What makes people vote republican?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MikeDC said:
Actually I wasn't stating my own opinion there, I was pointing out what the writer, a psychologist and self-defined Democrat seemed to think. He's arguing Republicans perceive, essentially, a wider set of variables in their "moral universe" than Democrats. This makes it possible for them to understand (though not necessarily agree) with the points Democrats make. Democrats, operating from a narrower moral framework, have a hard time understanding things outside that framework- just like we wouldn't get a reference to a movie we haven't seen. Thus, the wider conclusion was that Republicans understand both themselves and Democrats, but Democrats tend to not understand Republicans. Though there are surely a couple exceptions :)
Click to expand...

Right, I know you were drawing from the posted article, but I thought you were stating it as your opinion (that his "unstated conclusion" is this "fact" that you perceive). In any case, perhaps I misunderstood you on that score.

I'm not sure that was the wider conclusion. Whether it was or not, though, I'd say it's dubious. Liberals are usually accused (or lauded, depending on the worldview of the observer) of having the wider moral universe, being too morally relativistic (from a conservative point of view) or being accepting of other customs (from a liberal perspective). It's probably a matter of what you focus on. For example, with terrorism, liberals tend to suggest that rather simply judging, we should understand what would motivate people to such rage, while conservatives tend to suggest that the terrorists are simply criminals, should be destroyed and there's not much more to be said on the issue. However, conservatives are often more willing to pass off racial/gender/sexuality-based remarks as "Let's not be too PC" while liberals tend to be much harsher on such things. (I'm trying to be neutral in my descriptions, but I am obviously approaching this from a left-leaning perspective, so apologies if any of this seems tilted against those who are right-leaning. In addition, I know I'm working from stereotypes on both sides...everything has an implicit "tends to, in my experience, but doesn't go for every individual.")

My own belief, again, is that each side (due to so many arguments) is quite cognizant of how the other side thinks and what motivates them, but they are often not sure why the other side thinks that way, what leads them to such a worldview.
 
There's a school of thought (pun intended) that says the schools are liberally slanted, as well as the media, and hollywood, etc.. So conservatives are much more immersed in the thinking of the left, while the left is immersed in the thinking of the left.
 
Denny Crane said:
There's a school of thought (pun intended) that says the schools are liberally slanted, as well as the media, and hollywood, etc.. So conservatives are much more immersed in the thinking of the left, while the left is immersed in the thinking of the left.
Click to expand...

That may be true to some extent. However, the media being left-leaning I'm skeptical of. I know that reporters tend to be more left-leaning, as a group, but the owners of media tend to be more right-leaning as a group. I think the owners of media are the biggest arbitors of what hits the airwaves. For one thing, all news media is universally pro-Capitalism and anti-third party candidates (which I, personally, find to be a more conservative viewpoint, as in status quo). Any hint of socialism tends to be villified on any any US network and any third party candidate who talks about trying to break the hold big corporations or lobbies have on politics gets universally panned as a nutcase and extremist.

That, off the bat, I think is a tilt to the right. How it plays against reporter bias on smaller issues like social security or war or universal health care is more complicated but doesn't intuitively lead me to believe media is biased to the left.
 
Minstrel said:
That may be true to some extent. However, the media being left-leaning I'm skeptical of. I know that reporters tend to be more left-leaning, as a group, but the owners of media tend to be more right-leaning as a group. I think the owners of media are the biggest arbitors of what hits the airwaves. For one thing, all news media is universally pro-Capitalism and anti-third party candidates (which I, personally, find to be a more conservative viewpoint, as in status quo). Any hint of socialism tends to be villified on any any US network and any third party candidate who talks about trying to break the hold big corporations or lobbies have on politics gets universally panned as a nutcase and extremist.

That, off the bat, I think is a tilt to the right. How it plays against reporter bias on smaller issues like social security or war or universal health care is more complicated but doesn't intuitively lead me to believe media is biased to the left.
Click to expand...

In practice the news and media sure seem tilted to the left to me. Most of the big newspapers have editorial staffs that are indisputably left leaning, and the NYT front page is often dedicated to pushing left wing agenda or bashing conservative ideas, and when writers from these papers appear as talking heads on TV, their slant is obvious in what they say.

I see an awful lot of commercials for 501c3 type organizations that are left leaning on all the news networks. I see entire hour long documentaries on the news about how evil Wal-Mart is, or how everything is broken in the country.

The absolute media lust for Al Gore propelled him to an academy award and nobel prize for a badly presented and error filled power point presentation.

CNN's main business news guy is constantly spewing anti-capitalist rants. They partnered with Al Jazeera in the middle of a bloody war in the middle east.

