A Question to Americans (Political)

[rutger5000]

Ugh, glad to see that generalization doesn't fail to cross the seas. A small list of Republican beleifs as another person pointed out.

Republicans
>Large religious backing
>Conservative budgeting philosophy
>Emphasis on small government (see conservative budgeting philosophy)
>Emphasis on personal rights (self-defense/home-defense)
>Pro-firearm
>Pro-military/defense budget

Notice the lack of "kill brown people"

And those are positive points?
Really I fail to see why any intelligent person still considers conservatisme as a legitimate political view. The world is changing too fast to trust upon the wisdom of our elders. Their ideas were good at the time, but we can't afford the luxery to rely on them. The only way to maintain prosperity and remain moral is to abandon our elders ways and use our own wisdom to tackle todays issues. That is not to say that non of the previous ideas can help us, but that we can't take it for granted that they still do.
Small government really hasn't helped the states either. Just look at your terrible infrastructure, a country with capable and strong goverment doesn't have those issues.
Self-defense/home defense, isn't it better to try to make the country more save in general, so there is little need.
Pro-firearm, yeah like that doesn't cause you (and mostly your Southren neighbours) massive problems.
Pro-military/defense budget? You are surrounded by the massive oceans and two nations that could never form any threat to you. The USA doesn't need the strongest military in the world to remain save. Always preparing for war isn't an healthy outlook on the world. Preparing for wars will cause them.
Indeed the notion of killing brown people is just stupid. But I can't help but feel that republicans value an American live too much more then any non American, espescially if that non American isn't Christian either.

 

[Erttheking]

Ugh, glad to see that generalization doesn't fail to cross the seas. A small list of Republican beleifs as another person pointed out.

Republicans
>Large religious backing
>Conservative budgeting philosophy
>Emphasis on small government (see conservative budgeting philosophy)
>Emphasis on personal rights (self-defense/home-defense)
>Pro-firearm
>Pro-military/defense budget

Notice the lack of "kill brown people"

And those are positive points?
Really I fail to see why any intelligent person still considers conservatisme as a legitimate political view. The world is changing too fast to trust upon the wisdom of our elders. Their ideas were good at the time, but we can't afford the luxery to rely on them. The only way to maintain prosperity and remain moral is to abandon our elders ways and use our own wisdom to tackle todays issues. That is not to say that non of the previous ideas can help us, but that we can't take it for granted that they still do.
Small government really hasn't helped the states either. Just look at your terrible infrastructure, a country with capable and strong goverment doesn't have those issues.
Self-defense/home defense, isn't it better to try to make the country more save in general, so there is little need.
Pro-firearm, yeah like that doesn't cause you (and mostly your Southren neighbours) massive problems.
Pro-military/defense budget? You are surrounded by the massive oceans and two nations that could never form any threat to you. The USA doesn't need the strongest military in the world to remain save. Always preparing for war isn't an healthy outlook on the world. Preparing for wars will cause them.
Indeed the notion of killing brown people is just stupid. But I can't help but feel that republicans value an American live too much more then any non American, espescially if that non American isn't Christian either.

In truth I lean more towards the indepentent side of things, so I partially agree with you on some points, but saying that everything that Republicans beleive in is wrong strikes me as the height of ignorance, kind of seems like something a fanatical Democrat would say. I live in MA, a very liberal state, and there is a law that if I am assualted in my home, I can only legally defend myself if I can't retreat, hi WTF? If a madman breaks into my house and I punch him, I can legally be prosecuted. I don't care how "safe" a country is, it is always going to have an undercurrent of criminals, and the right to defend myself within my own home

EDIT: Had to cut my post short because I was in a hurry

I don't really see any stink being made over here about religion minus when Democrats want to change things like when a Christmas tree "offends" them, but I do need to point out that at one point in American history, there was a lot of controversy about a presidental elective who didn't get enough votes and it is widly beleived that this happened because of his religious views. I forget his name, but he was actually catholic. also let me ask you something. If your country (don't know what it is, didn't have time to look at your profile) had to choose between saving 100 of your own people and 500 people in a different country that you would never meet, what would your government do? Don't kid yourself, every country puts their own civilians first, America (and Republicans) aren't special.
Last time that I checked our infastructure was decent, at least where I live anyway, and by that I mean I live in a decent house and never go hungry and my family can afford a lot of luxries.

