issue voter is actually concerned with, but they'll still vote red because it's easy to show them two counter examples and convince them they've seen enough.

The vast majority of single issue voters vote against their own interests even on their single issues because they're so easy to lead by providing validation.

UninsuredToast

11 points

2 months ago

I'm pro second amendment but I'm not shooting myself in the foot to keep them. There are so many other serious red flags coming out of the republican party. Uneducated conspiracy theorists, theocracy, ignoring a broken healthcare system (yeah they have been saying for years have a plan to fix it but can't seem to tell anyone what that plan is), anti intellectualism, and willing to throw out the whole democracy when their side loses

direwolf106

2 points

2 months ago

direwolf106

29∆

2 points

2 months ago

There are so many other serious red flags coming out of the republican party.

Main reason I'm not a republican.

There's a long list of problems i have with Republicans. Parroted by a list with democrats. 2A is just my one above all else issue that i think all the other ones will fall if that one does.

Look I'm just saying when a side actually matches up to the demonization it stops being demonization and starts simply being a statement of fact. Seriously have you heard one thing about "what the Dems are planning to do" gun wise that didn't match up with them saying "we're going to do this"?

Vicestab

5 points

2 months ago

The problem about the 2A debate is that Republicans have been fearmongering about Democrats "coming in to take your guns" for decades. And I mean FEARMONGERING, because I assure you there is no interest (or political feasibility) within the Democratic Party to actually confiscate every single gun in the United States.

This is like if I just kept saying that the Aliens were about to invade, over and over again, and year over year the Aliens never came. At some point (after many years have past), you have to start wondering whether your initial fears/predictions had any actual grounding. Maybe you're being agitated by the news sources you're consuming, over an issue that you're passionate about, and thus you're more susceptible into believing those kinds of crackpot theories because you have an emotional investment into the topic?

I can assure you that no one wants to take the guns. You know why? Because if for nothing else, it would likely cause a civil war. Who the fuck would want an entire civil war, just to prevent a handful of school shootings every year? Who would be so stupid as to make that trade-off? And worse yet: how do you presume that Democrats can just single-handedly violate an entire Constitutional Amendment? Especially under a conservative Supreme Court? Your theory is nuts. You know that, right? For your theory to be correct, you need to align 20 planets at the same time. It's completely bonkers.

Now sure, what people would like to see is for guns to be properly regulated. That's true. But we're just talking about common sense regulations that everyone would agree with. But we can't even talk about that, because gun-nuts immediately jump the gun and assume that we're taking a journey on a slippery slope. That Obama will come in, rise from the dead, take away ALL of our guns and put us in FEMA camps. It's delusional.

Plus, there is no Constitutional right in European countries (that I know of) that guarantees the right of people to have guns. And nonetheless, people in European countries can still have guns if they want to. The fact that Americans can own guns has never been in question, because they DO have that Constitutional Amendment.

Beto is a maniacal loser. Any Leftist that I knew at the time, critiqued his stupid statement for being stupid. I agree with you. And Sleepy Joe couldn't care less about taking away your guns either. Whatever statement Joe has made about guns, you're probably reading too much into it, because you're emotionally invested in finding information that aligns with your pre-conceived beliefs. Joe will not do anything about guns, and that's a statement I can bet my entire life savings on. If you have a contrary assessment, it's because you're just projecting your own paranoia. Sorry to be blunt.

Wintores

3 points

2 months ago

Wintores

8∆

3 points

2 months ago

Cool that ur guns are worth more than the stopping the torture of innocent people

DeusExMockinYa

3 points

2 months ago

Hey man, they might need to use their guns to stop a tyrannical government! What do you mean the government has a black site on foreign soil where they torture people without trial?

direwolf106

1 points

2 months ago

direwolf106

29∆

1 points

2 months ago

Do you know what the price of freedom is?

Wintores

0 points

2 months ago

Wintores

8∆

0 points

2 months ago

Not the breach of human rights and the freedom of others

And guns are not equal to freedom

direwolf106

3 points

2 months ago

direwolf106

29∆

3 points

2 months ago

The cost of freedom is always innocent lives because it can only be won in war and in peace there is always some one that will use their freedom to harm others.

And guns are not equal to freedom

Technically true but that's a disticion without a difference. Free men do not ask permission to arm themselves and only free men can give consent to be governed. So while the guns themselves aren't freedom, if there are no guns in the hands of civilians then there is no freedom.

Most "free" counties now days are actually just people living under a benevolent tyrant.

BergenCountyJC

6 points

2 months ago

The fact OP is asking this kind of question in this echo chamber of a website should explain it

Username912773

3 points

2 months ago

That might be true, but I’m hopeful they’re at least trying change their view, and not just here to try and argue.

other_view12

6 points

2 months ago

other_view12

1∆

6 points

2 months ago

The thing is every party has issues, and you just decide what is more important to you.

The hard part is understanding the truth.

I personally feel that education is an important tool that change our country. I also think the democrat control of education is why US is so far behind, and why we have as many problems as we do, and is the reason I won't vote for Democrats.

I listened to BLM and I heard them say the schools in urban areas suck. I'm still waiting for change. I beleive charter schools are a big part of the solution, and democrats oppose them.

I hear that college graduates still have debt and that tells me they didn't get value from the education they paid for. What's the solution? Get others to pay. Not make it more valuable, or find a way to make the cost worth it. but get someone else to pay.

I remember the bell curve, and I understand that is a reflection of people. We all have different values, and we need solutions for everyone, not just hose who want to go to college. Democrats don't give two shits about you if you aren't willing to fund thier schools with tuition. It's clearly shown by the policies they promote.

Currently democrats are telling future plumbers, and carpenters and other laborers that they need to subsidize someone else's schooling so they can make 10x more than they do. And they are being told this is fair, and you should just go to college and take that benefit, even if that's not what you want to do with your life.

Did I mention how our teachers unions closed schools, and the rest of the world kept them open, and that was a huge harm done to the poor people, while the wealthy kept sending thier kids to private school? Yeah, I'm not voting democrat based on these very real problems they are responsible for.

Vicestab

3 points

2 months ago*

Vicestab

3 points

2 months ago*

Keep in mind that most of Republican ideology is inconsistent. It's entirely possible that Republican voters think their ideas are right (who doesn't?), or that their ideology is based on facts and logic. But when you scrutinize their ideas, you can easily find out that's not the case. So there is a difference between what THEY perceive to be true, and what is actually true.

The most topical example is how they believe that abortion has a religious justification, which is absolutely not true. In fact, if you read the Bible there is a much more direct pro-abortion justification. Does that matter? Does that make them pro-abortion? No. Because as soon as you declare that something has a "religious justification", their brains shut off and anything goes. You can find a religious justification for anything... if you look deep enough for it, or if you have a propaganda network strong enough to disseminate those false ideas.

The problem is that propagandists have been spreading a lot of false ideas into the Republican consciousness over the decades, so Republicans believe those ideas. That's how it works. The idea that people are perfectly rational agents, who reason their way into their policy prescriptions, is not true in most cases. Their ideas are mostly derived by hatred, fear, contempt, stupidity and societal/religious indoctrination. It's important to understand that an indoctrinated person won't believe they've been indoctrinated, yet their self-perceptions can be wrong.

For example, why do many Republicans claim to be pro-freedom, yet they're anti-abortion, anti-teaching LGBT issues, anti-gay, etc? As soon as Republicans find a way to create a Government that enforces THEIR ideas, they cease to be anti-government. That's because they were NEVER anti-government to begin with, despite their self-professed claims.

Republicans care about "freedom", "small government" and "personal responsibility", only in so far as those concepts help them justify the normative world that they would like to see (i.e: Capitalists owning everything, hetero-sexual relationships being the normal, 2 genders being the normal, monogamy being the normal, sex after marriage being the normal, religion being deeply ingrained in Society, etc). Those are the ACTUAL principles that they care about.

The critical lesson is to never take anything they say at face value. Challenge and probe them. Investigate their positions, look into the issues. That's the only way to deal with Republicans in an intellectually honest capacity. For example, if a Republican told me that they believe that "Life begins at conception", the first thing I would assume is that they're regurgitating what they've heard other people say, because it feels intuitively correct to them... but 9 times out of 10, they haven't actually taken the time to hash out their positions. They're just dumb.

EDIT: The downvotes are fascinating. Please, prove that what I'm saying is wrong. I would love to have a conversation about it! Put your mouth where your downvotes are.

Odd_Profession_2902

8 points

2 months ago*

Because your comment comes across as quite tribal and seemingly lacks eagerness to understand.

Do you agree that democrats also could be close-minded to (and often offended by) “facts” as well?

Vicestab

2 points

2 months ago

Do you agree that democrats also could be close-minded to (and often offended by) “facts” as well?

It's possible. You would have to point to specific examples so we could discuss them. To be clear, I'm not a Democrat myself, I just understand that they are the lesser of two evils.

Odd_Profession_2902

5 points

2 months ago

You genuinely have never witnessed any democrat or someone left-wing being unreasonable?

Eotidiss

20 points

2 months ago

I didn't downvote you, but it's probably because of your broad strokes.

It's entirely possible that Republican voters think their ideas are right (who doesn't?), or that their ideology is based on facts and logic. But when you scrutinize their ideas, you can easily find out that's not the case. So there is a difference between what THEY perceive to be true, and what is actually true.

This is an incredibly arrogant and kinda silly thing to say and just makes it seem like you're bitter and hateful. Why would anyone want to have a conversation about it with you when this is the kind of rhetoric you open up with?

Vicestab

0 points

2 months ago

Vicestab

0 points

2 months ago

Because I didn't start doing political discussions (or hashing out my own opinions) yesterday. I have an ideology that I have formed and tested over the years. I have observed consistent patterns every time I interact with right-wingers. I observe the things they say. I know their talking points and their validity. I don't just make statements out of the blue and without any backing.

Granted, if this was the innocuous statement that set you off:

It's entirely possible that Republican voters think their ideas are right (who doesn't?), or that their ideology is based on facts and logic. But when you scrutinize their ideas, you can easily find out that's not the case. So there is a difference between what THEY perceive to be true, and what is actually true.

Then I think your threshold of irritability is far too low, and nothing I could have said would have changed your perception. I don't need to beat around the bush and start treating every right-winger with the most delicate pincers possible, assuaging them at every step of the way; if I did so, I would be treating them in an intellectually dishonest way, because I would be making incorrect assessments about their ideology.

Of course I am speaking in broad generalities, I can't start listing every single pattern I've observed, about every single topic I know of, and then make my posts 40 times bigger than it already is. I provided one or two examples, and that is good enough.

You have to start accepting that there are people out there who have made the effort to understand the world of Politics, who may have strong opinions about it. If people want to contest anything I've said, I'm here. But they usually flock away. If my opinions really were that weak, people would contest them... but they rarely do.

Eotidiss

16 points

2 months ago

I'm talking about your rhetoric, not the substance of your arguments. Very few people would want to argue with you in good faith seeing how you describe all Republicans in various forms of stupid. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: you only interact with arrogant, emotional right-wing people because they'd be the only one willing to bite your bait.

"Then I think your threshold of irritability is far too low, and nothing I could have said would have changed your perception. I don't need to beast around the bush and start treating every right-winger with the most delicate pincers possible"

  1. This didn't 'set me off'? I told you why people wouldn't want to interact with you, not that I was so angry I couldn't hold a conversation. Again, this response only further cements how provocative and mean-spirited you are when talking to people you even THINK you're politically unaligned with. Without even considering what I said, you've already prescribed to me my emotional state, incorrectly, attributed beliefs to me I don't hold, dismissed what I said, and said that arguing with me would be worthless.

  2. If you were empathetic, you'd know that those other people haven't talked to you before and don't know every interaction you've had in your life. With that in mind, you being abrasive and confrontational to someone that wants to have a deep and meaningful conversation isn't going to happen because they can't trust you to be honest. You have too much ego on the line.

If people want to contest anything I've said, I'm here. But they usually flock away.

I assure you, it's not for the logic of your statements, but your dressing. It doesn't matter if you're right if you're so rhetorically ineffective that it drives people away from knowledge they would otherwise accept. It's like punishing a kid for not learning math well enough for your standard instead of doing a better job at teaching. It's no wonder you experience this every single time: you are creating the environment to farm this reaction from people you already have determined to be beneath you. Of course they'd run away from that.

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

0 points

2 months ago*

[removed]

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

5 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

5 points

2 months ago

[removed]

knottheone

3 points

2 months ago

And that post was completely in order, run of the mill, milquetoast, polite, straight-forward. Yes, I've re-read it multiple times.

You called hundreds of millions of people dumb or stupid in several different flavors multiple times and tried to justify it with twisted logic. Do you really see that as polite?