As for 3rd parties, one of the top guys at ABC News (as talking head) said that the news tends to follow the candidates who raise big money, and Ron Paul got a lot of press when he was raising money. The 2 party system has simply gamed the system to make it VERY tough on 3rd parties to get any traction.

And then there's the universities where professors and other faculty are widely reputed to be left leaning. They make big money or control big money from the govt. after all, and they're the ones in line to be picked for top jobs in Democratic administrations.

As far as big business owning the media, the only cases anyone has been able to point out to me where the corporation directed any kind of news coverage (or squashed it) was in cases where there was a lawsuit against the corporation pending.
 
Republicans think that the government has no business in your wallet, but a world of business in your pants.

Democrats think we should tax unequally to make all things equal.



Deep thoughts with mook and Chewy.
 
Maybe unintentional, but I like the reference to "vote republican" over "be republican". To be honest, I don't like either party.

My reason?

There is no more important right for any of us than the right to live.

Without the right to live, nothing else matters. I'm a Ph.D. life scientist and believe any baby that could be taken out of a woman and live has a right to be alive--whether it happens to be inside or outside of that woman at the time. Decades ago 6 months was the limit. Technolgoy improved. Ten years ago 4.5 months was the lower end. Technology has improved. I don't know what the limit is now, but I'm pretty sure it's lower than it was ten years ago. So, any baby that is at least four months old (in utero) should have the right to live. I also don't believe that the lower limit should be arbitrarily determined by where the technology is. Accordingly, I believe babies should be allowed to live. This is not based on emotion, but on science.

I also hate big government, but I would vote for a pro-life, big governmen, tax and spend democrat over any pro-abortion republican.


People may not agree with me on abortion for emotional reasons, but I hope that most would agree that the right for us all to be alive is more important than what our tax rate, or how strict we are on immigration.

Sex is the choice--pregnancy is the consequence. There are all kinds of consequences we don't like, but they are part of life. And ending an innocent party's life is not the answer for any consequence.

I need a good pro-life liberatarian.

Okay, I'm done. I need a beer.:cheers:
 
Reep said:
Maybe unintentional, but I like the reference to "vote republican" over "be republican". To be honest, I don't like either party.

My reason?

There is no more important right for any of us than the right to live.

Without the right to live, nothing else matters. I'm a Ph.D. life scientist and believe any baby that could be taken out of a woman and live has a right to be alive--whether it happens to be inside or outside of that woman at the time. Decades ago 6 months was the limit. Technolgoy improved. Ten years ago 4.5 months was the lower end. Technology has improved. I don't know what the limit is now, but I'm pretty sure it's lower than it was ten years ago. So, any baby that is at least four months old (in utero) should have the right to live. I also don't believe that the lower limit should be arbitrarily determined by where the technology is. Accordingly, I believe babies should be allowed to live. This is not based on emotion, but on science.

I also hate big government, but I would vote for a pro-life, big governmen, tax and spend democrat over any pro-abortion republican.


People may not agree with me on abortion for emotional reasons, but I hope that most would agree that the right for us all to be alive is more important than what our tax rate, or how strict we are on immigration.

Sex is the choice--pregnancy is the consequence. There are all kinds of consequences we don't like, but they are part of life. And ending an innocent party's life is not the answer for any consequence.

I need a good pro-life liberatarian.

Okay, I'm done. I need a beer.:cheers:
Click to expand...


This is a great post, because it articulates that each party is just made up of a coalition of voters with significantly different interests. As coalitions, most members of the party will be in favor of some positions and be against some others. For some people abortion is the primary issue; for others it is the right to bear arms or protection of the environment or the traditional big government/small government breakdown. I think that one mistake a lot of people make is that if someone is a republican or a democrat, they inherently support all the actions, beliefs, and positions of their party. And I don't think it is true at all. For most people, it is just "as good as I can do," and they vote accordingly.
 
I wonder when a person says he's pro life if they're pro death penalty.
 
I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Of course, I believe that the question isn't when life begins but rather when can that life be sustained outside of the womb. At that point, you lose your shot at aborting the child.

On a personal note, I don't think I could ever make the choice to abort a child. However, that doesn't mean I don't want others to have a choice I couldn't make.
 
I believe Harry Reid is a perfect example of what makes people vote Republican.
So are the rest of the morons on the left.

What I mean by that is that they just sound crazy and the Republicans sounds reasonable. Until they take office and lower my taxes but spend more fucking money than ever before. And get rich off of it too.

