What makes people vote republican?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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?

I am sure people have said this before but I never really thought about it.

As a person who thinks prostitution should be legal it doesn't really affect how I feel about abortion, but it is a good argument.
 
Last edited:
Corzine sucks! I voted for Forrester.

There's a rumor that he could become Obama's Treasury secretary.

I hope that happens, maybe it will give outsiders like BG7 and 44Thrilla an idea of the crap people in NJ have had to put up for the past several years, and it will further Obama's chances of being a one term President.
 
I am sure people have said this before but I never really thought about it.

As a person who thinks prostitution should be legal it doesn't really affect how I feel about abortion, but it is a good argument.

Our society if filled with similar inconsistencies.

Why is it legal and okay to have a homosexual marriage between two consenting adults, but you end up in prison if two women and one man want to get married? I don't get it.

You can smoke tobacco legally, but pot which is much less harmful is illegal. You could argue the impairment, but why is booze legal then? These have more to do with lobbying, but it is still kind of odd.
 
my aversion to voting republican is that it seems many are closely tied to the military industrial complex. im not a big fan of war profiteers.
 
What do the Republicans stand for anymore? I always thought they stood for no economic intervention, but all I've seen is McCain running around all week saying how he's going to intervene in the economy.
 
And for the record, I'm pro-choice. That is the woman has the choice whether to have sex or not, and if she chooses to do so she should except all consequences.

Rape is the obvious exception to this, but you can't have that, as people will be going around claiming rape just to get an abortion, even though there was no rape. So the compromise to this, is to make Emergency Contraception Pills more widely available. Educate people, that if they get raped, to go over to Walgreens and get one of these pills. Then you can have the old school abortion exception, for those who were held captive while raped, so they didn't have the chance to get one of those pills in time. There wouldn't be too much faking going on here, as it will be easy to see what is legit, and what is not.

Although even in rape cases, I'm still not a big fan of the murder, although I understand it is completely necessary, as you can't have women who've been raped carrying something in their body from that rape. Although in the not too distant future, we can eliminate the abortion part altogether, once we have artificial wombs, transfer the fetus from the real womb to the fake, and then put it up for adoption.

Also, I'm not a big fan of abortion when the mother's life may be threatened. Why not rename this from partial-birth abortion to premature birth? Why not try to keep the baby alive? At 22 weeks, it has a 15% chance of surviving, and at 24 weeks, it has a 41% chance of surviving. That makes more sense then shoving a spoon in it's head or throwing it in a bucket of chemicals.
 
The reason I keep voting Republican is there are no viable Independent candidates.
 
Also, I'm not a big fan of abortion when the mother's life may be threatened. Why not rename this from partial-birth abortion to premature birth? Why not try to keep the baby alive? At 22 weeks, it has a 15% chance of surviving, and at 24 weeks, it has a 41% chance of surviving. That makes more sense then shoving a spoon in it's head or throwing it in a bucket of chemicals.

I know a lady who was in that situation and the doctors told her she had to abort to live. She didn't because of her belief in life. I'm glad about that. She was my grandmother and the baby was my mom.
 
The reason I keep voting Republican is there are no viable Independent candidates.

Any of you guys see the Simpsons episode where space aliens impersonated Clinton and Dole? When the public found out they were evil aliens who wanted to take over the world, it was too late. One was republican and the other democrat and the public couldn't see wasting a vote on a (human) independent. Classic. I wish we could do away with the parties and candidates could just run on their platform. You would get a lot more interesting candidates in the race.
 
I read a fascinating article once that compared the republican method of governance to that of the prototypical father figure, and the democratic method of governance to the mother figure. Republicans want a stern leader that puts them in their place and says that they cannot have certain things. Democrats--the mother figure--believe in nurturing those with needs. The article then segued into why the Republicans were so intent on convincing Schwarzenegger to run for governor, because he is the ultimate father figure. I wish I could do it justice, but I can't find the article on line, unfortunately.

Incidentally, it is too bad that Schwarzenegger has been held back due to his lack of experience when he ran for governor.

I found it. It was in a book written by the UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff on how political issues are framed by the language that is used to name and define them. Here's a snippet of an interview on the part that is relevant to this thread:

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

From that framework, I can see why Schwarzenegger appealed to conservatives.