Like I said, are Republicans right about everything? Oh god no, our military is more than big enough, we're wasting our time in Iraq now, and the anti-gay aspect of it just disgusts me, but Democrats aren't right about everything either. Some of them seem to think that the government is infallable and can do no wrong case in point, SOPA, while Rebpublicans want limited government influcence in their lives and economy unless it is needed, and that viewpoint is the one that I really agree with.

There is no perfect political party or governing body, not mine, not yours, not anyones.

 

[spartan231490]

at least, most people don't seem to realize you can choose 3rd party or even write in a non-politician

You can do those things, but unless your candidate is the nominee from the democrats or republicans, they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of even making the news come election night, nevermind actually winning.



There's only two choices, one from each party, that stand a chance of winning. Write-ins and third party votes are just there to make you feel good, they don't stand a damn chance, and you might as well simply not vote at all if you're going to pick one as your vote won't mean anything either way.

You do realize that 3rd party candidates are sitting in congress right now, don't you? It's actually not that uncommon for candidates to win those elections without being a dem or repub. Also, there have been candidates who have won elections by write-in.

Also, I have never understood this mentality. Why would you vote for a bad candidate just because you think their going to win anyway? Does voting for the winner make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? At least if you vote for someone you think is a good candidate you don't have to deal with the self-loathing that must come from voting for one of the lying sacks of turd that win.

 

[dyre]

Our part of the Vietnam conflict only became important in LBJ's term. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a major American conflict before then, especially considering that Eisenhower was definitely not the type to enter such a crazy war guns blazing and all. The man's foreign policy was in no way perfect, but Vietnam was beyond him. We wouldn't have really done anything if he hadn't lied his way into the war. LBJ was among the most terrifyingly hawkish presidents there ever was and thousands of Americans and Vietnameze paid the price for it. I loathe that man to an almost irrational degree. Vietnam was quite clearly his war though. And I'll agree that McArthur (I believe that is how his name is spelled) was a moron, but the real escalation was all thanks to China, with the general being largely ignored. Truman, a fair bit of a war monger himself, was president during the Korean war.

That's not quite correct, or at least a bit simplified. Eisenhower (and more accurately, his Secretary of State JF Dulles), played a huge role in setting up the conflict with his insistent support of S. Vietnam's dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem's refusal to honor the 1954 Geneva Accords for the eventual reunification of Vietnam through popular elections, and his terrible treatment of Buddhists and political dissenters, set the stage for a conflict in the area.

Basically, LBJ brought us into the war, but Eisenhower created the inevitability for a war (albeit not necessarily one with US troops involved).

But you're right that Eisenhower really wasn't the type to actually bring us into wars. He generally favored using the CIA, implied military threats, and lots of money to create "regime changes," rather than invading the place himself.

 

[Something Amyss]

Why is this party getting votes?

Better PR, louder shouting?

Look, let's take Obamacare as an example. Polls keep coming out saying that America is against Obamacare, but when asked about individual policies, the whole bill gets overwhelming support. But associate it, originally a conservative idea, with Obama, and nobody wants to touch it.

This kind of goes to my point, too:

It isn?t so much that Obama is a bad president but it?s that Congress is broken.

It's not entirely that, either. Obama didn't get the original health care model through when the Dems HAD a supermajority.

but I digress. The only options seem to be Obama is a shitty President because he got nothing done or he's not a shitty President; he got nothing done because Congress sucks. But he's taken solid steps towards gender equality, passed a healthcare bill that is still a thousand times better than the system as it was, repealed DADT, started offering benefits to partners in gay marriages (in federal employees, a start), and provided us with not just economic growth, but seven straight months of it.

It's weird that I should even have to defend him, because he does disappoint me on so many levels, but he's totally got shit done. Maybe he folds like a map more often than I'd like, but his list of accomplishments does not mark him a sucky President. But the meme, thanks to the PR, is that he gets nothing done.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ugh, glad to see that generalization doesn't fail to cross the seas. A small list of Republican beleifs as another person pointed out.

