Why are you a Republican or Democrat?

[ITER]

Kind of arrogant to speak for all women no? Side note, how has your life been made worse by left wing ideas?

Not really women do the same thing when they say men are evil, sexist, oppress women, blah blah blah. I have stopped given them common curtsey when they have never given it to me.

I have been denied jobs, scholarships, research opportunities because I have been a male and they wanted to promote women in STEM so they have hired a less qualified applicant. I have had friends be forced to change to crappier jobs because the NCAAP complained there were not enough blacks at a company. My communities have seen increase crime rates and businesses leaving due to mass illegal immigration because a non-significant amount of them are criminals and are just here to exploit our country. I am sick and tired of being told that I am privilege and was given everything I worked hard for because I was born as a white male. The most racist people I have met have been blacks and latinos. The most sexiest people are women. Yet I am told that I am the problem. I was raised believing in all that "progressive" crap I stopped believing in it when it discriminated against me for simple who I was born as and yet they say they are justified in doing it because of the some long lost things a few white people once did.

[ITER]

We could make plenty of positive changes in this country. I just happen to view the change you have suggested thus far in this thread to simply be incompatible with the current cultural trend of not only America but many if not most of every modern nation on Earth. The fact you want to regress is really just wishful thinking at this point.

Sorry I don't believe your positive changes means anything good for me. The current trend only happens because of the prosperity we have achieved due to the way western civilization was. Things are getting worse since we changed things. You keeping saying it is regressing I say its going to back to prosperity. We regressed when we decided to ditch the old ways of doing things for the sake of change. Its wishful thinking to think multiculturalism and more diversity is going to be a good thing.

Women did.

Women have never built a successful civilization. They have ruined them by indirectly breaking the contract between man and woman. But they have never built them. So I don't think its a wise idea to listen to them suggesting something different at a societal level. Remember it was the vast majority of women who voted to let the muslims into Europe. The men voted for the politician that wanted to keep them out. The men saw it for what it was, an islamic invasion. The women held up welcome signs.

Well no, I am not dismissing a real problem. You have stated an opinion on how you would like to see things restructured in a regressive way. I understand exactly where you are coming from and why you feel the way you do about it, but make no mistake it is nothing more than your personal view of how you wish things would go back to the way things were. Millions of Americans are angry for one reason or another simply because they want something to go back to the way it was. It does not justify their anger nor should we pander to their ideas any more than we should pander to the ideas of out of touch progressives or idealists.

You keep saying its regressive. That is your opinion. Thats not a fact. It does justify their anger. Their lives have been made worse by left wing ideas. They have every right to try to combat those ideas and make sure they can do no more harm to their communities, even if that comes at the cost of some minorities feelings or removing of their special privileges. Then whose ideas should we pander to? My choice is between the incarnate of everything bad about politicians, who is bought and paid for by all different kinds of lobbyist groups, who spout neo-regressive nonsense or Trump, who I can't stand but have literally no other choice. Whats your pragmatic answer there?

Well since I am not going to speak for an entire sex I will respond with, or woman will make their own conscious decisions and leave instinctual or biological predisposition out of the conversation.

Why leaving instinctual or biological predisposition out? They have enormous underpinnings on everything we do.

Thanks for clearing that up. To further clarify, I do not think you have trouble grasping simple concepts. I simply find your viewpoint to be implausible. I also find it to be impractical in regard to fixing the perceived problem you have with current familial culture.

Well then by all means offer a solution because all you people have done is say how wrong I am but not offer one solution to any of the problem or evidence on how I am wrong for that matter.

As a pragmatist I completely agree with the notion it is entirely possible to make it on a single middle class and possibly even lower middle class income and still support a small family. I do not need examples of it I have lived it. However I have to reject the idea that progressive ideas are backwards and outdated considering to be progressive is to progress. I also have to reject the idea that society is somehow on a suicidal path driven by the left. The progress made in this country is based on the progress of us collectively as a nation. Conservatives have also had a large influence on the current state of American culture, as well as Moderates.

Are you really saying because they call themselves progressive that means their ideas progress us forward? Even though they hurt a bunch of americans. So hurting a good bunch of americans and their communities by flooding the nation with illegal immigration, islam, promoting mental illness in these so called different sexual orientations, black supremacy movements that kill cops and causes more racial division, etc. is progressive and not on a suicidal path? I am sorry but that is not progressive that is regressive.

All I can really say is this gives me more perspective on your point of view.