When they changed the bankruptcy laws a while back, did they make it easy for our country as a whole to file with the rest of the world? Sure hope so.

Sometimes I feel it would be better if we just repealed every law that wasn't basic stuff and started over.

Murder rape and incest would still be illegal but almost everything else would have to be worked out all over again.
 
maxiep said:
I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Of course, I believe that the question isn't when life begins but rather when can that life be sustained outside of the womb. At that point, you lose your shot at aborting the child.

On a personal note, I don't think I could ever make the choice to abort a child. However, that doesn't mean I don't want others to have a choice I couldn't make.
Click to expand...

I believe in abortion up to age 18. That would keep the teenagers in line.

barfo
 
Ron Paul is a pro life Libertarian. He ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and as republican this year.

I'm writing him in.
 
I think you can be consistent on abortion and the death penalty either way. You can say a fetus simply isn't a life, and therefore you're not taking one so abortion is ok, but capital punishment isn't, because you're taking a life. And vice versa, you can say it's fine to take a life via capital punishment because that person's actions make him deserving of death whereas a fetus (if you consider it a life) has done nothing to derserve it.

However, I think liberals and conservatives tend to be inconsistent on nature vs. nuture questions. For example, liberals tend to think homosexuality is something we're "born with" and gender-based differences are something society "teaches" us, while conservatives tend to think the opposite. I doubt either is correct.
 
Abortion is a difficult thing for me. I am pro-life, I believe life begins at conception, and I believe that if you had to choose between a baby's right to life and a woman's right to choose, I'd say the former is more important.

I've tried to wrestle with the idea that government should stay out of health care, and that should include abortion, but at the same time I can't really get behind it 100 percent.

I've voted for pro-choice candidates, and I'll do it again. I don't really think abortion right now is as fundamental an issue in this race as the economy or the war, which is why I got pissed off when these "conservatives" who hate John McCain but love Fred Thompson (who used to be pro-choice) and Mitt Romney (who used to be multiple-choice) said no to guys like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman because of their abortion stances. Lieberman I could understand, but to disqualify someone like Ridge because of one issue kind of sucks IMO.
 
Last edited:
One thing that has always puzzled me about pro-death folks is that their stance is that if a person kicks a dog, they should go to jail. If a person takes a baby half way out of the womb on delivery, kills it, we should celebrate "choice". To me, logic dictates that human life is more important than a bruise on a dog's fanny.

BTW, I don't kick dogs.
 
Abortion is a difficult issue. I'm pro-choice, but I absolutely understand and empathize with the pro-life perspective. And don't entirely disagree with it. I do my best to maintain what I see as a reasoned, consistent position, which is that abortion should be a choice before the fetus becomes what we'd recognize as "human life" but after that point, abortion can only happen to save the mother's life.

What this boils down to as a matter of policy, for me, is that abortion can be freely chosen in the first trimester only. From what I've read of the medical science, most doctors and neuroscientists believe that the brain develops what we'd consider human consciousness sometime in the second trimester. In the first trimester, it definitely doesn't have a human-like brain, and in the third trimester it definitely does.

But I don't feel the fires of 100% conviction. It just feels like the best compromise between choice and "life" to me.
 
Last edited:
Minstrel said:
Abortion is a difficult issue. I'm pro-choice, but I absolutely understand empathize with the pro-life perspective. And don't entirely disagree with it. I do my best to maintain what I see as a reasoned consistent position, which is that abortion should be a choice before the fetus becomes what we'd recognize as "human life" but after that point, abortion can only happen to save the mother's life.

What this boils down to as a matter of policy, for me, is that abortion can be freely chosen in the first trimester only. From what I've read of the medical science, most doctors and neuroscientists believe that the brain develops what we'd consider human consciousness sometime in the second trimester. In the first trimester, it definitely doesn't have a human-like brain, and in the third trimester it definitely does.

But I don't feel the fires of 100% conviction. It just feels like the best compromise between choice and "life" to me.
Click to expand...

While I may disagree with this, I have to admit it's the most reasonable thought on the subject of pro-choice I have seen. Well written, too.
 
MikeDC said:
I think you can be consistent on abortion and the death penalty either way. You can say a fetus simply isn't a life, and therefore you're not taking one so abortion is ok, but capital punishment isn't, because you're taking a life. And vice versa, you can say it's fine to take a life via capital punishment because that person's actions make him deserving of death whereas a fetus (if you consider it a life) has done nothing to derserve it.

However, I think liberals and conservatives tend to be inconsistent on nature vs. nuture questions. For example, liberals tend to think homosexuality is something we're "born with" and gender-based differences are something society "teaches" us, while conservatives tend to think the opposite. I doubt either is correct.
Click to expand...