Republicans
>Large religious backing
>Conservative budgeting philosophy
>Emphasis on small government (see conservative budgeting philosophy)
>Emphasis on personal rights (self-defense/home-defense)
>Pro-firearm
>Pro-military/defense budget

Notice the lack of "kill brown people"

Note, that's not what modern conservatism is actually running with.

>Conservative budgeting philosophy

Such as the Bush policy of running up debt year after year.

>Emphasis on small government (see conservative budgeting philosophy)

Except when it comes to regulating women, gays, mexicans, etc.

>Emphasis on personal rights (self-defense/home-defense)

Except when it comes to regulating women, gays, mexicans, etc.

Self-defense and home defense are even better, with stand your ground laws sweeping the nation.

MOAR LIEK SELF OFFENSE, MIRITE

>Pro-military/defense budget

Like any Democrat is actually going to cut the defense budget or say they're anti-military. Come now.

You'll also notice that while "Kill brown people" isn't on the list, we tend to single them out a lot under Republican "non-racist" policies.

 

[Verzin]

snip

to be completely honest...I have no idea. Speaking as an American..our politics are...well.. embarrassing. I don't understand how many of the people who currently hold office ever managed to climb the ranks of a political party, let alone get people to vote for them.

EDIT: I don't really like either of the parties. I think that the way we've set up two parties as the only major players in politics is a little dangerous.

 

[MorganL4]

Honestly, I am hoping Obama gets a second run. The other candidates are all just terrible. I mean just take an issue of gay rights for example. Now look at the candidates and what their stands on it are. They just aren't good. If anyone else gets elected America is going to be stagnate for awhile.

im hoping for Obama to, what annoys me about him is that he only delivered a small amount of what he promised he would and he did pass the occasional terrible law (being able to hold some one indefinitely without trial) but when I look at the alternative....(shudders)

In fairness he promised a lot until the economy tanked, you have to remember the crash happened half way through the campaign. Then he had to continue those promises because of the whole "flip flopper" schtick that killed Kerry. And he did do quite a bit. He saved Ford Crystler and GM from bankruptcy (today GM is the worlds #1 automotive manufacturer) which means Detroit has a shot at being a functioning city again. He passes a health care law that allows kids to be on their parents health care until 26 ( roughly the time you are getting your first career job post college)and ensures that 40 million Americans who were previously uninsured are. He FINALLY ended the war in Iraq AND got Osama bin Ladden. And thats just off the top of my head.

Now, he isn't perfect, believe me I have my issues with the guy. I was hoping for FDR version 2.0 instead I got Hoover. Which leads me to believe I would have been better off with Hillary who would have been more akin to Johnson. However saying he delivered a small amount is incorrect.

im really learning allot about american politics from this post its a very interesting subject for me but i gave up keeping up with the news as it just frustrates me seeing people/politicians fuck up and not being in a position to do anything about it but ill have to look into it some more

i have to point out 2 things that irk me

1. "he ended the iraq war" he pulled out of iraq leaving it a hell hole, bombs go off in Baghdad almost everyday and its more dangerous than Afghanistan, that is not how one pulls out of a country and was a pretty shitty thing to do (although he had his reasons they dont justify leaving iraq in that state)

2. he "got Osama" he didnt get Osama the military did, the military found him got enough evidence to prove it was him and seal team 6 killed him all Obama did was give them permission something almost anyone would do.

1. Yes.... Iraq is a hell hole and bombs are going off there every day, but in fairness anyone who didn't know that this would be the outcome no matter what, when we went in there back in 2003 is just naive, I mean that was a forgone conclusion. I could have told you that ages ago, in fact I did a report for school on how that would be the defacto end result five years ago and just a heads up, it will be the same in 2014 when we leave Afganistan. (just in case you didn't know)

2. Yes, Obama did not fly to Pakistan with an M-16 and shoot the guy in the face. But give the guy credit where credit is due, we know ( based on interviews and released reports) that the information that the Whitehouse had in regards to the strike was: about 50/50 a shot that Bin Ladden is in that compound or not.