Well as I stated earlier in this post there are plenty of things we could change to improve our culture. It is your prerogative to lump me in with which ever group you see fit even though you have an incomplete picture of the scope of my views. It is very clear you want to go back to another time and are perfectly willing to regress for your own benefit regardless of the cultural impact your suggestions would entail.

Again you think it is regressing. That is your opinion. That is not a fact. I don't understand why people think because something was in the past that makes it automatically worse than it is today. What are the things we could do to change? You haven't provided anything for me to understand your views. For all I know your pragmatic views could be keep the status quo. Which would make you against me since you promote the same policies that have hurt my communities by doing nothing and keeping your mouth shut.

At this point there is nothing we could possibly gain from continuing this discussion.

Your entire argument is based on an entire gender regressing back to the way things were in order to end a social experiment. Gender is a forbidden topic according to this sub-forum's rules and further discussion on this subject will most certainly result in moderator intervention. I will not be continuing this discussion any further.

You could could continue the discussion by saying how you can fix things since you certainly implied you know more than me and know the solutions to the problems. But no one here provides any solutions they just criticize and say I am wrong and thats "regressive" like that explains anything at all.

You can't talk about societal changes without discussing gender differences because men and women vote differently and structure their groups differently and view the world differently.

- - - Updated - - -

That was a record number of talking points with zero facts to back any of it up, well done. I suggest you pull yourself up by the boot straps and stop being a victim.

/Facepalm You claim my life didn't happen that way? Are you that arrogant? Really? You provide evidence saying what I experience was not true.

I hope you are saying that to all the minorities who whine they are oppressed.

[Orbitus]

So as long it doesn't effect you directly who cares? but what happens when it does? not everything can be solved by a road trip across state borders. Furthermore what scares you about socialism? The right loves medicare and social security (as they typical an older demographic its an important topic), then you of course have simple things like infrastructure funding though taxes by simple definition is socialism.

Both sides have their crazies the difference I find is the lefts crazies are random no names with a blog vs people of influence or in many cases actual makers of legislation. Remember some of the great quotes by GOP lawmakers? "if its legitimate rape the body has a way to shut the whole thing down", "Well, bad weather is like rape: if it’s inevitable, you might as well relax and enjoy it.” or when a senator brought a snowball into the senate floor as proof climate change isn't happening?

What scares her about socialism? Probably the fact that the education system failed her into that whole "Red Scare" bullshit. That or her parents were the ones that failed her with the fearmongering tactics.

[Deleted]

There will always be rich and poor. That is reality. It's human nature. Again, some are hard working, some are lazy, some are intelligent, some are dumb. We are not all equal in our ability.

This is true, but it doesn't run counter to what I'm saying, it really only reinforces my point. There is no reason to allow some people to become disproportionately wealthy due to simply "luck". In this context, disproportionate would be "a few hundred people control more wealth than the rest of the country" and luck would be "any combination of good genetics, good parenting, born in the right country, born at the right time, etc." Our society rewards some things disproportionately well, and it's silly to argue that Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett would have been equally successful if they were born in another time, or another place. They worked incredibly hard to get where they are, but they were also incredibly lucky.

Our society should be striving to utilize our collective abilities to raise the standard of living for everyone. Allowing a few people to benefit disproportionately due to corrupt politics, lax regulations, and broken tax policy isn't helping anyone in the long term, and only helping those few people in the short term. This isn't coming from some fairytale ideal of a wonderful world of free stuff for lazy people, this is coming from the idea that humanity is stronger and progresses faster as a whole. Raising a nation of well educated, motivated, and capable people benefits everyone. It provides employers better employees, it provides students better teachers, it provides everyone a safer and healthier society.

This doesn't mean communism, it means well regulated capitalism, with strong, transparent socialist programs where they are needed. Where they are needed is in any field where barriers to entry are high, monopoly is likely, public participation is necessary, and/or service is essential. We already acknowledge this for things like defense, education, transportation, police and fire services, etc. For some reason the US just falls short in areas like healthcare, education, and communication because somehow (read strong lobbying by vested interests) these things are seen as bastions of capitalism.

For concrete examples just look at the healthcare industry. In the US it is being driven by nothing but corruption and short-term thinking. As a result, it's a less socialist system than the rest of the developed world has, yet also costs taxpayers far more than in most countries with single-payer programs. So somehow the US managed to get the worst of both worlds (and it was like this even before evil Obamacare), but Republicans still champion the idea that private industry makes everything more efficient. It doesn't. And even if it did, in some cases, more effective is still more important than more efficient.

[Deleted]

Must suck to only really have two options.