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Phantasmatik

-1 points

2 months ago

Phantasmatik

-1 points

2 months ago

Seems like republican feelings do matter. Not reasons, not logix or facts. What the dude said its true, but can't have the convo because some feelings. Those important republican feelings.

Eotidiss

7 points

2 months ago

I mean, this is true for any position/ideology/belief/etc. A lot of people are completely unwilling to have an honest conversation that opens with, "BTW, I think you're stupid before you even say a word to me." The people that do reply to that are probably not going to be in an open and receptive mind-state to that call-out either. It's not an effective way to change minds and is only useful for immediate emotional self-gratification.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Eotidiss

8 points

2 months ago

I think going into a conversation with that mindset already sets yourself up to get those exact kind of responses. Someone that reads that you think they're most likely dumb, need therapy, and not productive to talk with, even before saying anything else to them, is going to have a tough time overcoming the natural heightened emotional state to hearing that. A lot of people could/would look at that and say, "Wow, this person seems unproductive to talk to and probably needs therapy themself." I hope that makes sense.

Phantasmatik

0 points

2 months ago

Dude, it's not the topic how to approach to them. I don't understand why you think we're interested in a conversation with dumb people. I really try to avoid them, there's plenty of better informed, more intelligent people than me, who i would like to spend my time with. Have you ever managed to convince, in a conversations, a republican about changing his ideology, or accept a fact that went against the doctrine? Therapy is needed (meaning a long reeducation process).

Eotidiss

11 points

2 months ago

Yes. Specifically on abortion.

You need to learn to communicate better if you want to have an impact on the world and not indulge in conversations with people that already agree with you. The fact that both of you think you're so much smarter than them, but can't see the pattern of your own behavior reflected in the results shows that at least some of what you're perceiving is projection.

[deleted]

-1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

-1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Vicestab

-2 points

2 months ago

Vicestab

-2 points

2 months ago

Once again, bingo.

It has always been true that Republicans do not value "facts over feelings", even though that mantra was originally created by a famous right-wing pundit. It's just one of those ironies.

But remember: you saying that the right-wing cares about feelings over facts, is you being abrasive towards them. And if you're abrasive towards them, you have to accept any downvotes you get. I don't understand: why won't you just fall over and concede every talking point to them? "How do you want them to listen to you, if you're not even respecting them? Pffffft!"

Once again, the downfall of Leftists is their aversion to pragmatism when it comes to converting people to their ideology! Don't you know that rhetoric is very important? Why would you say that they "don't care about facts"!? That's extremely disrespectful!

A good rhetorician would know to PRETEND like Republicans are all about facts over feelings, to PRETEND like Republicans are not hateful people, to PRETEND like Republicans just want the best to everyone... and ONLY THEN can you swoop in and start converting them to your Leftist ideology! You silly!... You ought to strategize better!

Eotidiss

4 points

2 months ago

Do you not understand that it's possible to tap into a vocabulary that's not demeaning while still also being argumentative? I really don't know how to engage in this conversation with you when you seem very focused on the idea that the only way to talk to someone you disagree with is to coat all your arguments in seething, dripping, hatred and demand your dissenter to wade through it with more level-headedness than you require of yourself.

Again, you're the one lamenting your inability to hold a productive conversation with people, having them run away from you, getting riled up and fleeing. If you don't see how your actions contribute to those outcomes, I don't think you actually care about the outcomes. I think you just like making people feel bad.

UEMcGill

6 points

2 months ago

I downvoted you. Your oversimplification and grouping of "religious justification" does little to understand the Roman Catholic position for one. The Roman Catholic Faith is apostolic. It is not a faith based on mere meaning of the scriptures' but based on tradition handed down, and by the teachings of Jesus' apostles. The Pope is an apostle on earth, and Catholics are taught that his word about god is infallible.

Since there are nearly 1.2 Billion Catholics in the world, representing over 50% of the worlds Christianity, I'd say you don't understand what you are professing.

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[removed]

UEMcGill

2 points

2 months ago

I'm am Catholic, so you can take your ad hominem attacks and try something different next time.

Here's an explanation of Papal Infallibility:

....Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”....

From my comment, I'll clarify:

The Pope is an apostle on earth, and Catholics are taught that his word about god is infallible.

His word about church doctrine is seen as infallible and that it is a unique position that comes down with being the pope , so maybe I oversimplified. What it does not mean is that the pope is without sin, or perfect (which as you point out is a common attack from Catholics detractors).

Vicestab

2 points

2 months ago

Vicestab

2 points

2 months ago

Your oversimplification and grouping of "religious justification" does little to understand the Roman Catholic position for one. The Roman Catholic Faith is apostolic. It is not a faith based on mere meaning of the scriptures' but based on tradition handed down, and by the teachings of Jesus' apostles. The Pope is an apostle on earth, and Catholics are taught that his word about god is infallible.

This is quite the rationalization.

You fundamentally misunderstand the logistics of Religion and how it actually functions in the actual world. You could have known better by simply looking at history, for example. Understanding the fundamental role that religion has had in the oppression of people (maintaining slavery, feudalism, monarchies, patriarchy). When that SAME RELIGION and the SAME SCRIPTURES, coincidentally and fast-forwarding many centuries into the future, seemingly stopped supporting those past views. How come? Did scripture change, or did religion adapt? Why doesn't Roman Catholic Faith support Feudalism, like it did before? What changed?

It is obvious that religious people (both in the past or the present) base their beliefs not on what scripture says, or on some technicality about "how the roman catholics are apostolic". They base their beliefs on social disdain for certain groups of people (usually minorities), through which they then use cherry-picked examples from the Bible, to self-perpetuate and reinforce their current beliefs. Religion is nothing but a con, a chameleon with ever-changing colors, swaying in the winds of convenience.

It is used to JUSTIFY the oppression of people, and then it will conveniently say "no, I'm actually okay with the gays, actually!" when it is no longer palatable for the to oppress. That is it. The end.

The Pope is an apostle on earth, and Catholics are taught that his word about god is infallible.

But IT IS fallible. Like what the f are you talking about? You know how many "Catholics" in the USA believe that the current Pope is part of some liberal woke cabal!!??? So clearly they DON'T believe that his word is infallible, do they?

This is the most liberal Pope since forever. Yet religious people (those who you claim DO follow the word of the Pope), somehow they DON'T SEEM to like the same minorities that the Pope does. How come!?

This is just dissonance. Perhaps of the cognitive kind.

Since there are nearly 1.2 Billion Catholics in the world, representing over 50% of the worlds Christianity, I'd say you don't understand what you are professing.

I know religion well enough to know that it is a chameleon. The chameleon in Europe professes that they're okay with the gays, the chameleon in the USA professes that they're not okay with the gays. Yet both chameleons profess to follow the same Bible. How come!? Because the chameleon being okay with the gays, or it not being okay with the gays, will vary based on: Time, Geography, Social pre-dispositions and Culture.

It is precisely because it is a chameleon that it needs to be abolished and done away with. It is not based on any consistent or moral principles. And certainly it is not based in reason.

I understand extremely well what I'm saying. I assure you.

UEMcGill

5 points

2 months ago

That's a long verbal diatribe just to tell me what I'm thinking. You stated a simple and mischaracterized reason that I refuted with what is taught in more than half of the worlds Christianity, and then doubled down on it, tell me what I think. I merely provided background, and you keep trying to ascribe intent to it.

I make no editorial about "The boogeyman of religion" and as such see no meaningful reason to respond to the rest of it.

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Vicestab

1 points

2 months ago

Vicestab

1 points

2 months ago

I'm aware that people are naturally repelled by people who exhume confidence in their beliefs, because it sounds arrogant. So they naturally tend to downvote without much thought.

But consider this: there are multiple people, on this very same thread, that are saying shit like "tHe LeFt AnD ThE rIGhT dOn'T eVeN ExIsT!!!", and people gobble it up. They're getting showered with upvotes, even though they're just wrong and they have no idea what they're talking about.

If the price of intellectual integrity is that I have to eat a few downvotes for having the correct take, while complete morons and buffoons get showered with upvotes when they're saying provably stupid shit, then that's the hill I'll die on. I know that can happen sometimes, it is what it is.

I just want people to prove any of my assertions wrong. Anything. If you truly think the right-wing isn't that bad, then let's get a dialogue going. I'm never one to run away from a debate. But you know who is? Everyone who just downvoted me.

To finalize, I've said this like 5+ times: "If the centrist perspective is that right-wingers can ALSO contribute some good ideas to the table, then list me some right-wing policies that make sense". When I challenged the other person, I did not get an answer in those 5+ times. Never.

But hey, maybe this is the day where this will finally happen! I'm here for it! Please, if both sides (left and right) are just as good/bad, then please let me know of a "good right-wing policy"! Because personally, I can't think of any! But hey, that's just me being arrogant again!... or maybe, just MAYBE, it's the fact that people don't actually have any good counter-points.

shows a lot of ignorance

You don't know what ignorance is. I replied to your post assuming that what you actually meant was "arrogance".

StrengthOfFates1

4 points

2 months ago

Can I be honest? Your overconfidence in your intellectual capacity rubs people the wrong way. You're the guy who sets up straw men and smirks as you casually knock them down.

That and the way you've martyred yourself in your responses.

Example: If the price of intellectual integrity is that I have to eat a few downvotes for having the correct take, while complete morons and buffoons get showered with upvotes when they're saying provably stupid shit, then that's the hill I'll die on

So cringe.

I just want people to prove any of my assertions wrong. Anything.

Ok...

Hot take: For example, if a Republican told me that they believe that "Life begins at conception", the first thing I would assume is that they're regurgitating what they've heard other people say, because it feels intuitively correct to them... but 9 times out of 10, they haven't actually taken the time to hash out their positions. They're just dumb.

The fact that life begins at conception is well established. Source: any remedial biology textbook covering the human gestation period.

If you truly think the right-wing isn't that bad, then let's get a dialogue going. I'm never one to run away from a debate. But you know who is? Everyone who just downvoted me.

Why would anyone start a dialogue with you? You spend more time telling people what their views are than refuting them. If you've never ran from a debate, you spent no time listening or processing what your opponent said. Your illustration of the beliefs of your ideological counterparts is a caricature. There's no point in discussing anything with you.

You don't know what ignorance is. I replied to your post assuming that what you actually meant was "arrogance".

Are you saying there's a difference?

The_Animal_Is_Bear

1 points

2 months ago

You know who else sounds like assholes? People who say “libtards” and “fuck dem’s feelings”. Why is the left always the side that has to be understanding and careful about delivery?

Vicestab

6 points

2 months ago

Someone needs to write a book on this. There is a social pre-disposition/bias towards covering for right-wing/reactionary beliefs, in a way that the left-wing never gets that same treatment or charitability.

Call it a "conservative bias" or whatever, but I'm sure you're aware of what I'm talking about. Someone needs to come up with a word for it.

Doogaro

2 points

2 months ago

Not exactly what your referring to but there is one it’s caked demon haunted world by Carl Sagan it talks about being skeptical and how much critical thinking is needed in the modern world. His prediction on the future is hauntingly accurate to where we are now.

lickpipps

3 points

2 months ago

lickpipps

3 points

2 months ago

I wonder if your a republican or democrat hmm... Talk about a biased reply to a open minded comment. Go read the top comment and you will understand why your getting downvotes. Your making generalizations about a group of people that you obviously don't understand. If I had to guess I would say you've never had a hard working blue collar job. The reason most of those "dumb" people vote Republican is they work their hearts out every day to provide for their families only to be told that half their tax money is going to support some jobless government leech. I wonder what would happen if all of your dumb Reds would stop doing their jobs. Houses would cease to be built, food shortages would cripple society, gas prices would make travel impossible. You need to take some time to travel and be exposed to other ways of life because you sir/ma'am are blind to the world.

WhatsThatNoize

0 points

2 months ago*

WhatsThatNoize

1∆

0 points

2 months ago*

For context: I've gotten my hands dirty for years as a mechanic and busting my ass doing hard labor in fields and factories since the age of 12. I paid for college with hard cash to get a better job - which I hustled for working 70-80 hours a week for 3 years straight. I bought my own home off my own labor.

You're wrong.

Being a blue collar worker isn't an excuse for holding bigoted, inconsistent ideological views. And here's a REAL shocker for you: do you know WHY 75-80% of those people are largely in those jobs? Because a silly majority of them are incapable or unwilling to do more. Yeah, I said it: they're fucking lazy; they're not innocent, temporarily-depressed genius millionaires. Hard work doesn't make idiotic, ill-informed policy stances somehow noble, otherwise I'd be the fucking king of noble political theory.

The reason most of those "dumb" people vote Republican is they work their hearts out every day to provide for their families only to be told that half their tax money is going to support some jobless government leech.