If Obama had made that call and been wrong he would be forced to take all the blame and his presidency would be over, but he didn't he made the call and was right, and thus he should get all due credit because he risked all due blame. Also the intel came from the CIA not the military. Seal Team 6 carried out the Opp but it wasn't their organization that gathered the intelligence.

OH!!! I almost forgot. There is a congressional hearing from back in the 1990's where Dick Chenney ( working for George HW Bush) states that taking out Bagdad would not only unnecessarily put American soldiers lives at risk but create a power vacuum in the middle east that would be a serious problem. AKA the "Why we didn't take out Saddam Hussein" speech.

 

[Vardermir]

Look, let's take Obamacare as an example. Polls keep coming out saying that America is against Obamacare, but when asked about individual policies, the whole bill gets overwhelming support. But associate it, originally a conservative idea, with Obama, and nobody wants to touch it.

As a registered republican, my problem with Obamacare isn't the idea of what it wants to accomplish, but the way it accomplishes it. The largest deficit President Bush ever racked up in one year was about 500 billion. President Obama has managed to bring it up to a little less than 2 trillion, in part thanks to Obamacare. Our overall deficit is now listed as 15 trillion dollars. That is an absolutely ridiculous number. We can't keep spending these huge amounts of money. Look at Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. All of these countries have proceeded down high debt paths, and now they are all facing potential economic ruin. And before you start bringing up the "Buffet Rule" keep in mind that it would only increase tax revenue by 70 billion. This is a drop in the bucket in comparison to what we are currently spending.

Additionally, Obamacare doesn't even provide health coverage in a similar manner to other socialized medicine programs, at least as I understand them. It merely is going to try to drive down prices with government mandates, while requiring every citizen to purchase health insurance, or face a fine. So its not even like it is going to provide free health care for everyone, people are still going to be in a similar situation. Currently, health insurance agencies have been driving prices up as much as possible in anticipation of when Obamacare goes into effect in 2014. So far, all the bill has managed to do is increase health costs, not lower them. What is worst of all, because of this individual mandate, and because of the size of the bill (27000 pages), the Supreme Court is looking like they are going to throw out the whole thing as unconstitutional. President Obama's one big triumph is about to be cast asunder. I also sincerely doubt the price of health insurance will come down on its own as well. If Obama is planning on being re-elected, he had better hope that does not happen.

I'll admit, there are a lot of republican policies I don't agree with. And it is sad that America is the only developed nation without some form of nationalized health coverage. But it needs to be done right, which unfortunately requires congress to cooperate.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Our part of the Vietnam conflict only became important in LBJ's term. I have no idea where you got the idea that it was a major American conflict before then, especially considering that Eisenhower was definitely not the type to enter such a crazy war guns blazing and all. The man's foreign policy was in no way perfect, but Vietnam was beyond him. We wouldn't have really done anything if he hadn't lied his way into the war. LBJ was among the most terrifyingly hawkish presidents there ever was and thousands of Americans and Vietnameze paid the price for it. I loathe that man to an almost irrational degree. Vietnam was quite clearly his war though. And I'll agree that McArthur (I believe that is how his name is spelled) was a moron, but the real escalation was all thanks to China, with the general being largely ignored. Truman, a fair bit of a war monger himself, was president during the Korean war.

That's not quite correct, or at least a bit simplified. Eisenhower (and more accurately, his Secretary of State JF Dulles), played a huge role in setting up the conflict with his insistent support of S. Vietnam's dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem's refusal to honor the 1954 Geneva Accords for the eventual reunification of Vietnam through popular elections, and his terrible treatment of Buddhists and political dissenters, set the stage for a conflict in the area.

Basically, LBJ brought us into the war, but Eisenhower created the inevitability for a war (albeit not necessarily one with US troops involved).

But you're right that Eisenhower really wasn't the type to actually bring us into wars. He generally favored using the CIA, implied military threats, and lots of money to create "regime changes," rather than invading the place himself.