I don't see any argument that the fetus simply isn't a life that holds water. The scientific truth is in the DNA that defines it as a unique individual. It seems to me that wishing it wasn't human, dehumanizing it literally, is just some way to handle the guilt over it all. Obama says "it's above my paygrade" and if you believe in that wishy washy kind of answer, you probably still should err on the side of life.

I find it inconsistent that some people favor abortion but not death penalty or favor death penalty and not abortion. Ones pro-life/pro-death and the other is pro-death/pro-life.
 
What if scientists discover that if a pregnant woman eats cream cheese during the first six months of her pregnancy, the fetus would be aborted? Other than that, it has no effect. Should we ban cream cheese? Or should we prohibit pregnant women from eating it?

Now, what if scientists then discover that eating a cream cheese and jelly sandwich during the first six months of pregnancy has a one in ten chance of ending the pregnancy. Do we ban cream cheese and jelly sandwiches? Do we prohibit pregnant women from eating them? Or is this different, because it is unlikely that the fetus will be aborted, and therefore there will be no intent?

Should pregant women become wards of the state, prohibited from taking any action or participating in any activity that could harm the fetus? Should they be required to take certain vitamins if it is shown that the baby, when born, will be healthier and smarter? Should they be prohibited from smoking, or eating peanuts because there is a higher chance that the child will be allergic? Or is the condition of the fetus up to the mother, so long as the fetus is born?

Should pregnant women be required to devote their lives to taking care of the fetus inside them, even if they don't want it, without compensation? Does this deprive them of their freedom? Would this fall under the definition of slavery (doing work for the sole benefit of another person without compensation or the ability to stop working)?

If a pregnant woman is prohibited from ending her pregnancy, what sort of social programs should be in place to either make sure that the child is cared for properly, or to take over if the parents don't want the child? Who should pay for such programs? Should our federal tax dollars support foster care for all the additional unwanted children? Or should the parents be required to raise the children once they are born?
 
Dumpy said:
What if scientists discover that if a pregnant woman eats cream cheese during the first six months of her pregnancy, the fetus would be aborted? Other than that, it has no effect. Should we ban cream cheese? Or should we prohibit pregnant women from eating it?

Now, what if scientists then discover that eating a cream cheese and jelly sandwich during the first six months of pregnancy has a one in ten chance of ending the pregnancy. Do we ban cream cheese and jelly sandwiches? Do we prohibit pregnant women from eating them? Or is this different, because it is unlikely that the fetus will be aborted, and therefore there will be no intent?
Click to expand...

Some people want to ban all kinds of food. Wouldn't that kind of thing make us all wards of the state?

Should pregant women become wards of the state, prohibited from taking any action or participating in any activity that could harm the fetus? Should they be required to take certain vitamins if it is shown that the baby, when born, will be healthier and smarter? Should they be prohibited from smoking, or eating peanuts because there is a higher chance that the child will be allergic? Or is the condition of the fetus up to the mother, so long as the fetus is born?

Should pregnant women be required to devote their lives to taking care of the fetus inside them, even if they don't want it, without compensation? Does this deprive them of their freedom? Would this fall under the definition of slavery (doing work for the sole benefit of another person without compensation or the ability to stop working)?

If a pregnant woman is prohibited from ending her pregnancy, what sort of social programs should be in place to either make sure that the child is cared for properly, or to take over if the parents don't want the child? Who should pay for such programs? Should our federal tax dollars support foster care for all the additional unwanted children? Or should the parents be required to raise the children once they are born?
Click to expand...

No to all that, but I'll play devil's advocate. What's so special about 1 minute (or 6 months) out of the womb (after birth) vs. 1 minute before? Why should a woman be tied to a child that's 2 years old if she decides she doesn't want to be a mother any more? Sorry, I'm not feeling this argument...

Here's an oddity. A pregnant woman gets shot in the stomach and dies. The shooter/killer gets charged with 2 counts of murder. Why? Just because the woman decided to have the baby. That's a technicality and one of choice, not anything to do with medicine or science.

Don't get me wrong, I am pro choice.
 
here's one more question. There is something called a "blighted ovum," which is one way a fetus can self-abort, usually in the first trimester. It is not uncommon. If abortion is outlawed, when a blighted ovum is claimed as the reason a pregnancy was terminated, should there be some sort of hearing to determine with certainty that the mother did not artificially abort the fetus on her own to end her pregnancy? How would you prove that? Where would the burden of proof lie?
 