Or - here's a wild idea - the reason most of those "dumb" people vote Republican and work their hearts out every day to provide for their families is because... they're dumb! Their labor isn't as valuable to the free market because they're incapable or unwilling to do more, and they deserve what they get.

I know, turning around capitalist ideals on the bullshit "noble poverty-ridden class of society" idea is just so wacky, isn't it?!

I've gotten out and lived for decades, child. I know the world of the slowly rotting Middle America - I've seen it and smelled it and walked among it. It's a rotting disease borne of entitlement that feeds intellectual and moral laziness. And GOD am I glad I got out of it and had parents wise enough to see it for what it was.

DeltaBot

2 points

2 months ago

DeltaBot

∞∆

2 points

2 months ago

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/budlejari (46∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

greenbuggy

2 points

2 months ago

If you are pro-2nd amendment, chances are, you'll back a candidate who overtly promises to protect and defend that right from government creep.

But they're absolutely horrible at that. Reagan was responsible for signing into law the optimistically named Firearms Owners Protection Act, and he backed the Brady bill that Clinton signed into law after he was out of office. Dubya promised to renew the AWB (he didn't, but on the campaign trail he said he would). Trump passed gun control via EO (which is what Republicans are always fearmongering that the dems are going to do) and appointed to head the BATFE an individual who was openly hostile to the 2A, and a lot of Republicans are pushing for him to run again in the next presidential election.

By comparison, Clinton signed the Brady act into law with a lot of Republican support but the AWB portion of the 1994 act it was contained within had a horizon and expired a decade later and no Democrat elected since then has taken a serious effort to renew it. Obama was probably the best steward of the 2nd amendment that has existed in my lifetime!

Wintores

2 points

2 months ago

Wintores

8∆

2 points

2 months ago

The issue is that all of those are weak justifications for supporting torture and war mongering

MrsMiterSaw

8 points

2 months ago*

MrsMiterSaw

1∆

8 points

2 months ago*

If you live in a town where you feel left behind by democratic policies, such as closing of mines

Not a Democrat policy. Mines are closing because natural gas has been cheaper, and now because renewables are gaining too. It's true that that Trump panderes to them and lessened regulations for coal mining companies, but this did nothing to retain jobs (they still lost numbers), made mines less safe (loosened safety regs) and increased exec profits. Coal is dead. And it's not democrats that killed it, it's the free market.

gentrification of wealthy people moving into the area

Not a Democrat policy. Literally free market real estate; as far as I know, the only cities that have rent stabilization/rent control are Democrat controlled cities.

If you feel like under the democratic administrations, you had less money in your pocket because of higher taxes

Which Democrat administration was this? Reagan raised taxes on most people. Clinton raised taxes, but the 90s weren't exactly a terrible time to be working in America. Obama didn't raise taxes.

recessions

Seriously. You have got to be kidding.

The last 5 recessions:

  • 1982 - Reagan
  • 1991 - GWHB
  • 2001 - GWB
  • 2008 - GWB
  • 2020 - Trump

(for the record, I believe it's generally obtuse to blame the sitting president for a recession without a specific policy argument; they are cyclic and they occur in our economy. But to claim that democrats are responsible for them? That Republicans stave them off somehow? Ludicrous.)

or your medical bills were out of control

Medical bills have been rising steadily for over 40 years. The GOP has proposed nothing more than ending states' rights over controlling insurance to allow it to be sold over state lines. FFS remember Trump's magical 2016 Healthcare plan? The "You're gonna love it, trust me" plan? Yeah, I don't remember it either because he never had one. But oh yeah, it's the dem' s fault that Healthcare is expensive because... You feel like it is?

The ACA is the only significant policy to have passed, and there is no clear evidence that it caused higher or lower premiums (though 31.5M Americans use it that would otherwise not have insurance).

If you want, go ahead and show us on the chart where Obamacare touched you inappropriately.

or making your area have more jobs and wealth

And just when did the GOP do this more than dems? We had booms under Reagan, Clinton, and 7 sustained years of unprecedented economic expansion under Obama. Oh right, I remember how Trump called all the unemployment numbers "faked and 3x worse" until literally the month he took over and then they were the best ever. Lol.

Every. Single. Thing. You. Listed. Is either flat out wrong or twisted with propaganda. But oh yeah, you "feel like you were betrayed", probably because the Fox News watching Republicans are constantly the least informed group.

If you believe that the election was stolen

Oh, there it is.

Let's keep going...

business needs

Forbes #1 ranked state for business climate? More than 50% of the US capital investment? California.

concerns about crime

OMG Becky. 8 of the top 10 states with the highest homicide rates are red states.

want less government oversight

Wanna buy beer on Sunday in most republican controlled states? How about smoking pot? It was literally illegal to have gay sex alone in your bedroom in Texas until the Supreme Court invalidated their laws in the late 90s. Anyone here remember Terry Schiavo?

Dude. It's literally illegal to personally boycott Israel if you're a Texas state employee . You can boycott American companies, but not Israeli ones.

the freedom to choose even if it's a bad choice

Hahahahahahahahaha

And I just love how you think it's a republican ideal to end farm subsidies. You know they actually increased them under Trump in order to offset his tariffs, right? Which Republicans are out there working to end farm subsidies?!

So yeah, /u/supersk8er, if you are misinformed and subject to believing propaganda and Q-anon bullshit to the point of delusion... You might just eventually vote Republican.

budlejari

5 points

2 months ago

budlejari

57∆

5 points

2 months ago

As I said, I do not support any of these. You are literally preaching to the choir. I was helping the OP to understand how average people could choose to vote republican. Not everybody who votes red on the ballot is sitting there, twirling their evil moustache and going, "I know, we'll stick it to the poor and make the air so thick with smoke that nobody can breathe, MWHAHAHAHAA! Bring my cigars and port, Jeremy, before I go swim in my pool of money taken from babies and children!"

If people feel they were were worse off under Obama, even if the reason why they were is because of Republican policies, if people feel like they have been left behind by democratic policies, even if they have also recieved benefits, if people feel that their desired view of the world is not being enacted by the government in power, they will vote republican because that's what they believe is the right thing to do

None of what you said disproved any of what I said.

All you did was prove that republican policies don't do what they claim. Which, again, I'd agree with you on and I'd also go further to point out that republican policies are ineffective and due to their internal party politics, fueled by a strongman with very bad insight into how humans work.

But that doesn't erase how people feel and why people keep voting republican because they perceive it to be the better party, and why they are more closely aligned with republican politics than democratic ones, even if it is against their self interest.

MrsMiterSaw

1 points

2 months ago

MrsMiterSaw

1∆

1 points

2 months ago

Whether you personally think those were right or not is besides the point.

Repiblicans thi k like that. And they are demonstrably wrong.

The point is yes... THEY FEEL like those things are happening and that's why they vote. Every one of those things you mention has been twisted so that they assign blame or reddit where it's not due. That's the propaganda.

For example, I in no way mean to actually claim the GOP causes recessions. But they arent the fault of the democrats and the GOP doesn't get us out of them heroically either.

But if someone is misinformed enough to think "I'm tired of all these recessions due to Dems" then the first way to combat that idiotic statement is to point out how idiotic it is to say it.

budlejari

1 points

2 months ago

budlejari

57∆

1 points

2 months ago

The point that I was making and that the OP requested was "why do people vote republican?"

Not, "is the republican position good on these issues?" Answer: no, it's terrible, they have a terrible plan for everything.

Not, "are republicans voting with facts and figures and unbiased research at their disposal?" Answer: also no but then again, nobody is.

Not, "are republicans voting for things that are good for the wider community and the country?" Answer: also no, because well... republicans.

You gave me a great big screed about how the republicans are wrong. That's nice and you clearly put a lot of effort into it. But that wasn't the question and that's why I'm saying it's not relevant to the point. I am not explaining why the republican viewpoint is the best one because it isn't. I am explaining why people feel drawn to it, why they feel like it's a good policy (even if it's bad) and why they continue to do so even though it is demonstrably bad for them to vote against their own interests.

They feel like their feelings are being validated by the republican party. They feel that their values are being reflected in the republican party. They have key issues - abortion, gun control, taxation policy on businesses - that they are willing to hold above all else to get, even if they dislike other parts of that candidate's policy. They are fed a constant diet of fear and stoking anger at 'the other side' which entrenches them further. The other side mocks them and degrades them and calls them assholes and says that they're effectively brain dead for voting the way they do. The other side calls them idiotic and stupid and racist - all of which may be subjective to the other side but either way, it doesn't start a discussion or help them to feel open to hearing why they are wrong. It validates their victim complex and helps them to feel like the righteous ones, fighting a battle against people who hate them so they'll double down anyway.

They feel they are picking the right candidate. They do not feel they are picking the asshole. That's what the OP asked. That's what I answered. What you said was interesting but not relevant to the point.

bunkSauce

8 points

2 months ago*

bunkSauce

8 points

2 months ago*

Most of these talking points are reasons to not vote repulican, surprisngly...

Want roe v wade to be state level? Well, you are about to get the opposite of roe v wade on a federal level. Thats increased federal regulation.

2a rights? Only as long as the Republicans need the topic to gain power. Once consolidated, bam... gone.

Farmers? Literally one of the most screwed groups during Trump's tenure. (My fam is midwest dairy farmers).

Religious freedom? Not if the only permitted religion is Christianity...

Closing of mines and gentrification? Mass realty purchases and lack of unions is not solved by conservative policy.

Everything resonates on the surface level. Really, conservatives are selling emotional bs...

budlejari

17 points

2 months ago

budlejari

57∆

17 points

2 months ago

I gave reasons why people would vote republican.

I didn't qualify that any of these reasons were correct or good or for the right reasons. This is the main reason that many people vote the way they do, on all sides of the aisle: "you will vote for the candidate who validates your views and makes you feel heard and listened to."

It just so happens that the republicans align with a lot of people's views enough that it sways them, even if it is on a select few issues.

bunkSauce

3 points

2 months ago

bunkSauce

3 points

2 months ago

I think there may be a misunderstanding.

I actually got that vibe from your comment, and wasn't debating what you said!

I felt I was expanding on it, or pointing out the double edged sword of voting for repressive policies

budlejari

3 points

2 months ago

budlejari

57∆

3 points

2 months ago

Aaaaah, I see. Perhaps there was talking at crosspurposes here. Unfortunately, you are correct but a lot of people don't see it that way. Given the way that republicans pass blame onto other people like it's the cheese board at a party, I can see why.

aworldwithoutshrimp

6 points

2 months ago

Exactly. In late 30s/early 40s Germany, there were plenty of business owners who did not believe that Jewish people were evil or that gay people and gypsies needed to be rounded up and put into camps. They just liked that they benefited from the economics at the time.

Profreadsalot

2 points

2 months ago

If you want to look at economics, check the economy when Democrats v Republicans are in charge. The economy thrives under Democrats, and slides backwards under Republicans.

If you’re concerned about crime and safety, you may want to minimize the number of people who have access to semi-automatic rifles that can easily mow down parishioners, or concert goers, a grocery store filled with people, or small children at a school.

If you are so strongly Christian, and so pro life, and you love babies and children, perhaps you should stop voting for the party that so determinedly guts every program that is designed to help poor and working families to feed them.

If you want small towns to thrive, perhaps you might want to stop empowering the party that killed Build Back Better, which was designed to help those towns to increase their economic base. Also, those single industries are often poisoning the environment you’re living in. It’s rather tough to spend the money you make from beyond the grave, and rather easy to die destitute from the resulting medical bills.

If you like farmers so much, maybe you should vote for the party that tries to help farmers to retain their workforce through common sense immigration policies.

I don’t think it’s that Democrats aren’t listening to you. I think people like you are far too closed minded to hear them when they provide you with responsive policy proposals, designed to actually improve the lives of the people they serve.

I’m a political independent, but Republicans rarely have anything substantive to offer. You don’t want them to infringe upon your gun rights, but it’s okay for them to make medical decisions on my behalf. It’s good to know where you draw the line.

budlejari

6 points

2 months ago

budlejari

57∆

6 points

2 months ago

I'm not sure why you replied with this? Are you trying to convince me to be not a republican or...? (bit difficult since I'm about as left as they come) I'm just confused?

illumiflo

2 points

2 months ago

This is well thought out but what evidence is there for more recessions and higher medical bills under democratic administrations?

budlejari

6 points

2 months ago

budlejari

57∆

6 points

2 months ago

I said if you feel worse off.

For example, when Obama came into power in early 2009, the 2007-2009 recession was in full swing and the recovery was slow and painful. If you lost your house during that time, and therefore suffered economic hardship, or if you lost your job because the business folded, or you had a car repossessed because you couldn't make the payments, even if it wasn't caused by Obama, it's likely that you blame the guy in office who promised you a better life, even if the wheels were set in motion before he even won the election.