My point is it never was our war until LBJ and never would have been our war without him. If we were to include every war a president started that didn't include American soldiers we would be in for a very long and confusing discussion.

 

[Leadfinger]

I find it strange that anyone can vote Republican. It's like such voters have a huge case of amnesia and have forgotten what a debacle the whole Dubya regime was.

 

[blizzaradragon]

The problem is that both Republicans and Democrats get a bad rap because A) the figures takes views further than they need to be or add in views that aren't "normal" for their party, and B) feel the need to get further and further down the political spectrum every year(see cases like Rick Santorum). People will see the Republicans being against gays and wanting to keep guns and they'll think they're rednecks. People will see the Democrats being for renewable energy and getting rid of guns and they'll think they're hippies.

In reality what Republicans, or really just conservative Americans, want is to have personal liberties. That's why they fight for things like personal healthcare, gun rights, and lower taxes. To break it down really easily it comes down to who do you think can do a better job taking care of you and your rights, you or your government. Your typical Republican thinks the answer is you, while your typical Democrat thinks the answer is your government. Myself, being a conservative, want to keep my personal healthcare and my ability to have a gun and shoot if I'm under attack. Especially that second one, because if not for that right then my uncle would be dead by now when his house got robbed by an armed gunman.

The biggest problem though is the people in the middle. They feel that if one party can't do the job, they need to vote in the other party. That's why it's been increasingly common to see a President from one party and a Congress from the other. People start thinking that by putting the other party in there then things will start getting fixed/better, but all they're doing is gunking up the machine. When the system works it really works, but when it grinds to a halt(the majority of the time) it just looks bad.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

You pretty much got it right. The republicans finally got things the way they wanted them for the last 60 years and now they're fighting to keep things the way they wanted it for so long. So now the democrats are trying to get they're way in the government and when they finally get it their way they'll just repeat the cycle over until the apocalypse.

 

[rutger5000]

Ugh, glad to see that generalization doesn't fail to cross the seas. A small list of Republican beleifs as another person pointed out.

Republicans
>Large religious backing
>Conservative budgeting philosophy
>Emphasis on small government (see conservative budgeting philosophy)
>Emphasis on personal rights (self-defense/home-defense)
>Pro-firearm
>Pro-military/defense budget

Notice the lack of "kill brown people"

And those are positive points?
Really I fail to see why any intelligent person still considers conservatisme as a legitimate political view. The world is changing too fast to trust upon the wisdom of our elders. Their ideas were good at the time, but we can't afford the luxery to rely on them. The only way to maintain prosperity and remain moral is to abandon our elders ways and use our own wisdom to tackle todays issues. That is not to say that non of the previous ideas can help us, but that we can't take it for granted that they still do.
Small government really hasn't helped the states either. Just look at your terrible infrastructure, a country with capable and strong goverment doesn't have those issues.
Self-defense/home defense, isn't it better to try to make the country more save in general, so there is little need.
Pro-firearm, yeah like that doesn't cause you (and mostly your Southren neighbours) massive problems.
Pro-military/defense budget? You are surrounded by the massive oceans and two nations that could never form any threat to you. The USA doesn't need the strongest military in the world to remain save. Always preparing for war isn't an healthy outlook on the world. Preparing for wars will cause them.
Indeed the notion of killing brown people is just stupid. But I can't help but feel that republicans value an American live too much more then any non American, espescially if that non American isn't Christian either.

In truth I lean more towards the indepentent side of things, so I partially agree with you on some points, but saying that everything that Republicans beleive in is wrong strikes me as the height of ignorance, kind of seems like something a fanatical Democrat would say. I live in MA, a very liberal state, and there is a law that if I am assualted in my home, I can only legally defend myself if I can't retreat, hi WTF? If a madman breaks into my house and I punch him, I can legally be prosecuted. I don't care how "safe" a country is, it is always going to have an undercurrent of criminals, and the right to defend myself within my own home

EDIT: Had to cut my post short because I was in a hurry

I don't really see any stink being made over here about religion minus when Democrats want to change things like when a Christmas tree "offends" them, but I do need to point out that at one point in American history, there was a lot of controversy about a presidental elective who didn't get enough votes and it is widly beleived that this happened because of his religious views. I forget his name, but he was actually catholic. also let me ask you something. If your country (don't know what it is, didn't have time to look at your profile) had to choose between saving 100 of your own people and 500 people in a different country that you would never meet, what would your government do? Don't kid yourself, every country puts their own civilians first, America (and Republicans) aren't special.
Last time that I checked our infastructure was decent, at least where I live anyway, and by that I mean I live in a decent house and never go hungry and my family can afford a lot of luxries.

