serious thread for asking actual sane republicans questions

[star seed 7]

i'm serious.  this is a serious thread, the known pit wacko righters please stay out.  also known pit wacko lefties please be respectful.

cf3 had a comment the other day that he's only ever voted republican in his life (but open to a d) and it really got me interested what about republicans was the draw?

it's hard for me to disassociate republicans as a whole from the hate and bigotry of their (the party) social views, so it's interesting to me when non-hateful people choose to support them, though i'm sure they are actually the majority.  i'm sure there's a few other closet right leaners around here (slobbs?), i'd be interested in hearing from anyone.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I agree with about half of the Republican platform. I generally just watch mannerisms and try to weed out anyone who is hateful. The president is more of a figurehead than anything, so I try to vote for who I think the best human being is, regardless of where they stand on the issues.

[Spracne]

I might be your huckleberry, lib.  Although I don't want to associate much with either party, now.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'd start a thread for sane libtards, but those concepts are incongruent 

[CNS]

I like the idea of smaller govt, but hate the big biz side of the game and how policy is basically for sale to the best lobby.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

Lib, AMA

[CNS]

I like the theory/ idea of personal responsibility.  I dislike the hypocrisy of less regulation but then them basically trying to legislate religion/ morality.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

[sys]

i've registered as a republican in most states where i've voted.  the libertarian wing of the party appeals to me, at least when aren't being idiots about monetary policy or pandering to tea partiers that think they're libertarians.

[CNS]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

That is basically every candidate in our lifetime. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

That is basically every candidate in our lifetime. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

To people who get their news from tmz

[Rage Against the McKee]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

Brownback is the worst about this.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Do you really think the Dems are any less bigoted? Or are they just less bigoted toward particular groups you favor? There's also different kinds of bigotry. Dems are masters of the soft bigotry of low expectations towards women and minorities.

Anyway, it's tough to answer your question because the national GOP is, frankly, a complete train wreck. I vote for GOP only because they are the slightly more paletable, but still somewhat electable, party. Why? Generally speaking, they favor smaller government (but see bloated farm subsidies) and lower taxes (but see failure to propose a budget or tax reform since taking control of Congress). Those issues are important to me as someone who pays a crap ton of taxes.

From a social issues standpoint, the GOP is reliably pro-life, and I'm strongly pro-life. The dismemberment of mid to late term babies is a gruesome practice.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the GOP actually believes in American Exceptionalism, and that's what I believe. We are the greatest nation and the greatest force for good this world has ever seen, and most pubs actually believe this. Most Dems don't, sadly.

I could go on, but that's just off the top of my head.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

Respectfully, FSD, the protection of life is a very appropriate function of government.

[star seed 7]

fsd, ksuw, you were both asked nicely to stay out of this thread

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

Respectfully, FSD, the protection of life is a very appropriate function of government.

Just curious KSUW...how do you personally feel about the refusal of many GOP lawmakers to grant exceptions for rape/incest/health of the mother?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Do you really think the Dems are any less bigoted? Or are they just less bigoted toward particular groups you favor? There's also different kinds of bigotry. Dems are masters of the soft bigotry of low expectations towards women and minorities.

Anyway, it's tough to answer your question because the national GOP is, frankly, a complete train wreck. I vote for GOP only because they are the slightly more paletable, but still somewhat electable, party. Why? Generally speaking, they favor smaller government (but see bloated farm subsidies) and lower taxes (but see failure to propose a budget or tax reform since taking control of Congress). Those issues are important to me as someone who pays a crap ton of taxes.

From a social issues standpoint, the GOP is reliably pro-life, and I'm strongly pro-life. The dismemberment of mid to late term babies is a gruesome practice.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the GOP actually believes in American Exceptionalism, and that's what I believe. We are the greatest nation and the greatest force for good this world has ever seen, and most pubs actually believe this. Most Dems don't, sadly.

I could go on, but that's just off the top of my head.

I don't understand how you can claim to want smaller government and also argue that there are too many counties in Kansas.

[star seed 7]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

Respectfully, FSD, the protection of life is a very appropriate function of government.

Just curious KSUW...how do you personally feel about the refusal of many GOP lawmakers to grant exceptions for rape/incest/health of the mother?

they are at least consistent

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Anyone who bases their politics on "social" policy is an unadulterated moron without a modicum of understanding as to what a government is or what it should do.