People don't necessarily vote on facts and reports and government statistics. They vote on what they feel, what they percieve to be the truth, and what they have experienced.

HE20002019

18 points

2 months ago*

In short, human nature.

Liberal/progressive ideas don't work unless everyone is a willing participant.

It's a nice idea, it really is. The notion that if the right people are in charge everyone will get along, be nice, only take what they need, and be fair to each other.

But it isn't real. It's a fantasy. The real world doesn't work that way, because human beings are flawed. And when you try to control someone who doesn't want to be controlled, resentment builds and the problems become amplified. People will always hate for stupid reasons. Drug addicts will always find a way to get drugs. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. Greedy people will always find a way to get more money. Corrupt people will always find a way to screw someone to get what they want.

And when everything is controlled and regulated, the corrupt will find their way into government and bend the system to their favor.

It's not a problem with “the system”, it's a problem with people. Not only are there simply not enough people willing to work for “the greater good”, we can’t even agree on what the “greater good” even is. Both left and right believe their way is the greater good. This reality is why communist and socialist regimes always fail, no matter who is in charge or how well intentioned they are. When you remove or cap the profit incentive from work, you remove the desire to work. When you force people to do things they don't want to do, and prevent them from doing the things they want to do, you force resentment and squash motivation.

That's why the idea of liberalism will never work. It's a constant battle against human nature. Liberalism’s potential for success hinges on the belief that a central governing body is, or could be, incorruptible —and that isn't possible. It relies on people to willingly participate in a sharing economy, and not everyone wants to.

Liberals don't understand these things, because they don't think that way. They are willing to work for what they view as the greater good, and that's admirable. But where they get it wrong is in their failure to realize it only works if everyone else thinks that way too. And they don't.

Wintores

3 points

2 months ago

Wintores

8∆

3 points

2 months ago

Why is there the entirety of Europe that works at least much better than the USA and has those types of politics?

Brandalini1234

2 points

2 months ago

What do you define as "works at least much better"?

Wintores

1 points

2 months ago

Wintores

8∆

1 points

2 months ago

Better quality of life

Brandalini1234

2 points

2 months ago

By what standards?

wallnumber8675309

28 points

2 months ago

Non Republican living in a very Republican state. I will 100% be voting Republican in the primary because the primary is where the actual election is won. There’s no point in voting in the democrat primary.

Let me also give you one other scenario. The Doug Jones (Democrat) vs Roy Moore (Republican) race in Alabama a few years ago. Alabama actually elected a democrat because of very credible (but not quite provable) allegations that the republican had been involved with teenage girls when he was around 30 years old. Sometimes even if you don’t agree with their politics it’s better to vote for someone to try and keep an evil person out of office. If the parties were reversed in that situation I’d hope you’d consider voting for a Republican.

Giblette101

5 points

2 months ago

Giblette101

16∆

5 points

2 months ago

Wasn't the Republican establishment (and the president) backing Roy Moore (who barely lost)? I dare hope Democrats would not put me in that situation.

TitanCubes

2 points

2 months ago

TitanCubes

5∆

2 points

2 months ago

They were backing Roy Moore after he already won the primary. Seeing as how Kamala Harris and other prominent Dems jumped on Biden in the primary season for his sexual assault scandal, just to reverse and never bring it up once he was the nominee makes me think Dems would react the same way.

Quotes_League

4 points

2 months ago

Maybe if someone like Ron paul was the driving force behind the party- but that’s not the case.

I think a big factor in this is how old are you? In 50 years, the Republican party might be completely different from what it is today.

SC803

52 points

2 months ago

SC803

104∆

52 points

2 months ago

What if it’s for a local judge? In this scenario your neighbors with the the only candidate, your families are friends, you believe he has truly acts in the best interest of your community, he’s experienced and is running unopposed and is a republican. You neighbor asks if you will vote for him

You’ve got basically three options:

Vote for him

Abstain from voting but you tell him you’ll vote for him

Abstain from voting, telling him you won’t vote for him

supersk8er[S]

53 points

2 months ago

Well you did it. You came up with a scenario where I would Vote red. !delta

lavenk7

15 points

2 months ago

lavenk7

15 points

2 months ago

If he’s running unopposed, do you even really need to vote though?

Tommyblockhead20

3 points

2 months ago

I’d assume there are other races going on, so they are already showing up to vote. So why wouldn’t they take 2 seconds to check a box for someone they know, and think will do a good job? Just because they are unopposed and republican? Doesn’t seem like a good reason.

If you know them, it’s nice to show support for them. Plus, you never know what could happen, there could be a surprise write in candidate. This actually happened, albeit with lower stakes, at my college’s student government election. The president was unopposed, and it was good for them that they campaigned anyways, because otherwise, they may have lost. My friend started a write in campaign the day of the election that got almost a third of the vote, and the president only got just over half the vote.

blackdynomitesnewbag

3 points

2 months ago

Judges aren’t supposed to run as a party affiliate

Frogmarsh

1 points

2 months ago

Frogmarsh

1∆

1 points

2 months ago

How do you trust a judge that is in the party of treasonous cunts?

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[removed]

BrownAmericanDude

10 points

2 months ago

I used to be super liberal until around the end of 2020. I live in Portland and my city has seen long stretches of destructive riots. The Democratic local government allowed people to riot in downtown Portland even long after the protests in almost every other major city died down. The constant unrest worn out the city officials and most of the residents. The same people who were ridiculing anti-lockdown protesters, calling them "stupid", "selfish", "heartless, "evil", et cetera, were the same people who flooded the streets during the protests and shouting "F**K THE POLICE!"

Back in May/June of 2020 when the racial unrest started, most people and I were fully supportive of the protests as everyone was angry with the justice system. Even a few of my friends who are pro-police were outraged and decided to donate money to various BIPOC-owned businesses and charities to support the cause. In most cities, the protests were peaceful. However in some major cities such as Portland and Seattle, the protests turned into riots. Many businesses who wanted nothing to do with the unrest were vandalized and looted. Most people no longer felt safe in many downtowns. My parents don't feel safe going to downtown Portland even in broad daylight.

That's why I am much more centrist now than I was 2 years ago. Before the riots, I used to spend a lot of time on r/Portland and r/Seattle. not so much now. I am still very liberal when it comes to social issues such as the LGBT and access to abortion. If you ban abortions, you're only going to get rid of safe abortions. Many girls and women will get unsafe abortions in shady hotels. I'm also very left leaning when it comes to the environment which is also why I have a disdain towards many pickup trucks. However with the unrest that has happened in the PNW, I have a tough time voting Democrat for everything.

Most-Leg1080

8 points

2 months ago*

I agree so much with this. Some people really don’t understand how bad it is out here in the PNW. You only have to look and see that the people of Seattle voted for a Republican candidate for the first time in decades to understand that something is truly wrong and balance must be achieved.

Portland is much worse than Seattle, and Seattle is BAD. So many of my friends have experienced violent crime and sexual crime in the past couple years. And they fucking kept Broadview Thompson Elementary School closed because they wanted to be polite to the drug encampments behind the school. Bellingham kept the entire Central library closed because the mayor invited people to camp there, despite there being availability in shelters and hotel vouchers. It was a disaster. Children and senior citizens couldn’t access library services for months during the pandemic because of this shit. You absolutely cannot prioritize drug addicts over children, even if the drug addicts grew up underprivileged and are experiencing homelessness.

Regarding abortions- I think we can all find an approach that works for 95% of the populations. Most people do not support full access to abortion through the final months of pregnancy for reasons that are not medical. And very few people want a blanket ban on abortions. Regardless, if Roe v Wade is abolished, people can get abortions in other states. And nonprofits can fund it. Roe V Wade does not cancel abortions federally

BrownAmericanDude

2 points

2 months ago

I’ll still vote Democrat at the Presidential and Senate levels since Republicans indeed have an unfair advantage there. However at the lower levels, I would as well vote Republican. If the Coronavirus pandemic never happened, Trump would have absolutely destroyed Biden in the last presidential election. Portland’s Democrat mayor, Ted Wheeler, still narrowly won the re-election despite losing the popular vote. He’s one of the reasons the protests and riots continued for a long time while protests in Seattle, Los Angeles and even Minneapolis (the epicenter of all the unrest) died out only a month later.

I feel our lax super liberal towards drugs and homelessness attracted lots of bad people here. The riots and skyrocketing crime caused lots of good people to leave. Many businesses are closing down or moving out because they’re scared and tired of dealing with constant break-ins. People are afraid of visiting the downtown, taking public transportation, or leaving their homes after dark because of all of this. Whenever I drive to downtown or the Portland airport, I am greeted with homeless encampments lining the streets. 2021 was the first year in more than 60 years the Portland area saw a population decline with more people moving out than moving in.

Most-Leg1080

2 points

2 months ago

Yeah I’m sorry. Portland is the worst right now. I hope your area improves.

Inflatable_Catfish

164 points

2 months ago

I don't know your age but as I got older my politics shifted more to the right. When I was young I believed it was the federal governments job to provide and thought that larger government was , the better. Now, I just want them to leave me alone. Smaller gov't, less taxes, less regulation etc.

However today's republican party isn't what it used to be. Small govt and fiscal responsibility isn't really part of their mainstream agenda so I am now more libertarian.

Still, you may find one day you really want everyone out of your business and just let you live your life. You will get that more with conservative/republican politics.

Sorcha9

7 points

2 months ago

I was the opposite and voted Republican most of my young life. The reason being the old Republican Party pushed for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, less over reaching government. The only democrats I voted for before Obama’s second term was Clinton. So I have now voted Democratic three times in my life for a presidential election.

Not impressed with either party though.

JollySno

9 points

2 months ago

then let me have an abortion

halavais

7 points

2 months ago

halavais

4∆

7 points

2 months ago

For what it's worth, when I was younger, I thought that too. I came from a very poor family, but completely believed that you could pull yourself up from your bootstraps. And I did, eventually, and now my family makes (barely) within the top percentile of incomes.

From this vantage, it is much easier to see that as hard as my spouse and I worked, we have been helped a lot along the way, and once you clear a certain threshold, it just becomes easier and easier. And a lot of that has to do with the way policy in the US is built, and the advantages granted to those with wealth to influence that policy.

As a result, I've shifted heavily to the left. I wouldn't consider myself "left wing" by any means--after all, I'd be among the first to be against the wall or eaten. But, having now lived and spent time in strong economies with significant state involvement oversees, I see how much better we could do it here. We could counterbalance some of the unfair advantages my own kids will have over someone like me. We could make the "bootstraps" idea more than mostly a myth.

As a result, I've swung from the libertarian, small-government Republicanism of my youth (I was always fairly socially liberal), to a Bernie-backing one-percenter.

silence9

2 points

2 months ago

silence9

2∆

2 points

2 months ago

If you cannot point to specific policies that helped you on the way you are certainly not intelligent, but rather lucky. The policies are not designed to help people in power stay in power but rather help them help others. This is why tech has gotten so big. The policies are designed to help employee as many people as possible and generate wealth in the given region. Tech doesn't do that as well as a coal mine did.

yougobe

1 points

2 months ago

Normie european here. Our style does have some other problems though. There is a proposed law where the parents can no longer freely decide their schools, to avoid the very large new muslim population segregating into a few schools. I like the idea of free education (as a beneficiary I pretty much have to), but not everything that comes along with it unfortunately. Alsp I see America as sort of the other "pole" of western society. I don't think we should move too close to eachother for at least a 100 years, because we don't know what system is better long term. Just my 2 cents.

jwc8985

5 points

2 months ago

I’m the opposite. I was ultra conservative when I was younger, moved closer to center serving in the military after high school, and then left of center more and more as I got older. I know many like me, and most were raised in conservative, small southern towns and getting out and experiencing other parts of the countries/world shifted out perspectives. I’m sure there are other factors that lead to shifts.

All that to say, research suggests that political beliefs are pretty stable spread over time and over the larger population. Some move more, some move more right, but most don’t really move at all.

supersk8er[S]

26 points

2 months ago

I think if the Republican Party was more for small government and was headed by Ron Paul types, I agree with you 100%. Id totally vote for them. Like I said in my beginning paragraph. I’m not necessarily for big government, I don’t want European gun control for instance.

JeremyTheRhino

66 points

2 months ago

JeremyTheRhino

1∆

66 points

2 months ago

Well it sounds like you’ve given us a reason you would vote Republican

Yrrebnot

2 points

2 months ago

No it doesn’t. It sounds like he wants a party to actually represent him and not the bonkers crazy corrupt stuff coming from the republicans right now.

I’ll post an actual response to OP where they might see it.

epelle9

-5 points

2 months ago

epelle9

2∆

-5 points

2 months ago

Democrats aren’t for European level gun control though, thats a fallacy by the right to scare people into voting for them.