And neither one is really that different from the other anymore.

[Macaquerie]

Must suck to only really have two options.

And neither one is really that different from the other anymore.

Think of our parties not as analogous to yours, but rather these permanent coalitions whose composition steadily shifts over time to maintain a rough parity and ensure that neither has an extended run of electoral dominance that could potentially devolve into a one party state.

[TwoNineMarine]

To put it in the most civil way possible, I believe Democrats are naive and believe in fairy tale thinking, almost like a Disney movie. This head in the clouds thinking is amusing at best, and destructive at worse.

Even though it would be nice if everybody in the world would get along, that is simply not how the world works. The human race is not perfect, and there are certain things hard-wired that won't go away. Cultures will always clash.

There will always be rich people and poor people, because there are always hard working and lazy, and sometimes lucky and unlucky.

War is necessary. Violence has also solved more problems in the history of man than "love" and diplomacy.

I love the USA. I feel Democrats either don't appreciate the USA at best, and hate it at worse. If somebody is in the USA and burning and American flag, I assume it's a liberal.

I value tradition. Change for the sake of it I do not agree with.

I value the family unit. Wife, Husband, Kids. Strong family = strong community = strong nation.

I think their ideas on equality are backwards. Racism I already think will never go away, but it especially won't go away if you give certain parties special treatment, and tell them all their problems are due to another race.

I value capitalism. Let people innovate and create and compete.

I could go on, just a few parts.

Basically this.

But also I am a Libertarian.

[Deleted]

"Free" markets are why you experience all the amazing things you have today. If you don't like them, there are many countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East, hell even North Korea, that would love to show you what a non free market looks like. Even China, who disenfranchises a good 1 billion citizens could teach you a lesson or two.

You mean amazing things like weekends, and paid time off, and safe food, and clean(ish) air, and a (relatively) stable banking system, and lead-free paint? A "free" market caused a lot of the problems we're trying to solve, and controls on the market have been equally essential to get all of the amazing things we have today. There are a lot of things that are responsible for the amazing things we have now, a lot of which we have no reason to be proud of, and chalking it all up to the wonders of the free market is just silly to the level of absurdity. All things in moderation, including free markets. Regulation and oversight are necessary even in a "free" market. Norway and Switzerland's GDP would love to take up your challenge about the dangers of market regulation, so lets stop being silly with the absurd country comparisons.

Being rich or poor is primarily a level of work, as well as luck both in things that happen to you in your daily life as well as the gifts you were given from birth. A very simple example is the professional athlete. Yes they are genetically gifted, but they also put in countless hours of work honing their craft. There are numerous people who were given those gifts from birth but did not cultivate them and therefore are not rich from them. Being rich is not about how labor intensive or dangerous your job is, it is about how well you utilize and cultivate the talents you have. It is also a mindset. Over 60% of NBA players end up bankrupt, even though they've made more money in a few years than most anyone will make in a lifetime. Just earning money is not enough, but you need to understand how to keep and grow it, and be willing to do so. Most people are not.

This is a great example to demonstrate why your perspective is flawed. The ability of athletes to obtain staggering salaries is partially about hard work, true, but the only reason the talents they have cultivated have any value is dependent on society, and shear, dumb luck. A person's ability to be rich is only minorly dependent on how hard they work, or how well they cultivate their talents. What actually determines their value in our present system is how much society currently demands that person's abilities. To stay with your example, let's look at Michael Jordan. Absolutely dominant athlete, a prime example of someone that worked hard, cultivated his natural abilities, and profited immensely from it. But you wouldn't even know his name if we hadn't invented basketball and he was stuck with his baseball career. Michael Jordan was incredibly gifted, and worked incredibly hard, but was still only successful because of the society he was raised in, so trying to argue that his ability to cultivate his talents is what determined his success is pretty empty.

The dichotomy Republicans promote is simply flawed. It is not about punishing success or rewarding failure. It's about leveling the playing field so that hard work is actually a larger determining factor in success that simply the luck of the draw. Our society would be far stronger if we rewarded long term thinking, instead of short term scheming for quick gains; or if we stopped allowing big money to beget bigger money by manipulating markets, instead of actually adding value. As a society, we have let corporations reap all of the benefits of improved productivity, productivity we all contributed towards, and instead of society as a whole being rewarded, only a few people have been rewarded and everyone else is being told "tough luck, you didn't work hard enough".

Your third claim above is just demonstrably false, and has been proven so over and over. A community is no substitute for 2 parents. Study after study have shown that 2 parents are substantially more successful at raising children then one, let alone whatever you believe "community" to be. Google it, read some articles, reevaluate your false belief. I'm not interested in your opinions though for they are wrong, just wrong.

