Poll: Republicans: Your take

[Laser Priest]

I'm against anyone who classifies themselves as part of either major American political party.

It seems to make them less prone to actually looking at an issue so they can instead vote for whatever their party leaders tell them to.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

I'm sure the more sane Republicans are alright. However, I wouldn't date one, partly because of the fact that it's an American party and I'd rather avoid a relationship with someone in another country, and partly because a difference in political views that big would be an issue.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Snip

It wasnt a haiku, it was me trying to sum up what I believe in short slogans.

And I disagree with you so severely I dont think Id be able to to do so with decorum, so Im going to try and keep it short- noone in history has achieved anything without relying on others- the richest businessman got rich off their workers, the most powerful politicians can only do their job thanks to their secretaries and civil servants.
Im not demonising hierarchy, its a fundemental aspect of human nature and in my opinion its where the left goes wrong, I just want those on top to remember their responsiblity to those beneath them and to remember their basic human compassion.

(think I failed on the short thing)

But what if people were the ones standing in your way your entire life? What if the people who you say always help people become their greatest, well, dont? Because that is what the people are like alot of the time. Take the current debate over weather or not video games are considered an art, I want to be a writer for video game stories, but oh no the people are standing in my way telling me that Video games are not an art, and that I just need to give up on that dream. The same can be said throughout history, if we followed your idea that the people always did the right thing, always supported those who became successful, well women wouldnt be allowed to vote, slavery would have never ended, and there would be no way in hell gay marriage would be legalized.

Your out look on humanity is one of butterflies and unicorns, but the fact is that not everyone agrees, and more often than not people hate you for your ideas. Mankind is a species of individuals, and we just need to embrace that.

I'd also like to point out that you didnt say anything on my 'no wars were ever started with the word's think for yourself" thing, (Andrew Ryan), not that you had to this isnt a debate match but still.

 

[funguy2121]

I can't decide. Are they villains, or just dupes?

Nope. The public are the dupes. The Republican leadership want to de-regulate business and remove rights so that they can allow businesses to bring in more money and collect more intel on possible terrorist attacks. The result is shady business practices that wreck the economy and an overabundance of extraneous intel to analyze even though the 911 failure was one of analysis and not of intel gathering - plus the result of everyone hating us more. The Dem leadership largely accomplishes nothing that they want because they are the quickest to back down from a fight. Both parties are owned (in varying degrees) by lobbyists and huge companies. The Tea Partiers have no idea what they really want to do. They just want to get rid of huge swaths of the government with no regard for what to replace those departments or how to do those jobs without them. They are a lightning rod group, all about emotion, and they are very much against education and reason.

We are the dupes because we won't vote for a third party or clear out the marionettes and restaff the existing parties with candidates who are AFRAID OF US, like we should be doing.

 

[OptimisticPessimist]

Couldn't care less. Hell, I'd dissolve the bipartisan system if I could. Bunch of petty horseshit...

 

[Darkauthor81]

Republicans talk a lot then don't actually do much. Democrats talk a lot and then go and fuck things up. I prefer neither.

Basically, i know Republicans are a little more traditional/right wing and Democrats are more progressive/left wing. Is that right?

I can't say i'm particularly savvy with the intricate ins and outs of the republicans and the democrats (i'm from the UK). But i watched this guy on You Tube called Bill O Reilly and i thought he was a complete tosser for the way he treats people on his shows. Is he a republican or a democrat? I'm not going to base my whole opinion structure on that one person, but i'd just like to know.

Bill O'Reilly is non-partisan.

Oh right, thanks!

No, Bill is a republican. I don't know where you get the idea that he is non-partisan...

(protip: if there's a Fox News logo located in the vicinity of a newscaster, then they are a Republican)

Yeah and if any other American news show is on you can assume they are liberals.

No, they just look like liberals because they want facts and proof which are all but entirely foreign concepts to Republicans. So when a media talking head asks a Republican "Well what proof does _____ show for ____ and ______ and how does it pertain to _____?" and the Republican either gives a half assed unacceptable answer or he gets mad and drags the conversation away from the issue and into an argument both painting the talking head as a liberal aggressor and taking focus away from the question the repub can't or wont answer.

For examples please look into pretty much any Sarah Palin interview not done by Fox or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOiPylM_KDA She can't argue the points the interviewer is making about our right to religious equality so she immediately accuses him of hating religion.