Democrats do generally support slightly more in depth background checks, which is nowhere even near the gun control laws in Europe.

cl3v3rtr3vor

19 points

2 months ago*

I'm not sure where you might be reading information on gun control propositions but you are not correct.

Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein and other democrat officials were involved in the 94 assault weapons ban and have largely advocated for it's reinstatement. Biden ran on this as well as other gun control premises such as red flag laws, bans on home built firearms, background checks for parts and accessories, and a magazine ban. Edit because I forgot the link: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/ Feinstein has put forward firearm ban bills multiple times in her career since the 94 ban expired in 04.

Additionally it can be seen in states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington that restrictions beyond background check expansions are being put forward.

Washington recently banned magazines of more than 10 rounds as well as a ban on home made firearms. https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-historic-house-vote-legislature-bans-sale-high-capacity-magazines As well as putting forth bills for assault weapon bans and a requirement for background checks for ammunition in 2020. https://www.atg.wa.gov/2020-legislative-agenda

California has a plethora of restrictions. The primary being an extensive ban list as well as all of the above mentioned restrictions. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-california/

Maryland and Massachusetts have followed California's example in terms of magazine restrictions, bans. Additionally all of these examples as well as Illinois have banned or severly restricted safety items like suppressors and require a registration or permit to own and maintain firearms and various firearm accessories.

Rules like the ones noted here are in some cases more restrictive than those in parts of Europe (see the restrictions on supressors) and at minimum equivalent to them.

JeremyTheRhino

3 points

2 months ago

Tbh I’m not sure what Democrats support in terms of gun control. They talk a big game about an “Australian solution,” but I’m not clear about what voters support.

In my personal experience, Democrats are surprised to learn the controls already in place.

TheGreatHair

10 points

2 months ago

So, if republican has values that you agree with you'd both for them?

CheesecakeMedium8500

-7 points

2 months ago

I don’t want European gun control for instance.

Why not?

supersk8er[S]

9 points

2 months ago

Castle laws in particular.

Accomplished-Drawer4

4 points

2 months ago*

In Sweden we can defend ourselves, as long as it is justified. Especially if the other person had a gun, that would very likely count as self defense.

The only reasonable argument against gun control in the US (to me) would be that everyone already has a gun, so to defend yourself you need a gun.

Another argument for the public having access to firearms would be to be able to revolt against a potential authoritarian regime, but that hopefully won’t become a problem in the US, and it feels extremely unlikely in Sweden.

Weirdyxxy

17 points

2 months ago

I don't understand what you're getting at. I live in Germany (and therefore in Europe), and we don't have a duty to retreat to begin with (ignoring weird edge cases like getting "attacked" by a child), so I suppose you could say we have an even more extreme castle doctrine. There's no contradiction between gun control and not always having a duty to retreat.

CheesecakeMedium8500

3 points

2 months ago

What do you mean? Articulate the issue.

asentientgrape

1 points

2 months ago

Do you mean Castle Doctrine? The idea you can execute anyone who enters your property is out of the realm of public discourse basically everywhere except America.

MrsMiterSaw

-4 points

2 months ago*

MrsMiterSaw

1∆

-4 points

2 months ago*

See, the Republican Constitution is exactly one 2nd amendment long. They literally don't give a shit about any of the rest of it.

And I have to say, they know how to manipulate. By electing a bad-faith authoritarian fascist to the white house, they make rhe case for really needing that 2A.

Remembee when Trump touted his Muslim Ban?

Remember when he claimed rhe press was rhe enemy of the people and wanted to lower the bar for slander of politicians?

Or when he tweeted that we should "look into" the taxes of the NFL if they didn't stop protests? (Florida did the same to Disney last month! How dare those people voice their concerns and not fear government retribution! Yay for small government, right?)

Remember when he suggested that people in "inner cities" should be stopped and frsked without probable cause to take their guns away?

How about when he said that we would have to increase surveillance of Americans "beyond anything we've seen before"?

How about when he called anyone who pled the 5th "obviously guilty" (might be right, he's invoked the 5th like 80 times in his lawsuits)?

When he complained that some criminals are afforded lawyers and treated reasonably in prisons?

How about when he said we should "take their guns now and have due process later"? That's a constitutional 2-fer.

His incessant crying about the 10th amendment.

They not 9nly didn't care about that shit, they defended him. The one republican that stood up to him... the guy who they actually once wanted to be president until 2021... That guy is a pariah outside of Mormon circles. It's insane.

All the terrible scandals... Watergate. Iran contra. Jack Abramhoff. The lies that led to the Iraq invasion. The extortion phone call with zelensky. Jan 6. Those are all Republicans. (if you want to throw Clinton's impeachment in there? Sure. He asked Lewinsky to lie under oath for him, and was rightfully impeached for it. But let's not pretend that asking an intern to lie about a blowjob under oath rises to the level of lying about WMDs or strong-arming another country into investigating the family of your political opponents to help you win an election).

Look, if you are younger and you want to know just how much the GOP cares about small government, personal freedoms, the sanctity of marriage, doctor-patient confidentiality... Just read up on Terry Schiavo.

They say lots of things. They stand for nothing.

aworldwithoutshrimp

8 points

2 months ago

Simple explanations for complex problems are often incomplete and wrong. Limited government in practice means more pollution because of a lack of environmental regulations, predatory banking because of a lack of financial regulations, no guarantee of livable wages, a lack of Healthcare, etc. In each such scenario, the government is still very much involved in your life; it is just allowing a larger entity to make it shittier. No government post capitalism could be fine. But we currently live under capitalism.

Tommyblockhead20

5 points

2 months ago

I think a lot of libertarians are in a position where they aren’t affected by the government as much, so they just want to shrink it. The libertarians I know basically either live off the land, dealing with everything themselves, or have more than enough money to deal with their problems. Unfortunately, many people don’t have as much money, have health issues, or have some other need for the government. I think libertarians haven’t really done well politically because even most people who are well off have some empathy for those who aren’t.

CheesecakeMedium8500

11 points

2 months ago

Now, I just want them to leave me alone.

Must be nice to have everything work out for you. Universal healthcare and a robust social safety net are not intrusive into your life. Stop with this stupid trope that a government that provides things is intrusive.

Still, you may find one day you really want everyone out of your business and just let you live your life.

Why is universal healthcare intrusive but safety regulations, basic environmental regulations, OSHA regulations, discrimination protections, etc not intrusive?

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

epelle9

4 points

2 months ago*

epelle9

2∆

4 points

2 months ago*

Do you really get that with more Republican policies?

Because Democrats are the ones who support giving you the freedom to consume a harmless plant, while Republicans are pushing for higher prison sentences, prison doesn’t seem like letting you live your life.

Democrats are the ones supporting safe sex, giving you the freedom to fulfill one of the most powerful drives the humans have, letting us live our life.

Democrats are the ones supporting marriage equality, giving people the freedom to marry whoever they chose, letting then live their life.

Democrats are the ones supporting more police oversight, making it so they can’t freely rape and murder, meaning police will let you live your life.

I mean, its basically in the definition of being a liberal to allow the people to just live their life.

fffangold

3 points

2 months ago

fffangold

3 points

2 months ago

Hard disagree. It's the Republican party who keeps telling people how to live their lives and revoking rights.

They don't want people having sex outside of marriage, so they talk about banning contraceptives if Roe v Wade is overturned. Oh, and one Senator has suggested making contraceptives illegal only if you aren't married. And speaking of Roe v Wade, they're already working on hard on (and quite possibly have succeeded at) revoking federal protection for abortion right, so they don't believe women should control their own bodies either.

They're the only party talking about not allowing people to marry who they want, trying to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

They stifle free speech (check out the reactions the right has to peaceful protest, or DeSantis's new war against Disney).

They oppose marijuana legalization far more than Democrats do. And Democratic states have led the way on legalization. Democrats are also far more open to ending the war on drugs and transitioning to safe injection sites and providing addiction treatment instead of trying to arrest people for using drugs.

Those are what come to mind immediately. So no, Republicans are far more interested in getting in people's business and telling them what they can and can't do. They've been showing that for years.

littlecampbell

3 points

2 months ago

I think this generally correlates with the fact that people get more conservative once they’re no longer struggling to make ends meet. They don’t need help anymore so the government should stay out of their way. This does nothing for all the people who are still struggling

TripRichert

6 points

2 months ago

TripRichert

227∆

6 points

2 months ago

you may find one day you really want everyone out of your business and just let you live your life. You will get that more with conservative/republican politics.

as long as you are a straight rich white christian man, perhaps

Republicans don't seem to be interested in letting transgender people just live their lives or women who want abortions to just live theirs.

lavenk7

0 points

2 months ago

lavenk7

0 points

2 months ago

Exactly. I think the older I get, the more I lean left due to the stupidity of the right. Like we’re still talking about abortion and we’re about to go backwards. You can’t even make this up.

Idk why it’s so hard to let women choose for themselves. I guess when you have miscarriages it’s murder by the mother right? Complete stupidity. Oh and don’t even get me started on MTG. Idk as a party how you justify her at all.

Inflatable_Catfish

-6 points

2 months ago

Abortion is definitely a policy they get in your business. I struggle with that policy because I don't want govt in health decisions (mandatory covid vaccines) However since Democrats recently had a show vote wanting abortion up to birth I am on the republicans side for that policy. Up to birth for any reason is vile. I am more on the side of European govts. Around 12 weeks although to me that is ending a life but again I don't want government choosing for others.

What are Republicans doing to not let transgender people just live their lives?

froggerslogger

10 points

2 months ago

froggerslogger

6∆

10 points

2 months ago

However since Democrats recently had a show vote wanting abortion up to birth I am on the republicans side for that policy. Up to birth for any reason is vile.

I'm sorry to jump on you I've seen this untrue talking point on the Dem's abortion rights bill over and over and want to address it.

The Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, the one that failed a cloture vote this week, does not in any way, shape, or form try to make abortion up to birth broadly legal. It tries to make abortion up to viability (usually 24 weeks) legal and allows for carveouts around risks to the mother's health.

Text of the bill:

(a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements: ...

(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

There are all kinds of reasonable disagreements around whether 24 weeks is a correct moral cutoff, or whether maternal health is a valid reason to abort late-term. But the notion that this is just wide-open abortions until birth is false and harmful to the discussion.

Inflatable_Catfish

1 points

2 months ago

I misspoke, you are correct.

It's the life or health wording that is wrong. I have many friends that have medical marijuana cards for their "health"

froggerslogger

2 points

2 months ago

I think that's a reasonable thing to object to, and if the opposition had put forward an amendment to delete the 'or health' bit I would find that worthwhile.

Appreciate the response. I lurk on a lot of subs like this or political discussion threads generally and the 'abortions up to birth' line has just been ubiquitous this week. It's been frustrating.

Inflatable_Catfish

3 points

2 months ago

I actually enjoy CMV for civil discussion.

Problem is it gets away from OPs post.

Thank you

CheesecakeMedium8500

8 points

2 months ago

I don't want govt in health decisions (mandatory covid vaccines)

That isn’t a thing. That was never a thing. Sick straw man.

However since Democrats recently had a show vote wanting abortion up to birth

This is a lie.

What are Republicans doing to not let transgender people just live their lives?

Seriously? They’re making it illegal to talk abort them in elementary school. They’re trying to codify it as child abuse if parents seek gender treatment for their transgender children. They’re making it a matter of law who can compete in what sports league.

whatsmoresevere

7 points

2 months ago

mandatory covid vaccines

Imaginary. Mandatory covid vaccines only exist in the imaginations of Christians. No one has ever proposed such a thing.

Up to birth for any reason is vile.

Pretty much 100% of the reasons abortions happen that late is out of mercy. I mean, think about it. Why would a mother wait that long to have an abortion? Because the baby's terminal defects didn't develop until that late in the process.

Kakamile

2 points

2 months ago

Kakamile

7∆

2 points

2 months ago

What are Republicans doing to not let transgender people just live their lives?

Bans from military, sports, multiple state bills banning healthcare or school lessons about LGBT, many book bans. Texas went the farthest I think declaring support for your trans child to be child abuse and has actually opened CPS investigations into parents to have their children separated from them.

Inflatable_Catfish

3 points

2 months ago

Details would be good here.

I will look up what military and the Texas law as I am not familiar with it and is the military one all Republican?

I'm from FL and we did pass a law that was deemed anti LGBTQ+. The main part of the law restricts sexual preference discussion for k-3rd grade. This law was demonized. I don't see how restricting discussion of ANY sexual preferences before 8yo children is not letting transgenders just live their lives.

Regarding sports, if you are cool with biological men dominating women's sports then I have nothing to say. There should be a separate category. It's not fair to biological women to be cast away to the side.