We're not really arguing about the same thing here, so it's hard for me to accept that my opinion is wrong when you clearly didn't understand it in the first place. Additionally, your ethereal evidence (even assuming you're completely right about it) doesn't actually support your claim. Sure, 2 parents are better than 1. I wasn't disputing that. Two parents provide two incomes, twice as many people to look after the children, and twice as many life experiences to educate them with. This isn't rocket science. I would guess households with 3 parents would be even better (but I bet Republicans are opposed to that as well). I would also wager that households with two cars are better for raising children than households with one car (indicative of higher earnings, likely better education, easier access to events for children, etc.). My point, and the point that needs addressing, is that unfortunately not everyone has two cars. We can't solve that problem without solving a lot of other problems first. But the fortunate part is that if your public transit system is awesome, it makes life a heck of a lot better for the children whose families don't have two cars.

I was pretty clear what I meant by community. If you have adequate local, regional, state, and federal programs in place (like public transit, daycare, early childhood education, etc.), then a lot of the burdens of single parent households are alleviated, and we as a community benefit by raising our children better. It is a disgusting notion to me that Republicans tend to couch this issue in terms of demonizing single mothers, and punishing absent fathers, and fail completely to address the actual issue, which is raising the children. There are plenty enough cases where single parent households exist for reasons unrelated to the choices of the parents (death, illness, etc.), focusing on the fact that this situation is sub-optimal does nothing to improve it. We need to focus on making the best of what is, instead of stamping our feet and shouting about what we think should be.

Corporate protections are not Capitalist (unless you mean patents which most definitely are). Why modern-liberal theory is not comparable with capitalism, besides the fact that it demonizes the capitalists, is that any theft of production (read taxes) not only slows the rate of growth but discourages people from working. This is a real thing, it is not imaginary. People at higher levels of income will choose leisure over work after different levels of taxation are reached, because the value of their time is greatly diminished while working and they're rather spend it doing things they like, family, friends, etc. And this of course ignores the fact that modern liberalism cannot justify its moral right to tax to a classical liberal.

This is meandering off into Republican propoganda speak now. Whenever I read taxes labelled as "theft of production" I sort of die a little inside as it reaks of absurd Randian Objectivism. I guess its good that you acknowledge that classical liberals could also view taxes as theft if we looked at this from Locke's perspective, but really, this is only useful as a thought exercise, and is incredibly boring in terms of practical application.

The simple fact is taxation is necessary because we can accomplish infinitely more by pooling our resources than we can separately. I mean seriously, if we were planning to build all of our highways by suggesting that everyone build their own little piece we'd have to be insane. The other option is what we've currently done with telecom and let a few large congolmerates privatize all of the infrastructure, and now the US has some of the slowest connection speeds in the world, and pays the highest prices for them. So that clearly hasn't gone any better. A combination of socialized necessities, with privatized or heavily regulated "luxuries" has worked incredibly well for most of the developed world. By not following suit for things like healthcare and communication, the US is really just cutting off its nose to spite its face. Capitalism is a good system, but the realities of the world and of human nature mean that it does need to be tempered with pragmatic control.

[Deleted]

So as long it doesn't effect you directly who cares? but what happens when it does? not everything can be solved by a road trip across state borders. Furthermore what scares you about socialism? The right loves medicare and social security (as they typical an older demographic its an important topic), then you of course have simple things like infrastructure funding though taxes by simple definition is socialism.

Both sides have their crazies the difference I find is the lefts crazies are random no names with a blog vs people of influence or in many cases actual makers of legislation. Remember some of the great quotes by GOP lawmakers? "if its legitimate rape the body has a way to shut the whole thing down", "Well, bad weather is like rape: if it’s inevitable, you might as well relax and enjoy it.” or when a senator brought a snowball into the senate floor as proof climate change isn't happening?

Like I said, I oppose collectivism very strongly as I think people aren't equal and should be able to decide if they want to be part of something or not. This is because I believe in the following.

-All charity should be voluntary only
-Our country and its citizens should always come before anything outside its borders, for any reason.
-Minimal amount of mandatory social programs to promote competition, advancement and "survival of the fittest" among companies
-Minimal government involvement in the lives of private citizens
-Logic and facts > feelings
-Free market

Socialism is pretty much the opposite of that.

[Lenonis]

There was a time where I voted for both republican and democratic candidates based on their individual merits -- but after the 2016 GOP platform I'm seriously considering voting straight ticket for the first time.