 

[Togs]

Snip

This is really tricky not stooping to name calling (oh and I dont appreciate your thinly veiled "fascist" insult btw) and flaming.
After reading and rereading your post something struck me in where your reasoning from- a position best dubbed "people are arseholes so fuck them" and then go onto blaming others for your problems, which forgive me if Ive got this backwards but I thought conservatism was all about personal responsibility and winning at all costs?
And whats more I have no idea where this "altruism means not doing what you want" thing comes from- as I define altruism it means others help you achieve and do what you want (within reason) and vice versa.

And as for saying that my philosophy leads to oppression and the preservation of outdated paradigms is just frankly inane, I cant put it any other way then that, maybe I havent explained myself plainly enough- I was arguing in the support of altruism from the perspective of a humanist and libertarian, the very philosophies that carried the torches of these movements to the bitter end, the keeping and hanging onto to crap like no voting for women is the preserve of the tradition loving right.

And yes I am an idealist, i fully recognise that my beliefs are not fully compatible with the baser elements of human nature buut then to me "a man is an overcoming"- the whole point of existence to me is to improve upon yourself for the benefit of the species, and in my opinion nothing that is achieved in isolation that cant be bettered in collaboration.
And your completely ignore the fact that humanity is tribal- we have always depended on our neighbours for survival.

And no I didnt answer your war question as it wasnt my intention ot start an arguement, but I guess I failed at that too- let me find that the post and ill be right back.

 

[Darkauthor81]

What I hate about Republicans is that they've hijacked Christianity to be used as their main gun for imposing fear and guilt on the masses. What ever happened to separation of church and state? This is exactly why there is separation.

Now everyone thinks if you're Christian then you must be a Republican. Which is a load of bull because I, and most of the people I know, are Christians and we are all democrats. Sadly we come under fire from both parties. Democrats who think you can't be democrat if you're religious and republicans who think you can't be religious if you're a democrat.

 

[RandV80]

One of the silliest thing about Republicans is how they view their political opposition, using fear mongering and mud slinging to turn what's essentially a center-right party into a group of evil socialist commies, in the minds of their voters.

Not only would more political parties be a huge help, but it would go along way if they had a real far left socialist party to be scared of. Like in Canada we have the NDP, who are basically the union party and are quite literally a far left group who are pro-union, pro-taxes, pro-government spending, etc. I find it really helps to keep the disputes between our own Republican/Democrat like parties much more sensible (or as sensible as political parties can get).

 

[jpoon]

I'm not a republican but I do want a slim government that stays the fuck out of my own business. Republicans and Democrats are basically the same thing.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposing ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the right, the other of the left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaires and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy." -Carrol Quigley

So the problem is not who the american people elects in the first place, it's that their leaders are not identical...WHAT? That's retarded, the only reason those politicians are so full of crap is because the people allow a broken system and do nothing about it besides complaining. Just look at your embarrassingly low participation in elections. You don't give a crap as a people, how do you even know who the "rascals" are?

The problem is that we virtually never get REAL candidates. The "rascals" are damn near every one of them. I am more on the line of the THROW THEM ALL THE FUCK OUT PARTY! I did and do vote pal, I actually pay attention to it and generally try to vote along the lines of the Constitutionalist party. I didn't sign up for the Big Brother/Nanny State government, I damn well would not attempt to vote for it.

Carrol Quigley was just making a point in that paragraph I quoted, he knew back then that the whole Left/Right paradigm is just a charade to keep everyone preoccupied while the real decisions go down behind the scenes.

 

[Kevonovitch]

fuck all politicians.

 

[thirion1850]

Usually, the only retarded conservatives are the loud ones. So, I don't really care.

 

[mjc0961]

I vote "You're an idiot for being Republican."

Not that I think other sides are any better. I'll just let Chris Rock do the talking, he can explain it much more quickly and with more laughs than I can:

And I wish for once that you didn't have to be Democrat or Republican to have any chance in hell of winning an election. Nobody ever pays attention to the independent guys or even just the other, smaller parties. It's always democrats and republicans. Bah.

 

[Bobbity]

I have nothing against conservatives, and I agree with many of their views, but something about Republicans really irks me. It's only since the Bush era, but their attitudes in this day and age strike me as incredibly disagreeable.

Or maybe it's just that Fox News is turning me against them

 

[Varitel]

I am a Republican (for the most part). I am pro gay-marriage, pro-choice, but still a Republican in terms of many economic issues and some foreign policy issues. I think that Republicans can be complete and total morons, and yet so can Democrats. Though I can tolerate moronic Democrats more than moronic Republicans.

 

[Tdc2182]

Yet to meet one who doesn't have rather skewed views.

Then again, they kinda have it unfair from the get go with people like Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin.

But seeing how she is actually kinda popular for president I go back to my original statement.