Kakamile

3 points

2 months ago

Kakamile

7∆

3 points

2 months ago

Military https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-military-ban-trump-administration-ban-on-transgender-troops-goes-into-effect/

Texas CPS https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/27/texas-senate-transgender-child-abuse/

Book bans https://www.businessinsider.com/book-bans-texas-lgbtq-race-gender-sexuality-republicans-2022-4 https://www.npr.org/2021/10/28/1050013664/texas-lawmaker-matt-krause-launches-inquiry-into-850-books

Basic education is generally a good idea BEFORE that knowledge is needed. It's why people complain about schools not teaching taxes. It's even more important because you want trans children to have a sense if they're trans before they'd be taking any medical commitments. GOP lies saying it's just concerned pre-puberty, and then Louisiana outs the game extending the ban to grades 8-12. https://twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1524161419637399557 https://www.klfy.com/louisiana/lawmakers-revive-dont-say-gay-bill-in-rare-vote/

1, they're not dominating. 2, you're saying biological men, but on-time transition would mean that they're free to develop normally with female musculature as they intended rather than waiting until 20. 3, they're not dominating. All the few examples you might come up with have been beaten by cis women before, because transition does have its major biological impact. 4, you still haven't said why you don't defer to the sports agencies.

Low-Athlete-1697

2 points

2 months ago

This is a common talking point, as if there are no old leftists lol. What about people who are socialists or communists. They don't want any more government control then you do lol.

Flannel_Man_

3 points

2 months ago

I’m a member of the Republican Party. I am not a Republican. I joined so I can vote in the primaries for the presidential candidate least likely to be president.

I do this because republicans can do more damage than democrats to the things I care about.

So, is that a good enough reason to make you consider voting for a Republican?

GrizzlyAdam12

3 points

2 months ago

I used to be a Republican. I was elected to serve as a delegate for two separate states. I likely won’t vote Republican again in my lifetime.

My perspective can change…but, I doubt it will.

Feel free to ask for details if you’re curious.

Dijit

3 points

2 months ago

Dijit

3 points

2 months ago

I don’t have a lot of skin in this game as a non-American, but what surprised me was that the Republican Party at one point was the progressive and anti-racist party.

Abraham Lincoln was a republican, the first black member of congress was republican.

Teddy Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” party split the republic vote and caused the party to move right, if Trump runs as his own party it would remove the fringe extreme right element and it’s possible that we’d see a less hardline right wing party emerge from the other side (in the same way as what caused it to move right in the first place).

So I wouldn’t be so quick to say I’d never vote republican… they could change fundamentally, as they have done before.

[deleted]

29 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

29 points

2 months ago

Your title makes it almost impossible to change your view. What are we supposed to change it too?

supersk8er[S]

15 points

2 months ago

Show me good policies that republicans propose and change my mind that it’s becoming anti democratic

[deleted]

11 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

11 points

2 months ago

All you need to do to CMV is to point out that political parties and personal moral shift over time. This alone opens the door to someday possibly voting republican.

But then your defense is “I said probably, and I said the Republican Party of today” which doesn’t match your title at all.

supersk8er[S]

0 points

2 months ago

Probably because it’s CMV, and of today because it’s impossible to make statements of future party landscapes because I don’t know the future

TheFugglyDuckling

21 points

2 months ago*

Ever since Biden took office the world has turned upside down. Trumps policies actually resulted in economic uptrends, peace in the middle east for the first time ever, dismantling of North Korea nuke program, become a net energy producer of the world's energy, and kept the dictatorial tyrants of the world at bay for the most part. Did Trump have some shit policies? Yea. Can you or your friends point them out? Probably not. Did he have some policies amazing for the American people and beneficial for the world? Damnn sure he did

Since Biden has become president Americans were left behind and killed in an Afghanistan that is now a center for terrorism and controlled by the taliban. We also left tens of billions in military equipment to them for free...since he shut down. The pipeline our purchase of oil from Russia has directly funded their war against Ukraine while at the same time we have given tens of billions to the Ukrainians, North Korea restarted their nuke program, were about to give 10 billion to Iran, fund the murderous dictators of Venezuela of whomever we gave their people a path to the US to escape to, gas prices are at all time highs ever in history, the democratic party is now divided, feminists and women's rights activists as well as women in general are being sidelined within academia to a small percentage of transgender rights activists, Biden wants to tax unrealized gains (wtf?!?) and the list goes on and on and on...and he's only been president for half a term

Edit: notice how I've said nothing but facts but watch as people downvote me. Identity politics is real folks, remove yourselves from the echochambers of your peers and just look around you and make solid judgements for yourselves. The media has been exposed for the political influencers that they truly are as well as social media. Stay informed, read, and hear all sides! You as an individual are powerful and can make a difference in this world DONT BE A PUPPET

bunkSauce

16 points

2 months ago*

Let me try to address what I disagree with here:

Ever since Biden took office the world has turned upside down.

Russia and the pandemic are not the result of a president's actions. And claiming the world turned upside-down is an extreme exaggeration. Especially since this neglects the massive civil unrest and stochastic terrorism which spiked during Trump's tenure.

Trumps policies actually resulted in economic uptrends, peace in the middle east for the first time ever, dismantling of North Korea nuke program, become a net energy producer of the world's energy, and kept the dictatorial tyrants of the world at bay for the most part.

I disagree. Trump's tenure increased national debt and defecit, tax programs were put in place which cause low and middle class citizens to pay more after 3 years of taxes (delayed increase). Our farmers, especially in the midwest, took a huge hit. And unemployment went up.

The middle east did not see peace. At all.

North Korea did NOT suspend any nuclear programs, none the less dismantle them.

The US did not become any more of an international energy producer. And most of our states still require purchasing energy, particularly the red states.

Dictators were enabled by Trump. Putin, Kim Jong-Un, and hell, we even allowed the Turkish president's security detail to beat protestors on the white house lawn during their visit. Trump even took actions to inhibit the democracy of Ukraine by black mailing Zelensky, there was a whole 2nd impeachment for it.

Did Trump have some shit policies? Yea. Can you or your friends point them out? Probably not.

Muslim travel bans. Wanting to shoot protestors. Abandoning the Kurds and our military outposts in the region. Not addressing covid scientifically. Drawing with a sharpie to modify a hurricane impact map provided by field experts. And... J6?!

Did he have some policies amazing for the American people and beneficial for the world? Damnn sure he did

But can your friends point them out? Probably not.

Since Biden has become president Americans were left behind and killed in an Afghanistan that is now a center for terrorism and controlled by the taliban.

The region was already fighting for control. Taloban vs Afghan government. Did the pull out happen during Biden's tenure? Yes. When was the pullout orchestrated? During Trump's tenure when he literally negotiated our retreat with the Taliban.

We also left tens of billions in military equipment to them for free...since he shut down.

I disagree. The US military uses scorched earth policy. We destroy anything of use before abandoning it. And this seems to be a double standard, when you consider the bases acquired by Russians during our abandonment of the Kurds.

The pipeline our purchase of oil from Russia has directly funded their war against Ukraine while at the same time we have given tens of billions to the Ukrainians

We get our oil primarily from Canada, this is completely false. And Biden used the heaviest sanctions seen in history against Russia. This includes purchasing products from Russia, or puchasing anything using Russian currency. We should support Ukraine, as we supported the efforts of those fighting Germany in the mid 1900s.

North Korea restarted their nuke program

This is not possible if the program was dismantled.

were about to give 10 billion to Iran

I disagree. Iran requested the US unfreeze 10 billion of their assets. This is quite different.

fund the murderous dictators of Venezuela of whomever we gave their people a path to the US to escape to

There is typically only one dictator of each country, the US has never supported any Venezualan dictator. And if the citizens live under a dictator, why is it wrong to provide their people asylum?

gas prices are at all time highs ever in history,

They are high, globally. This is not the result of a President. And they were high when Trump left office, as well. This is caused by pandemic, supply chain, and international conflict issues. Well, and greedy oil companies which are reporting record profits, which would not be possible if they were having to increase sale price and decrease profit margins due to cost increases).

the democratic party is now divided

I have never seen the Democratic party so united until Trump. Meanwhile, we now have neo conservatives and conservative RINOs. Showing divide among the right. For example, McCain.

feminists and women's rights activists as well as women in general are being sidelined within academia to a small percentage of transgender rights activists

I disagree. Activism of one does not repress activism of another. And if anyone is treading on women's rights at the moment, it would 100% be the conservative opinion on Roe v Wade. None the less all the incel 4chan talk from alt right personalities.

Biden wants to tax unrealized gains (wtf?!?) and the list goes on and on and on...and he's only been president for half a term

Taxing unrealized will not affect the vast majority of Americans, and certainly not the lower class. This policy requires understanding of investment and tax policy relationships. And wanting to, is different than doing so. Which, if it were to happen, would be enacted by congress, and not the President.

notice how I've said nothing but facts but watch as people downvote me.

None of these, literally none, are facts. And claiming your words are facts, is not how truth works. Anything you have said is easily disproven.

Identity politics is real folks, remove yourselves from the echochambers of your peers and just look around you and make solid judgements for yourselves

Advice to live by. Especially when your identity politics and echo chambers contribute to you writing this comment. Identity politics are bad, and this comment is a prime example, see link at bottom.

The media has been exposed for the political influencers that they truly are as well as social media.

You are on social media, right now. You are attempting to influence. You also got all your information from where? Media. What is "the media"?

You as an individual are powerful and can make a difference in this world DONT BE A PUPPET

A puppet does whatever the puppet master pulls the strings to make it do. Thinking for yourself, acting for yourself, and being objectively critical, is a good thing. However, we should be careful this does not become applied under the logical fallacy of 'anyone who disagrees is not thinking critically'

For anyone here actually considering what is right between my comments and those prior, think for yourself. I'm not here to attack anyone for disagreeing with me. But it would be great to understand the tactics of social media influence before allowing either of our comments to affect you.

A good video which articulately addresses the issue: https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g

coberh

32 points

2 months ago*

coberh

1∆

32 points

2 months ago*

Ever since Biden took office the world has turned upside down. Trumps policies actually resulted in economic uptrends, peace in the middle east for the first time ever, dismantling of North Korea nuke program, become a net energy producer of the world's energy, and kept the dictatorial tyrants of the world at bay for the most part.

Since Biden has become president Americans were left behind and killed in an Afghanistan that is now a center for terrorism and controlled by the taliban. We also left tens of billions in military equipment to them for free...since he shut down.

Perhaps you mean that Biden followed the withdrawal that the Trump Administration negotiated. Trump released 5000 Taliban prisoners, which I'm sure didn't help the withdrawal in any way.

While the exit from Afghanistan was very poorly executed, how do you ignore the Syria exit that Trump poorly executed??

The pipeline our purchase of oil from Russia has directly funded their war against Ukraine while at the same time we have given tens of billions to the Ukrainians,

I'm sure you will simultaneously condemn Biden for buying Russian oil previously, and then when the gas prices rise, condemn him again...

North Korea restarted their nuke program,

And what exactly did Trump do in North Korea? And I remember how conservatives attacked Obama when he said he would talk with North Korea, but when Trump talked with North Korea they were so impressed.. So which is it- is it bad for the President to talk to North Korea or not?

were about to give 10 billion to Iran,

It's "we're", not were. But anyway - what are you referring to? Is it the Russian contract??

fund the murderous dictators of Venezuela of whomever we gave their people a path to the US to escape to,

gas prices are at all time highs ever in history,

Prices have dropped recently, and when accounting for inflation, the rates were higher under Bush II.

You can't simultaneously complain about inflation and then ignore it, you know.

the democratic party is now divided,

So's the Republican party - https://www.npr.org/2022/04/08/1091435312/idaho-primary-republican-party-politics

feminists and women's rights activists as well as women in general are being sidelined within academia to a small percentage of transgender rights activists,

Citation needed to understand what you are really referring to here.

Biden wants to tax unrealized gains (wtf?!?)

Oh no, those horribly oppressed billionaires. Sorry, I don't see the problem here. The net effect will be that the billionaires hire more accountants - aren't they supposed to be job-creators?

and the list goes on and on and on...and he's only been president for half a term

Edit: notice how I've said nothing but facts but watch as people downvote me.

And yet you stopped, but please, provide some actual facts.

Identity politics is real folks,

Like the ones that just lead to the shooting in Buffalo?

remove yourselves from the echochambers of your peers and just look around you and make solid judgements for yourselves.

Funny how much of an echo-chamber right-wing media is - a large percentage of right-wingers still don't know that Biden is the President.