Like I said, are Republicans right about everything? Oh god no, our military is more than big enough, we're wasting our time in Iraq now, and the anti-gay aspect of it just disgusts me, but Democrats aren't right about everything either. Some of them seem to think that the government is infallable and can do no wrong case in point, SOPA, while Rebpublicans want limited government influcence in their lives and economy unless it is needed, and that viewpoint is the one that I really agree with.

There is no perfect political party or governing body, not mine, not yours, not anyones.

I never said everything the republicans believe in is wrong. I said that I consider the republican believes you mentoined aren't ideal. I'm sure republicans have other believes as well.
I definetly wouldn't say that the republican party is the only party with issues. I'm from the Netherlands and the political situation here is an enormous mess. The three parties that form the government consist out of one that might actually want to see our nation destroyed, the other is a filthy racist who will attack any group if that get's him more votes (that party is in fact just one man, he has a few puppets, but the party is one man), and we have a party that would do anything as long as it can stay out of the opposition.
Your partly right about any nation looking out first and formost for it's own citizens. But by God man that ratio you mentioned scared the crap out of me. The Netherlands is rich in gas, and even has some oil. Will you come and pillage our nation for the recourses if that were the only way the USA could satify it's needs. For that is the picture you're painting for me when you mention such ratios. Damm I'd be ashammed of my nation if our government would apply a ratio lower then 2 of us for 3 of them.
Last time I checked your infrastructer was terrible. I visted the North east, I'm not sure how it is in the rest of the nation. Compared to the E.U. (okay the Northen nations of the E.U.) you're roads are in pretty bad shape, you're public transportation system rather expensive, and pretty damm slow, and poorly connected. It's no wonder Americans only use their cars to get places.
You're of course entirely right to you ought to have the right to defend youself. But I think you'll live in a saver country when the goverment is trying to prevent situations in which you'll be forced to do so, instead of empowering you with the tools for mass murder. (Fully automatic rifles are not for self defence, don't kid yourself. They can be a hobby, but the only practical usage is slaughter.)

 

[rutger5000]

Uh uh, you didn't read my post well enough. I specifically said the last 60 years. Everything before the end of WWII is excluded. As of where I got my information: I cross reverenced a list of American wars and American presidents. Both lists I obtained from wikipedia.
Also in what way does the Libian conflict resembles a war (from the American point of view). As far as I'm concerned all you did was provide airial support to the rebels.
As a final remark. I think it's kind of scarry that the only information you added to the wars was the number of American deaths.

It is annoying having to repeat myself.

If you're talking about everything after WW2, your original argument still holds no water. American participation in Korea and Vietnam, both started by DEMOCRAT presidents and ended by REPUBLICAN presidents, were pretty epic-sized, unjust wars.

Focus on what the point of this argument is. You said basically that if you want to avoid war, vote Democrat. I argued that that was absurd, and sorry, there is a mountain of evidence supporting my claim. Note that I said American war participation is party-neutral. I didn't blame it all on Ds or Rs.

The only thing that's "scarry" is how little historical facts seem to matter compared to political party tribalism.

Another participant of this discussion pointed the Korean and Vietnam case out of me. (In my defence, according to wikipedia the Vietnam war started while there was a republican president, I just didn't bother to check wether the USA entered under a democratic or republican president. That was my mistake). You're right my argument isn't valid, I was wrong.
About the Korean war I would like to ask if that war ought to be called unjust. From what I gathered both South Korea and Japan coud have been in pretty deep shit if the USA wouldn't have intervened.