 

[loc978]

Eh, I vote Whig.

...but seriously, I voted the idiot option. Anyone who believes the Republicans have their best interests at heart are either rich or stupid. Anyone who thinks the Democrats have their best interests at heart are just plain stupid. Both parties work for whoever throws the most money into lobbying for 'em. I don't define myself as nonpartisan so much as anti-partisan.

also:

Spoiler: Language, George! Language!

 

[thefrizzlefry]

Honestly, the republican waters are rather murky, far more so than the democrat's; my father and grandfather are part of a group that I would assume to be fairly sizable - social leftists with economically conservative views. Basically, they're libertarians, but vote republican for... some reason, most likely so they can keep earning more money than they might be able to under a democratic administration. And that's not an insult, that's a fact. Every person like this that I've talked to is mostly concerned with fiscal policy. But I honestly think that this group is starting to realize how insane supporting the republican party is, what with all the crazy-ass, unbelievably oppressive legislation that's been proposed in the past few months by conservatives, and I have a feeling that these sorts of people make up more of the GOP's voter base than they'd care to admit.
And then the people that actually support them (including and/or especially the tea party segments of the party) are just fucking insane. Like, I can't even argue with them. They're right, Ronald Reagan was a saint, Muslims are scary, I'm going to hell, etc. You can't debate them. They have no ideological flexibility whatsoever.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

I don't like conservative policies - I believe primarily in free choice, equal rights to all men and women, democracy and that all people should get a say in how their country is run. I do NOT believe in hate at all - and therefore I do not believe in discrimination of any kind. I am also anti-materialist, and an anarcho-syndicalist.

Conservatives are often very black-and-white, idealist in the way things should be, traditional in their beliefs, and often religious. I don't have a problem with religion generally, but when it becomes involved in politics things become biased and corrupt. Keep the state secular - it keeps things balanced.

The Republican Party (generally) believes in "the right to bear arms"; denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry, or even be legally recognised; strict constitutionalism, capital punishment, and a free market.

A free market leads to a hierarchal society, divided by financial status. This means those with less money have less rights, because in a "free market" everything must be bought. If you don't have money, you don't have the right to own anything. So in this system, society becomes materialistic, and money-oriented. And as an anti-materialist, i don't believe in that.

Capital punishment = legally approved vengeance. I don't believe in vengeance; i don't believe it does any good

Strict constitutionalism means two things I am against - the first is lack of democracy. If the government adheres strictly to the constitution, the government can't make independent decisions on some things, so the people's choice in how the country is run (democracy) is not fully recognised. Secondly, and more importantly, a constitution which was written in the 18th century is going to be less and less relevant over time (it's relevance is questionable even today) - strict adherence allows no room for changes in social values to keep up with changes in society.

Denying the rights of legally recognised same-sex couples infringes on my personal beliefs of free choice and equal rights. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, and i don't see how there is any justification on otherwise. Homosexuals should have the right to choose to marry or not, the same as heterosexuals. Now, the argument on "marriage" is tough, personally I don't see why the definition of "marriage" - being strictly between a man and a woman - should be strictly adhered to when it denies the rights and freedoms of some individuals. But to keep it simple, there is absolutely no reason a government should deny a homosexual couple at LEAST legal recognition as a couple, such as a 'civil union', even if it is not the Christian "marriage" ritual.

The "right to bear arms" is a constitutional right in the US. Now why this is a 'right' and other more important rights are denied to some people I can't imagine. Guns are made for killing - simple as that. There is no way around it. Allowing, and almost condoning the possession of firearms is practically encouraging murder. Sure, there are laws against that, but if you arrest someone who's just shot someone else, at the end of the day, someone still died. Punishing murderers is ineffective, because people still die. You can't rely on justice and laws to prevent murder when people are legally allowed to hold a firearm.

The other aspect is religion - I believe in peoples right to believe, so I support religious practices. But I don't believe in preaching; religious practices and beliefs are for the individual only. When a politicians' religious values are majorly involved in politics, it creates an unbalance and unnecessary complication in the parliament. Not all people will agree on one religion, so no on in power should express their religious beliefs as part of their policies. Keeping a secular state keeps things simple, realistic, down to earth and allows for focussing on the issues immediately at hand as quickly and as effectively as possible

tl;dr: I don't like conservatives, therefore I don't like Republicans.

EDIT: In regards to your poll options, I couldn't accurately pick any. I chose "Republicans are racist/homophobic/whatever". I wouldn't ever say that, but there was no option with basically said "I don't like Republicans". I don't hate Republicans, but I definitely dislike Republican policies