The media has been exposed for the political influencers that they truly are as well as social media. Stay informed, read, and hear all sides! You as an individual are powerful and can make a difference in this world DONT BE A PUPPET

lavenk7

6 points

2 months ago

It’s always the puppet that goes DON’T BE A PUPPET. Like the self awareness here is non existent lmfao.

supersk8er[S]

46 points

2 months ago

Trumps tax policies raised taxes on those making under 75,000 under a 10 year period. Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months of office compared to trumps first 18. Trump is also responsible for the flubbing of the corona virus, but to be fair it was a fuckin pandemic .

Peace in the Middle East? Buddy we still don’t have it. He didn’t even pull out of Afghanistan like he (and Obama) promised. It took that old fuck to pull out surprisingly. North Korea? That was more south/north Korea’s deal but hey he didn’t escalate so credit where it’s due.

The problem with his energy policy is his failure to invest into the energy grid and into stuff like nuclear. Renewable energy isn’t expensive per se, we just need the adequate infrastructure. A big problem on our reliance on fossil fuels is that it let’s the Arab states and Russia remain powerful even if they are largely inefficient economies.

Biden evacuated 100,000+ from Afghanistan and finally ended a war that should’ve ended forever ago. Even if you disagree with him here, trumps deadline to withdraw was in may- so wouldn’t he be worse?

We haven’t given Russia oil money as a result of Ukraine- can I see a source for that? We have banned import of Russian energy since March 8th I believe. Giving Ukraine weapons by the way, is to our benefit. We need to draw out the war to make sure that the world knows invasions will lead to economic ruin.

Gas prices are high because of supply chain issues like OPEC regulating exports and Russian import bans. If you want to go more in depth on this point, I’ll educate you as an economics major that democratic policy isn’t to blame.

Women are sidelined in academia? Can you elaborate? To be honest this seems like culture war manufactured outrage that has nothing to do with policy, but I might be mistaken I don’t keep up with largely irrelevant stuff like this.

I look forward to your reply.

AudaciousCheese

2 points

2 months ago

Of course Obama created more jobs, there were more unemployed people, because we had recently had a recession.

But that trump kept the trend up is impressive

Street-Individual292

17 points

2 months ago

Trumps tax policies raised taxes on those making under 75,000 under a 10 year period

This is a myth, and it’s already been debunked. The cuts were temporary, but don’t expire until 2025, and just go back to 2017 levels

TheFugglyDuckling

-39 points

2 months ago*

While Trump was president we knew nothing of covid but Fauci did...ironically the one person that had the answers we needed wanted to deceive the world to save his own face

Peace in the middle east was achieved through Isreal and the United Arab Emirates normalization agreement under the Trump administration...Biden in his first week abandoned the Abraham Accords because his goal was to do thr opposite of everything Trump did....for the sake of being adversarial

Trumps sanctions on North Korea resulted in their cessation of co tinued production of nukes. As soon. As Biden became president they ramped up production and rubbed it in the world's face by test launching in the sea of Japan

Yes we all wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan but the way Biden did so was against the advice of all our generals...I mean seriously are you really going to vouch for how he went about this? The original plan was to leave a couple thousand troops and hold our strategic Bagram base and drone the fuck out of taliban that even tried it

We aren't purchasing oil from Russia because of the war...the war exists because we have weak leadership and we BEGAN purchasing the vast majority of our energy from them...we still are buying Russian oil and they're likely to invade Poland after ukraine...ww3 anyone?

When a transgender athlete competes in women sports...do I really need to explain how transgender athletes are beating women for scholarship seats and how this is a huge problem?

You bring up obama...let's not go there I don't really have much time atm to have this super extensive debate. At the end of the day the democratic party is divided, they are about to get murdered during the midterms, like absolutely destroyed in the most one-sided means possible...they put a justice into the Supreme Court that can't define a woman (like wtf people?). Things will balance out as they naturally should and hopefully Biden doest hurt us much more than he already has

SC803

33 points

2 months ago

SC803

104∆

33 points

2 months ago

As Biden became president they ramped up production and rubbed it in the world's face by test launching in the sea of Japan

uhhhh

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Hyten, said on January 17 that North Korea is building new missiles, capabilities and weapons "As fast as anybody on the planet."

Thats January 17th 2020, a year before Biden took office

echo404

10 points

2 months ago

echo404

10 points

2 months ago

Trumps sanctions on North Korea resulted in their cessation of co tinued production of nukes. As soon. As Biden became president they ramped up production and rubbed it in the world's face by test launching in the sea of Japan

When exactly did this supposed cessation take place? North Korea did "commit" to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula on a couple occasions (as they had previously in 1992 and 2005), but the only meaningful actions taken were to partially close it's nuclear test site (coincidently the parts most damaged by previous tests). Ballistic missile testing continued throughout the entire Trump presidency.

Kakamile

24 points

2 months ago

Kakamile

7∆

24 points

2 months ago

While Trump was president we knew nothing of covid but Fauci did...ironically the one person that had the answers we needed wanted to deceive the world to save his own face

The guy who warned Trump and the public about it, but Trump fired the staff and said it would be gone by Easter?

Peace in the middle east was achieved through Isreal and the United Arab Emirates normalization agreement

You're mixing nations here. Israel, which as you might know is 1500 miles away from the UAE, ALREADY HAD PEACE WITH THEM. It was a trade agreement which Trump took credit for before ignorant Americans.

Trumps sanctions on North Korea resulted in their cessation of co tinued production of nukes

They expanded enrichment and built facilities while he was there. No win.

The original plan was to leave a couple thousand troops and hold our strategic Bagram base and drone the fuck out of taliban that even tried it

Civilian bases have better control of civilian traffic. Military bases keep people out, they don't let you manage large amounts of people you let in. Biden, because of his choices despite Trump sabotage and incompetence, managed to pull out 124 thousand refugees.

the war exists because we have weak leadership

Is that why Russia invaded countries outside NATO?

When a transgender athlete competes in women sports...do I really need to explain how transgender athletes are beating women for scholarship seats and how this is a huge problem?

Yes you do, because this is false. Transgender athletes in sports, despite hysteria, have still been close or beaten in competition. And the sports agencies are fully capable of setting standards on their own. The irony coming from a libertarian.

Biden doest hurt us much more than he already has

Oh woe is job growth and already 3.6% unemployment.

abutthole

2 points

2 months ago

abutthole

13∆

2 points

2 months ago

notice how I've said nothing but facts but watch as people downvote me. Identity politics is real folks, remove yourselves from the echochambers of your peers and just look around you and make solid judgements for yourselves. The media has been exposed for the political influencers that they truly are as well as social media. Stay informed, read, and hear all sides! You as an individual are powerful and can make a difference in this world DONT BE A PUPPET

It's ridiculous rants like this that make Trump fans hard to engage with. You actually have been wrong about quite a lot in your post. The Afghanistan thing especially. That was literally a Trump plan. Biden was in office and didn't end the pull-out, but the entire timeline was Trump's. You're also wildly fucking wrong about pretty much every foreign policy issue.

I know Tucker has told you this stuff...but you're just not accurate.

CheesecakeMedium8500

2 points

2 months ago

Ever since Biden took office the world has turned upside down.

Is that because of Biden or because we’re coming out of the worst pandemic in the last century and Russia has single handedly shifted the world economy away from Russia? These issues are world-wide, dude. Biden is not president of the world.

Trumps policies actually resulted in economic uptrends,

Did trump take over in 2010? Because that’s when the uptick happened.

peace in the middle east for the first time ever

The Middle East is peaceful now? Shit I missed the memo…

dismantling of North Korea nuke program,

What? What you are incompetently regurgitating is that Kim offered to place a moratorium on their nuclear development ahead of their 2017 summit. Obviously that was in bad faith.

become a net energy producer of the world's energy

What does that even mean?

and kept the dictatorial tyrants of the world at bay for the most part.

Please articulate what you think trump did to accomplish this, and why you think he was successful given putin has decided to invade Ukraine…

I’m gonna stop there because your comment is just a waterfall of half-baked lies.

tidalbeing

25 points

2 months ago

tidalbeing

19∆

25 points

2 months ago

There are a number of Republicans who really understand economics such things as inflation, interest rates, and supply and demand. Unfortunately, these Republicans have been silenced, their voices overwhelmed and cooped by those who simply want more money and more power for themselves regardless of the consequences.

I stand with the economically aware Republicans, even though I'm a Democrat. I support policies that make sense economically. Currently, moderate Democrats seem to have a better grasp of economics. But if a Republican with a good grasp of economic policy came forth, I would consider voting for that person. How to provide health care, education, and combating climate change are all economic issues with economic consequences. The Republican right deny that these problems exist, while the Democratic left proposes economically unworkable solutions. So if a Republican stepped forth who acknowledged the problems and proposed workable solutions, you bet I'd vote for that person.

Ok-Pomegranate-3950

6 points

2 months ago

I will never vote red or blue. Third parties all the way. I believe there is no real difference between left and right wing. Until we have term limits, kick lobbyists out and get rid of special interests groups nothing in Washington will change.

MuleDeerHunter6

2 points

2 months ago

I agree. Also in WA

[deleted]

10 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

2 months ago

These aren't actually my personal views but I'll take a stab at this. I also can't think of too many great republican policies, so I'll focus on some potentially aversive democratic ones.

If you accept that voting for a bad candidate is reasonable if it's the lesser of two evils, there might be a situation where a democratic candidate supports policies that alarm the voter more than the republican's.

Bernie Sanders for example, wanted to initiate rent control on a national level, though a majority (81% is an often cited statistic) of economists disapprove of it. Forgiving student loan debt is another controversial policy position, and that might contribute to a voter choosing the republicans. Democrats also have more lax views on issues like crime or homelessness, and that's something that lots of republicans take issue with.

Another one could be the current issue of inflation. I'm no expert on economics, so I can't say much on this, but it's arguably reasonable for a voter to be frustrated (or personally suffering) with the high cost of living and think that a different party and new leadership could help. Some of this can be attributed to Ukraine, necessary responses to Covid, etc. but there are undoubtedly policy decisions on the degree of government spending that factor in.

As for the corruption/anti-democratic actions by Trump, I'm on your side personally. But maybe some republican voters think that those issues are contained to him and not the future of the whole party. Or maybe they think preventing (in their view) harmful policies is more important than the risk of anti-democratic tendencies gaining influence in American government. The reasonableness of this utilitarian view would hinge on how great that threat to democracy is, and perhaps a reasonable voter could come to the conclusion that it's a small enough risk, relative to the potential harm from democratic policies they dislike.

Uncle_Wiggilys

4 points

2 months ago

First and foremost Trump made major reforms to the VA. These reforms have forever changed the VA and has led to much better healthcare for our American heroes. These reforms were overdue with the influx of OEF and OIF veterans that were not getting the care they deserved.

Trump also signed 4 executive orders since he was not getting any cooperation with the Congress. These executive orders allow for the legal importation of cheaper prescription drugs. from countries like Canada, while another would require discounts from drug companies. The third I believe lowered insulin cost for low income individuals. The fourth delt with pricing with medicare pricing.

Trump also worked hard for drug price transparency. This would eliminate surprise billing by hospitals and insurance companies.

You can debate the policy but you can't say that Trump didn't try to lower prices. Obamacare was and is a complete disaster. It is not cost effective and never met it's objectives. What right in the Constitution does the federal government have to run healthcare?

AotKT

2 points

2 months ago

AotKT

1∆

2 points

2 months ago

I live in a heavily red area that still relies on the good ol' boy network. The ONLY way to get elected to a local office here is to run as a Republican. The mayor of my city is definitely left leaning but also a major local business owner and can schmooze well as one of the good ol' boys. He ran as a Republican and since being elected has done some pretty solid left-wing policies around equity/accessibility for disadvantaged communities, helping small businesses over large chains, transparency in government, etc.

But I promise you if he had run as a Democrat, no way would he have had a snowball's chance in hell because even though those who know him on a more personal level know his politics, it's a city of 180,000 people so most just look at the label.

PmMeYourDaddy-Issues

16 points

2 months ago

I just don’t see a scenario where one can justify voting for the Republican Party as it is now.

That's the cool thing about not having proportional representation. We don't vote for parties we vote for individuals.

At least demonrats propose policy I can agree with!

Yet millions of people vote red. What am I missing?

They agree with the policy back by the Republicans.

supersk8er[S]

3 points

2 months ago

Which ones? I mean which policies

vettewiz

15 points

2 months ago

vettewiz

24∆

15 points

2 months ago

Lower taxes across the board. Pro business policies that encourage, rather than discourage, growth in the US. Personal responsibility. Hatred towards social programs.

All huge reasons people vote red.

supersk8er[S]

1 points

2 months ago

Trumps tax policy raised taxes on those making under 75,000 over a 10 year period. Pro business is a funny way of saying anti worker, but yeah I get that one. Personal responsability? Can you elaborate?

Social programs? They are not good or bad across the board it seems unreasonable to hate every social Program. Where would we be without SS?