Dumpy said:
What if scientists discover that if a pregnant woman eats cream cheese during the first six months of her pregnancy, the fetus would be aborted? Other than that, it has no effect. Should we ban cream cheese? Or should we prohibit pregnant women from eating it?
Click to expand...

I love how people have to come up with rediculous hypotheticals to support their positions. Did you know in many states if you stab a pregnant woman and kill her unborn baby, it is murder?

Did you know that in many states a mother who takes drugs and harms her unborn baby is guilty of child endangerment or similar crimes?

If a mother has a handicapped child, which causes her great frustration, should we allow her to kill it because of the inconvenience?

If a mom legally buys whiskey and gives her child a bunch, should we outlaw whiskey? What?

Why talk about cream cheese?

Why is prostitution illegal but abortion isn't? A woman can choose anything to do with her body or her baby as long as it's not profitable? Huh?
 
Dumpy said:
here's one more question. There is something called a "blighted ovum," which is one way a fetus can self-abort, usually in the first trimester. It is not uncommon. If abortion is outlawed, when a blighted ovum is claimed as the reason a pregnancy was terminated, should there be some sort of hearing to determine with certainty that the mother did not artificially abort the fetus on her own to end her pregnancy? How would you prove that? Where would the burden of proof lie?
Click to expand...

Either it self terminates or it doesn't. If an abortion wasn't induced by surgery or drugs, then what is the issue? Miscarriages happen all the time.

Nobody is talking about hauling women in to court on such issues (another extreme example to try and support a weak position). Prevent doctors from doing it and don't approve drugs who's primary purpose is abortion and that is fine with me.
 
Dumpy said:
Please don't ascribe some sinister intent or agenda to me and my posts. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

I do get a lot of that kind of response, however. I talk in terms of 99% of what really goes on with pregnancies and abortions, and the response comes about regarding some obscure fact pattern that either doesn't exist, or exists for 0.0001% of the population. I would rather people just faced the 99%.
 
Reep said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

I do get a lot of that kind of response, however. I talk in terms of 99% of what really goes on with pregnancies and abortions, and the response comes about regarding some obscure fact pattern that either doesn't exist, or exists for 0.0001% of the population. I would rather people just faced the 99%.
Click to expand...

I'm just asking questions to fully understand everyone's position--not just yours. It is meant as a starting point for debate. I haven't described my position, and please don't assumptions based on the line of questioning. If you don't like the examples I gave (which is fair), how about this one: there is a chance, although a small one, that a woman's pregnancy could be terminated early if the mother does something active like ski or go on a zip line. If an unborn fetus is given the full gamut of rights, should these activities be prohibited? Should a pregnant woman be prosecuted for skiing or going down a zip line, even though the chance of something bad happening is small? Should it depend on how many months pregnant she is? What should the limit be, and who should decide it? Who will enforce it?

I think the hardest question to answer is this: If the Catholic Church suddenly changed its stance, and announced that abortion was okay, how would it affect the debate? How (if at all) would it affect people's opinion? If the answer is that many people's views would instantly change, should that affect any decision on whether abortion should be outlawed? In short, to what extent is this debate directed by religious views? And, if that is the case, why should non-Catholics be handcuffed by the viewpoint of a religion that they do not support?
 
Dumpy said:
how about this one: there is a chance, although a small one, that a woman's pregnancy could be terminated early if the mother does something active like ski or go on a zip line. If an unborn fetus is given the full gamut of rights, should these activities be prohibited? Should a pregnant woman be prosecuted for skiing or going down a zip line, even though the chance of something bad happening is small? Should it depend on how many months pregnant she is? What should the limit be, and who should decide it? Who will enforce it?
Click to expand...

Existing laws cover this. If a mom takes her child skiing and the child dies, is she guilty of murder? No. If she recklessly shoves the child and they die (not murder, maybe manslaughter)? If she plans and then kills the child? Yes, murder. The crimes are already defined by intent and the DAs use discretion in choosing who to prosecute. Your fact patterns would be no different. Having a miscarriage after an active sport would be a very sad accident--no more.

Dumpy said:
I think the hardest question to answer is this: If the Catholic Church suddenly changed its stance, and announced that abortion was okay, how would it affect the debate? How (if at all) would it affect people's opinion? If the answer is that many people's views would instantly change, should that affect any decision on whether abortion should be outlawed? In short, to what extent is this debate directed by religious views? And, if that is the case, why should non-Catholics be handcuffed by the viewpoint of a religion that they do not support?
Click to expand...

I'm not Catholic, so I don't know how this would change things. I would hope most people at least considered the science, rather than have their oppinion based solely on religion--or lack thereof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top