I find social conservatism awful...and there isn't enough merit to the rest of the platform to make me overlook that. I want logical arguments that aren't based in chest thumping patriotism or fearmongering.

The democratic party is hardly ideal...but until the GOP drops the social conservatism I won't vote for their candidates for national office.

[Grogo]

Ok then. I started this thread and now am thoroughly disgusted with the whole thread. I specifically stated ( 3 time) at the start on how this will be all about why you like your party and no bashing of the other party. You fuckers cannot control yourselves. You wonder why the political system is so fucking bad and whine about it constantly. It's because the political direction is directed by you all and and most (not all) can't fucking control yourselves. Look at the mess the system is in. Your fault. You let it happen. This is why we cannot have nice things.

Mods, can you just closing this gong show of a thread?

[Lenonis]

I specifically stated ( 3 time) at the start on how this will be all about why you like your party and no bashing of the other party.

That's now how politics works in a 2 party system. You can't have a dialogue in a one-sided vacuum -- generally because most people vote against a party rather than for one these days.

My post, for instance, is about social conservatism -- it's a big political force that is mainly about repressing the "other" and in some cases doing direct harm to them. There really isn't a way to talk about that and how it influences my voting patterns without talking about both sides.

[Naxere]

Neither really. My views are a mix of both.

[BuckSparkles]

Our society should be striving to utilize our collective abilities to raise the standard of living for everyone.

Why? Why do they deserve it?

You do know that will have a negative effect on motivation? Why should somebody work extra hard for something when a less-ambitious person gets essentially handouts.

I don't think society owes any single person anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok then. I started this thread and now am thoroughly disgusted with the whole thread. I specifically stated ( 3 time) at the start on how this will be all about why you like your party and no bashing of the other party. You fuckers cannot control yourselves. You wonder why the political system is so fucking bad and whine about it constantly. It's because the political direction is directed by you all and and most (not all) can't fucking control yourselves. Look at the mess the system is in. Your fault. You let it happen. This is why we cannot have nice things.

Mods, can you just closing this gong show of a thread?

Wait, you expected a threat online about politics to remain civil?

You must be new here.

[Machismo]

I've been "unaffiliated" for 13 years now. I see no point in joining a party, because the entire point of them, is to create blind partisanship. Conservatives think I'm a liberal, liberals think I'm a conservative... they are both right.

[Lenonis]

Why? Why do they deserve it?

That really is the crux of the ideological question between the left and the right isn't it?

What is the worth of a person -- is it that they are a person and thus should be expected to have a set of "rights" provided to them -- education, healthcare, basic needs met...or is the worth of a person what they produce?

The inevitable question I end up with is what do you do if someone is unable or unwilling to produce to whatever level is deemed acceptable? Are you truly ok with them starving to death on the street? Or do you just want to turn a blind eye to the consequences of a policy standard that assumes no one deserves anything for free?

[ItachiZaku]

Green for me, matches up with a lot of what I tend to believe in.

[May90]

Why? Why do they deserve it?

You do know that will have a negative effect on motivation? Why should somebody work extra hard for something when a less-ambitious person gets essentially handouts.

I don't think society owes any single person anything.

It is not about who "deserves" what and who "owes" what. It is not about morality, it is about well being of the society. Motivation argument is a pointless one: unless you get as much not doing anything as you would working, you do have a motivation to work hard.

[BuckSparkles]

The inevitable question I end up with is what do you do if someone is unable or unwilling to produce to whatever level is deemed acceptable? Are you truly ok with them starving to death on the street? Or do you just want to turn a blind eye to the consequences of a policy standard that assumes no one deserves anything for free?

Frankly, it's out of my caring. If we want minimal care for people on the bottom of the barrel, fine. I just know I want to be able to be successful for myself and for my family. It isn't my fault some people end up where they are.

[lordsphinx]

Republican because:

I believe in a free market and the competition it provokes
I believe that working hard promotes upward mobility, not government programs
I believe that small businesses are the creator or jobs, not government programs
I believe that in order for small businesses to compete, they need lower taxes
I believe that I have a right to arm and defend myself, my family, and my home with complete and unwavering ruthlessness
I believe in community and homogeneity, not globalization and diversification
I believe in the strength of the traditional family unit.
I believe that the US Constitution is as valid a document today as the day it was written
I believe in American exceptionalism. I will not apologize to the rest of the world for our success. We have been supportive of dozens of countries around the world, both militarily and financially, specifically because of this success.