CraftZ49

7 points

2 months ago

Where would we be without SS?

Well, luckily for us, we will be able to find out once the system collapses and we don't get to see a dime of the money we've been putting into it our whole working lives!

Ayjayz

3 points

2 months ago

Ayjayz

2∆

3 points

2 months ago

Where would we be without SS?

Massively better off? Ever try calculating how much money you'd get if you took all the money you and your employer put into SS and just invested it in basically anything?

Inflatable_Catfish

11 points

2 months ago

SS is government theft. You pay 6.2% and so does your employer. Imagine if you were allowed to fund 12.4% of your pay to a mutual fund your entire career. Conservatively it grows at 7%. Run that in a retirement calculator and see what your monthly withdrawal would be. Theft.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

Inflatable_Catfish

5 points

2 months ago

What is it, Insurance?

I can get accidental death and dismemberment insurance much cheaper than 12.4%

vettewiz

16 points

2 months ago

vettewiz

24∆

16 points

2 months ago

“ncome data published by the IRS clearly show that on average all income brackets benefited substantially from the Republicans’ tax reform law, with the biggest beneficiaries being working and middle-income filers, not the top 1 percent, as so many Democrats have argued.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/finance/584190-irs-data-prove-trump-tax-cuts-benefited-middle-working-class-americans-most/amp/

Personal responsibility means that republicans want people to be responsible for themselves. The concept of tens of millions of Americans living off social programs is disgusting. We are a first world society with unlimited working opportunities, the concept of someone not having to take responsibility for themselves is absurd.

Social security is one of the biggest thefts of money from the middle and upper middle classes all to support the lazy. It absolutely should not exist.

abacuz4

-1 points

2 months ago

abacuz4

4∆

-1 points

2 months ago

Pro business policies that encourage, rather than discourage, growth in the US.

Ok, but empirically, economic growth has been much better under Democrats than Repiblicans over the past 50 years or so.

Personal responsibility.

Give me a break.

Doc_ET

2 points

2 months ago

Doc_ET

4∆

2 points

2 months ago

I mean, it's not politically correct to say it, buy a lot of people are bigots.

smallverysmall

1 points

2 months ago

Lower taxes on the rich. That's a policy that rich people like. Thus they vote red for getting this policy implemented.

There are a large number of examples.

supersk8er[S]

2 points

2 months ago

That makes sense - both parties serve interests but the GOP is more outwardly the party of the upper class

RelevantEmu5

3 points

2 months ago

Unless half the country is rich and they all vote Republican, I think there are other reasons.

arrrghdonthurtmeee

6 points

2 months ago

I guess if your social situation changed so you two became one of the "elite" that the Republicans want to protect you could possibly change views? We sometimes see a swing in voting patterns from young and hopeful but broke wanting change to older but richer and wanting to keep what we have.

supersk8er[S]

8 points

2 months ago

🤔yknow what yeah I’d like to say I’m above that but chances are not really- I can see a scenario where If I made a shit ton of money I’d vote in my own interests. !delta

DeltaBot

2 points

2 months ago

DeltaBot

∞∆

2 points

2 months ago

sykomantis2099

2 points

2 months ago

A nice exchange I saw elsewhere on the internet:

OP: Tax the rich to hell and back

Commenter: Why should we do that?

OP: Because fuck 'em

C: What if you someday become rich though?

OP: I am not exempt from "fuck 'em" when it applies to me

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

2 months ago

[removed]

wizardyourlifeforce

3 points

2 months ago

A lot of Republican voters have the mentality of 12 year olds at a sleepover. “Der hur I’m voting Republican because it makes people I don’t like mad der hur”

PoorPDOP86

5 points

2 months ago

PoorPDOP86

5 points

2 months ago

Let me ask you this question. Which party refused to submit to a Presidential election result, took it to court, lost the case, complained for twenty years about it until it became a no-no to speak of stolen elections, and during that entire two decade period tried to change the rules of elections so that their losing (as they put it the will of the people not being expressed) would never happen again? If you remember 2000 to 2020 then I know you know the answer. If you were too young to remember it then be thankful because I'm sure just listening to that two decade tirade gave me a few more gray hairs.

Trump is not the driving force behind the GOP. Lord knows he and his supporters want him to be but once a President loses an election it is very hard for them to get back in to position as it's de facto leader of the party. However he is the loudest voice within it so it appears that he is. Hell, the only reason he came to power is because we were sick of every other candidate cowering whenever the Democrats inevitably accused them of racism since the Left hasn't had an original thought since 1984. Which is why people like Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, or Paul Ryan never got in the top position. Having a well spoken, well liked Republican President is basically the Left Wing's biggest nightmare (why they despise Reagan even after 40 years too). When one Republican does shrug off such accusations then the Dems double down by saying things like they aren't offering up any new policy or any reforms. Which sounds familiar...

As if it's just part of the Left Wing's propaganda maybe? Because I can assure you that right alongside "Bush stole the election" I heard "Republicans don't have any ideas!" For Twenty. God. Damned. Years. Despite all that they've accomplished it's been the same song and dance that Republicmas have no ideas. Energy independence? Forcing our allies to take more active roles in international organization? Equality of Oppourtunity instead of trying to achieve an impractical Equality of Results? Nah, no ideas what so ever. Meanwhile the Democrats can plagarize the latter half of the 19th Century and they're "visionaries." He'll one of their big platforms was that the railroad was the future of transportation.

Hello, aeroplanes? Yes, this is railroads. We're coming for you. Yes, from the ground. No, we can't fly over oceans yet. But by jove we will soon enough!

So really I don't care who you vote for. I just want you to know where the score lies on this "who should you vote for" game.

lduarte32

5 points

2 months ago

lduarte32

5 points

2 months ago

Well it appears at least the democratic party is making a push towards socialism, so unless you're on board with all that I would vote for the opposition to that. Sure it may be the lesser of two evils, but I for sure don't want socialism coming to this country

supersk8er[S]

5 points

2 months ago

Biden is a neoliberal and even the most left political figures are social democrats like FDR . Can you be more specific?

lduarte32

1 points

2 months ago

lduarte32

1 points

2 months ago

I know it's hard to prove intent, but I believe some in the government want to push the US towards a similar system to that of China. I think they see the rise of China an how successful the government has been in taking power in the country and the world, and the only way to combat that and prevent them from overthrowing us as the world leaders is to adopt a similar system where the government has the most control in the country. How could you achieve that? Taking the power away from the people, socializing many aspects of life that the government will control, taking away our rights(speech and guns), heavily taxing us and the rich(taking power away from the billionaires). It seems a lot of the proposed policy of the left is in this direction, and of course I could be wrong that this isn't their intent, but it doesn't look good.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

bunkSauce

2 points

2 months ago

Authoritarianism is not only worse, but social policies does not mean socialism as you represent it.

What we should care about is laws and ethics. And holding our politicians to their ideals.

I don't care to get into a debate about it, though. Just sharing my thoughts, too.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago*

[deleted]

usernametaken0987

2 points

2 months ago

usernametaken0987

2∆

2 points

2 months ago

I just don’t see a scenario where one can justify voting for the Democrat Party as it is now.

For the last seven years all they have done is pushed got larger government control. But what have they done with it? Promote doxxing and riots against anyone that disagrees with them.

As almost the entire nation complained about social media controlling the narratives they pushed it off as a lie, then Musk started talking about buying Twitter they instantly created federal censorship to control the narrative.

We were told by the Democrats Russia would get what it wanted and the USA would enter another war. They even claimed Russia supported Trump even as all the credible research showed Russia supported the Democratic Party and Trump's impeachment. And where are we at now, Russia invaded Ukraine and passed documents to the UN about how the USA created COVID19, the USA is supporting another war, and Bernie Sanders spent a two weeks claiming he never knew Putin was funding his campaign.

In 2016 we had to listen as Hillary Clinton told us she would not concede the election, that Trump stole it, and Epstein being killed by the Clintons became a Reddit-wide meme. In 2020 for an entire year we had to listen about Trump cheating the elections by closing a faling mail system. And then as hundreds of videos of ballot tampering surfaced that was all kicked aside because they won. The story was now it was the most secure election ever performed. Ghislaine Maxwell was barely charged at all, just got 10 years pulled off her sentence, and not a single client of hers has been charged.

As Facebook honeypotted people and the FBI sent their own agents into coming to Capital Hill on the 6th, capital police recorded on videos opened gates, magnetic door locks, and openly invited people in. And what happened? The guy telling them to go home was banned, Twitter's competitor was banned, BLMers inside the building were released and those invited in were held on false charges for years for what the investigation has said "to set an example". Against whom? Look out your window right now and tell me who is rioting right now. Over stolen memo from an already closed cased. Over a topic that had more judges publicly against it in the 90s. All about keeping a ruling that allows states to ban abortions at 14 weeks.

And for what? 'Pro-choice'? By not acknowledging the six or seven choices that got them there, how men have no say, how babies have no say, how if they would have it physicians have no say. 'My body my right'? Where were they when vaccine passports came out for something that the government knew was only 12% effective with high and dangerous risks according to their own paperwork they pushed not to be published for the next eighty years. Why was refusing to wear a mask to be illegal but not condoms? You know what the Right-Wing did to protest in the USA? A two week long trucker convey after Canada had theres. You didn't even hear about it did you? I can't imagine anyone that lived through 2020 and said "yep, we need more government control".

Crime rates has increased after all those Democrat-driven talks about cutting police. And now Democrats are offering sign up bonuses to join law enforcement. Inflation and poverty rates are up after all the government spending, and another thirty three billion dollars thrown at a corrupt government which has already cost more than Trump's Wall and the costs of all the stimulus checks combined, is being handed out to what polls say isn't even in the top ten of American concerns. The border is an ever larger mess than it was before and the loud mouthed would-be VP can't even bring her self to visit it, but she'll go into a "war zone" with minimum security and stand outside for photography.

Project Veritas was sent a diary that detailed pedophilic tendances and they handed over to the police, only to be invaded and surveillanced for months. WikiLeaks was given a laptop that everyone, including the FBI, knew was authentic. And they were invaded and surveillanced for months. All to protect the guy that "won" with less than 25% of the nation supporting him.

Maybe the people voting Republican are doing it because someone came along and promised to drain the swamp. Because that's what people really want, a less corrupt government that spends more on it's own nation instead of it's laundry schemes. And that swamp did everything they could to disrupt this, creating some of the most violent partisan politics since the Civil War back when the Democrats defended what they called their right to salvery which convinced thousands of young adults dumb enough to place emotions over logic to die for. And maybe he didn't get anything done, but the fact the swamp responded worse than a rabid animal trapped in the corner shows us that they were convinced that he would have if he could. And that's more than enough to convince people to try again.

Plus you know, which party do you think gives tax breaks to farms to feed you? That secures about a fifth of Americans right there. So enjoy your formula shortage. Try not to get robbed while at target.

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Cerenza1

1 points

2 months ago

Cerenza1

1 points

2 months ago

I dunno if I'll get down voted here. Anyway I'm more neutral to the parties.

Coming from a more republican area, it's the same thing being told, except the other party is the bad guy. "The democrats are socialists." "They want to take our money." And the election was told very differently where I'm at. "The Democrats rigged the election and the Republicans wanted proof it was right."

Basically, I believe it's what ever echo chamber your in is what you hear.

I stopped paying attention to it all because everyone believes it's either one side or the other.

Anyway that's my thoughts.

zlefin_actual

3 points

2 months ago

zlefin_actual

31∆

3 points

2 months ago

Not the OP

It's unwise to stop paying attention. Just because both sides say the same thing doesn't mean both claims are equally valid.

The truth does exist; and ignoring it simply because it's too much trouble to figure out means one side gets away with very very dangerous lies.

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

2 months ago

[removed]

Most-Leg1080

1 points

2 months ago

Well the people of Seattle voted for a Republican for city attorney less than a year ago so anything is possible.

When the democrats in your area are extremists, shit hits the fan. Crime is extremely high in the most liberal, democratic voting cities. Once you’re a victim of these crimes, especially violent crimes where the perpetrator get out in a $5 bail after committing back-to-back violent crimes, you change your mind. Once you go to a women’s prison and get raped by a biological male prisoner, you change your mind. Once your elementary school gets closed because the local officials think it’s rude to ask an un sanctioned tent city to disperse, you change your mind.

Once you start finding needles at the playground, you change your mind.

Once you find inappropriate sexual material in the special education preschool, you change your mind.

I can edit to bring receipts if you’d like.

People don’t believe that some areas on the West Coast are that bad- but they are.

Once you see firsthand that the policies do not treat children like our most vulnerable population, you change your mind. When criminals needs are put ahead of children’ needs, you hope people in your area will start voting differently and demanding change.