Exactly. In the strict father model, the big thing is discipline and moral authority, and punishment for those who do something wrong. That comes out very clearly in the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy. With Schwarzenegger, it's in his movies: most of the characters that he plays exemplify that moral system. He didn't have to say a word! He just had to stand up there, and he represents Mr. Discipline. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's going to take it to the people. He's not going to ask permission, or have a discussion, he's going to do what needs to be done, using force and authority. His very persona represents what conservatives are about.

Lakoff also has some interesting things to say about the duty to pay taxes (and how the issue is framed), which I'll also include here even though it it OT:

You've written a lot about "tax relief" as a frame. How does it work?

The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.

"Tax relief" has even been picked up by the Democrats. I was asked by the Democratic Caucus in their tax meetings to talk to them, and I told them about the problems of using tax relief. The candidates were on the road. Soon after, Joe Lieberman still used the phrase tax relief in a press conference. You see the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

So what should they be calling it?

It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists - vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues - you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.

So taxes could be framed as an issue of patriotism.

It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country - the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.

I apologize for not locating this earlier.
 
Interesting, though I am not enamored by linguistics professors' views of philosophy in general.

Paying taxes is patriotic. Avoiding paying taxes is even more so. The tax forms we fill out for April 15 do allow people to contribute more than their tax owed; I'd love to see people who are in love with big govt. contribute more. Not shocked that those people don't do so.

The problem with this analysis is that it's black and white. MOST people are good. It only takes a few bad ones to ruin things for the rest.
 
It's hard to vote for any politician anymore. Corporate America is eroded so deep within the political system that you cannot trust what any politician says without questioning their motive.

The thing that drives me nuts is that people decide to vote Republican or a Democrat without taking into consideration of whom those people really are. Are they just pandering to your belief system to get your vote? Will they do what they say? You can't take anything at face value anymore. It's sickening and the country is in need of a major overhaul. There's no way to cleanse this mess and I don't want to sound like an extremist, but this country needs a political revolution. I don't know how that would happen, but the people and the country needs it.

For the record, I'm Pro-Choice but I struggle with the thought of having an abortion take place after the first trimester. I do believe that abortion shouldn't be some form of birth-control and people should accept responsibility.

I'm also pro-death penalty. Unfortunately, too many innocent people get convicted. But if there is undeniable evidence along with DNA linking somebody to a murder, rape, or child-molestation, I say get rid of them.
 
Interesting, though I am not enamored by linguistics professors' views of philosophy in general.

Paying taxes is patriotic. Avoiding paying taxes is even more so. The tax forms we fill out for April 15 do allow people to contribute more than their tax owed; I'd love to see people who are in love with big govt. contribute more. Not shocked that those people don't do so.

The problem with this analysis is that it's black and white. MOST people are good. It only takes a few bad ones to ruin things for the rest.


You are being short-sighted. First, an insightful observation is an insightful observation, regardless of where it originates. Second, this analysis has nothing to do with people being "good." It pretty accurately explains the schism between the two schools of thought of national governance. More importantly, it explains why certain people vote repubilcan (and certain vote democratic) even though those parties do nothing to help them. It comes down to their personal belief on how governments should . . . govern, for lack of a better word. Two different theories, and the number of people subscribing to each one are essentially evenly split.
 
Dumpy said:
Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better.

Dumpy said:
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good.

Denny Crane said:
The problem with this analysis is that it's black and white. MOST people are good. It only takes a few bad ones to ruin things for the rest.

You are being short-sighted. First, an insightful observation is an insightful observation, regardless of where it originates. Second, this analysis has nothing to do with people being "good." It pretty accurately explains the schism between the two schools of thought of national governance. More importantly, it explains why certain people vote repubilcan (and certain vote democratic) even though those parties do nothing to help them. It comes down to their personal belief on how governments should . . . govern, for lack of a better word. Two different theories, and the number of people subscribing to each one are essentially evenly split.

(strawman)
 
Anyhow, I don't see much of a difference between the two parties. They're both New Dealers and promote big government. The priorities are only slightly different.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top