Respectfully, FSD, the protection of life is a very appropriate function of government.

Prematurely delivering a baby for the sole purpose of severing its spine and discarding its carcass in the trash is a criminal matter, not social.

[Asteriskhead]

Do you really think the Dems are any less bigoted? Or are they just less bigoted toward particular groups you favor? There's also different kinds of bigotry. Dems are masters of the soft bigotry of low expectations towards women and minorities.

Anyway, it's tough to answer your question because the national GOP is, frankly, a complete train wreck. I vote for GOP only because they are the slightly more paletable, but still somewhat electable, party. Why? Generally speaking, they favor smaller government (but see bloated farm subsidies) and lower taxes (but see failure to propose a budget or tax reform since taking control of Congress). Those issues are important to me as someone who pays a crap ton of taxes.

From a social issues standpoint, the GOP is reliably pro-life, and I'm strongly pro-life. The dismemberment of mid to late term babies is a gruesome practice.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the GOP actually believes in American Exceptionalism, and that's what I believe. We are the greatest nation and the greatest force for good this world has ever seen, and most pubs actually believe this. Most Dems don't, sadly.

I could go on, but that's just off the top of my head.

I don't understand how you can claim to want smaller government and also argue that there are too many counties in Kansas.

Steve dave land will be the only place with a school, a hospital, or plumbing. There will also be a giant fence around it.

[Asteriskhead]

I was asked to stay out. I'll show myself the door.

[star seed 7]

I was asked to stay out. I'll show myself the door.

known pit wacko righter 

[chum1]

Conservatives by definition are reluctant to change. They worry that change will negatively affect their types of lives. It's essentially self interested type behavior. Probably due to evolution.

[Cartierfor3]

i'm serious.  this is a serious thread, the known pit wacko righters please stay out.  also known pit wacko lefties please be respectful.

cf3 had a comment the other day that he's only ever voted republican in his life (but open to a d) and it really got me interested what about republicans was the draw?

it's hard for me to disassociate republicans as a whole from the hate and bigotry of their (the party) social views, so it's interesting to me when non-hateful people choose to support them, though i'm sure they are actually the majority.  i'm sure there's a few other closet right leaners around here (slobbs?), i'd be interested in hearing from anyone.

Reasons I choose to support them:

1. Pro-Life. We can go round and round, and I can't pretend to understand a woman in thouse circumstances, but I believe all humans are precious. This is probabaly due to my religious beliefs, but I can't pretend to separate that from how I'd vote.
2. Small gov. I generally as a rule think that government is inept at fixing problems. It is ineffective.

Reasons I haven't actually voted for a republican since 2010:

1. I think the party manipulates Christians. The party has equated things like firearm liberty, added in a touch of irrational fear (OBAMA'S COMIN' FO YO GUNS!), to things of religious conviction. I don't remember where Jesus says "You can have my sword when you take it from my cold dead hands."
2. The party is hypocritical about how it values life. I think all lives are precious and should be worked to preserve. I am against the death penalty, and wars of aggression (although I wasn't in 2004, when I would constantly argue we should be in Iraq! It was dumb.). The fear of tyranny of government as a defense of there being guns everywere is irrational. I don't however, see gun control working at this point. We're too far down the path. Maybe it would but it would take 50 or 100 years IMO.
3. They aren't TRULY a party of small government, they just want to spend ineffectively differently than democrats do.

Every election since 2010 I've voted. I either vote Libertarian, independent, or left it blank. I remember the feeling of leaving the MO senate ballot blank in 2012 when it was Todd Aikan vs. Claire McKaskil. I didn't agree with McKaskil on much, but how on earth could I cast a vote for someone who was as foolish and backwards as Aikan? I believe in voting FOR people whom I think would be good leaders. If neither candidate has convinced me they can lead, I leave it blank.

Dunno lib7, hope that helps answer. My convictions about government are less firm than ever, and honestly its a personally freeing thing.

[Cartierfor3]

I guess lib7 in the simplest terms, I value government preserving liberty more than government creating equality. I think preserving liberty is a more attainable goal, and creating equality is pretty tough in the real world. That would be a reason why I'm more likely to vote republican