 

[Racecarlock]

Truthfully, I don't think people are as frustrated with obama or as in love with republicans as we think they are. It just seems like that because they're doing this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Yep, they're basically using an election cheat code.

 

[direkiller]

Truthfully, I don't think people are as frustrated with obama or as in love with republicans as we think they are. It just seems like that because they're doing this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Yep, they're basically using an election cheat code.

On a national level that is irreverent due to the electoral collage system.
As it is winner take all and the voting districts are set(only the power of the districts change)
You can gerrymander the Representative districts that effect congress but tbh it has been shown to hurt the party that dose it by the time the next census rolls around due to population shifts.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Truthfully, I don't think people are as frustrated with obama or as in love with republicans as we think they are. It just seems like that because they're doing this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Yep, they're basically using an election cheat code.

Because public opinion polls, where we get most of the data that says people don't like Obama and what not, are subject to gerrymandering. And Republicans are the only ones who do it. I get that calling out scapegoats can make people feel good, like the absurdly faulty IQ tests that people started passing around when Bush won the election, but sometimes you just have to accept that some people disagree with you for entirely valid reasons.

Also, as an example of gerrymandering for Democrats, I can look at my own district. We get tied up with a county that shares none of our goals or industries as opposed to being connected to districts further west or east of us which share our interests leading to the same guy getting elected for the past thirty years because the county we're connected to that shares none of our demographics is a very liberal college town. THIRTY YEARS.

Edit- also what the person above me wrote. Boy do I feel like an idiot right now for not mentioning that. And how congress, the group that can be subject to gerrymandering, has historically been under Democrat control more often than Republican.

 

[Silk_Sk]

Ok, first of all:
I don't intend to offend anyone, if anyone seems ofended by this thread i would like him to tell me that and i will do my best to remove the offending parts and will keep in mind to avoid that mistake in future posts.

It's about Republicans. While the first goals of this party were very very good (No Slavery), most goals they seem to have today are based on keeping everything the way it is and to sabotage a real development of society.
It all seems old and a little bit backward.
Now i want to say i am by far not an expert on the matter. I am not republican, i am not even American.
Maybe i am seeing things in this party that aren't there, but that is just my impression for now.

So what i am basically asking is:
Why is this party getting votes?
This seems quite offensive, but i really am curious. If their not that bad than i thing they are, then please tell me that (As long as were staying reasonable).
It just seems, when i am looking at (for example) popular media from America, like tv series or music, then you could get the impression that everybody hates republicans.
But they still get many votes.

I hope anyone can tell me where i am wrong here, or what i am not seeing.

Winston Chuchill once said, "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." This makes a lot of sense since republicans are generally percieved to be bumbling old idiots and liberals are often pictured as bumbling young idiots.

The republican party has been stereotyped to the point that they have lost their idenity. At its core, the party stands for stands for a lot of things that everyone can get behind. Less useless beuracracy, less spending, and more governing power to the people rather than politicians who cannot understand or relate to their issues.

However, instead of making those needs the forefront of their arguments, republican candidates "advertise" themselves to republicans by shamelessly catering to their outdated opinions that ideally should have no place in politics. Hence your "most goals they seem to have today are based on keeping everything the way it is and to sabotage a real development of society." impression, which I perfectly understand. This is why Obama's "change" campaign was so successful despite the fact that he didn't change a goddammed thing. All of his policies were ones that had already been tried and failed years ago.

Democrats are no less guilty of shamless catering but, since they largely represent the younger and more media saavy generation they have the great advantage of marketing and are able to keep everyone from noticing every time a republican says something that anyone under the age of 30 would even remotely agree with.

As a republican myself, I am constantly bombarded by the absolute worst my party can offer and it makes me sick. To directly answer your question "how are republicans getting votes" its because this country needs a republican president right now. But its not going to happen because people think it will suddenly become illegal to be gay. I honestly think that not a single candidate cares one iota whether gay marriage is legal or not. They're all just saying what their party wants to hear. Given that, I am voting republican because this country cannot surivive another four years of Obama. I like the guy, I really do. But he's hurt this country far more than his good looks and nice speeches have helped it.