If I’m reading your post correctly, you’re acknowledging that some Republicans might seek to ban some choices you might theoretically make but that you haven’t actually made. But you say that some Democrats have actually eroded your personal liberty. Could you explain what it was that these Democrats did that affected you personally?
I am also a non-religious Republican unless one would include my Buddhist sympathies as being ‘religious’.
I disfavor the nanny government, direct wealth redistribution, confusing or complicated regulations, most subsidies, bloated bureaucracy, deficit borrowing +spending, and a culture of dependency.
I favor free-markets, individual responsibility, innovation, sensible regulation that HELPS the free market (the FAA for example…businesses ad individuals have confidence in our airlines), strong defense (not wasteful jingoism), lower or at least more simplified taxes, and free speech.
On social issues, I favor gay/lesbian civil unions (‘marriage’ is a distracting semantics issue), civil liberties, religious freedom within reason that doesn’t impose on others, and a non-meddling government when it comes to gynecology/pregnancy/birth control, but I feel that economic and market issues are higher priority.
My positions on environmental regulation lean Dem/Green. I favor incentivizing or regulation to favor cleaner energy sources such as thorium reactors, solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, hydro, etc. I am more concerned with cleaner water supply and air quality than global climate shifts at least for the nearer term. A cleaner environment should always be better for most businesses in the long run.
I am outraged by the modern Republican Party at the federal level (some states too), particularly the attacks on science, pandering to right wing tards, jingoist foreign policies, gross spending on military contractors, idiotic character bashing and scaremongering vitriol about Obama, and the Norquist ring kissers who refuse to budge on taxes in order to get the Democrats to budge on reducing spending.
I don’t always vote R in general elections (sometimes insane people are nominated particularly at the state level in the red state that I call home), but I am a registered Republican who votes in primaries with hopes to defeat the nutjobs prior to party nomination.
I may choose to throw away my votes on Libertarians once again in '12.
Due to the money involved and the corporate backing of candidates, I view an election as simply defining the set of corporate johns that will be controlling their political whores while in office.
Using the crappy analogy of a ship of state that is adrift, out of fuel, facing storms and the keel being dismantled by the officers for boiler fuel, I’ve come to a few conclusions. Mainly, that among our daunting list of problems, nothing can be solved unless we can feed the crew. Period.
In that vein, it seems to me that if we’re electing corporations, we should pay attention to who’s backing who. The left seems to be backed by large investment houses and unions. As far as I know, Goldman Sachs and teacher’s unions do little to further job creation and actual production of goods. The right seems to be backed by Lockheed, Boeing, GM, General Dynamics and every single business owner I’ve ever met.
I vote for the corporations that I feel are more likely to help employment, and the economy in general. The actual candidate is a meaningless figurehead. Little more than an actor playing a part.
I made you a nice text wall of some personal grievances I have which I perceive to be the fault of Democrats. I don’t know if it advances the discussion. I’ve been clear that I’m not a fan of the Democrat platform or their actions.
This thread prompted me to re-read the 2008 Republican platform. It reaffirmed my opinion that while Republicans don’t always deliver, I at least like most of their platform. [spoiler]
The Clinton presidency sucked. From the Spotted Owl controversy, the salvage logging controversy, the Roadless Rule - the policies of the Clinton administration had a crippling effect on responsible conservation forestry.
Over and above being upset about Clinton-era policies as a resident of the affected area; my grandfather owned a logging company that went under. Dad was a logger, Clinton’s policies depressed work in our area so much that my dad spent a decade working in a different part of the state living out of a camper 5 days per week. We’d built a house in '92, it really wasn’t an option for my dad to give up his lifelong vocation and take a lower-paying job when we had a brand new home loan.
Wolf Reintroduction and the ESA in general have a huge impact on residents of Idaho. I’m a hunter both for food and for fun. I have a huge personal investment in the responsible conservation of my state and I will always resent the federal interference that resulted in Wolf Reintroduction.
I don’t enjoy the reduced deer and elk population or the altered feeding patterns that have pushed animals down into yards and town. I have friends losing livestock to wolves, losing bow-killed elk to wolves, having dogs killed by wolves. Wolves suck, we the people who live among them did not want them, they were forced upon us.
Gun control in general is a pain in my ass. Guns are a tool, an investment, and a great source of fun for me and mine. The assault weapons ban sucked, it stretched over my young adulthood when I had time to reload and disposable income for buying guns. Since the expiration of the ban I’ve gotten some of the guns I yearned for as a kid but it sucks I had to wait a decade over arbitrary details like a collapsible stock and magazine capacity.
That Stimulus package actually resulted in layoffs in our company. The wild, fast-tracked spending resulted in shortfalls in early 2010. On a personal level, the Stimulus didn’t create extra jobs in our company, we were simply overworked for a year, then I and 18 or so others went on unemployment for 4 months. I was one of 3 people who got to come back and the only who returned to full time. The Stimulus actually reduced employment at our company. I know that wasn’t the intent but it hardly matters to the people who lost their jobs.
In general, I find that my local government seems to have no influence on my life. The state government has a bigger impact but it’s usually not negative, probably because Idahoans know how to govern Idahoans.
The federal government is source of decisions that affect me the most and many of them have a negative result. Frankly, the whole thing seems backwards. I favor states’ rights, smaller, more localized government.[/spoiler]
I get your point and I can understand why you feel that way. But you did know that of their top five donors, Obama had 2 financially solvent companies (Microsoft and Google) and only 1 that wasn’t (Goldman Sachs) while all of McCain’s top donors needed bailout money (all banks/investment firms, including Goldman Sachs at #5)?
You mean an alternative to the party that talks about the values you claim to hold – small government and economic libertarianism – and then does the precise opposite?
I guess if you want them to keep doing the same things as they have been, you should keep voting for them.
[QUOTE=Chopper9760]
It reaffirmed my opinion that while Republicans don’t always deliver, I at least like most of their platform.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe this is just my own naïveté in imagining that people actually vote on the issues, but has the GOP ever delivered on their promises of smaller government and fiscal responsibility? Certainly not the modern Reaganite GOP.
What does their platform matter when they’ve made their actual priorities so clear?
From the point of view of a ex-Republican, what I see in this thread is a lot of wishful thinking. “The GOP supposedly stands for limited government and responsibility, and even though it hasn’t been remotely like that for a good thirty years despite its rhetoric and shows no believable signs it ever will be again, and moreover continues to be virulently anti-gay, anti-science, anti-environment, I’m going to keep voting for them anyway in the hopes they’ll change.” Uh, yeah. I don’t think so. The whack-o grip on the GOP isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Unless you’re a career politician, devout loyalty to any political party–especially when that party is utterly and repeatedly failing to do what it says it will do or even be an advocate for your own personal interests–strikes me as being a bit daft.
This goes for followers of the Democratic Party, too. Demand that the party advocates what you believe in, and if they don’t (within reason), abandon that party. What’s the point of being loyal to an organization that isn’t doing anything for you?
[ul]
[/ul]
You make some good points especially on the national level. I honestly don’t understand why any informed person isn’t an Independent. I don’t think party loyalty does anyone any good except for the people running. Both parties are an impossible amalgam of different groups that are impossible to represent on a binary scale.
Who are stereotypical Democrats (in no particular order):
- Hippies
- Union members
- College faculty
- Liberal Arts Students
- Gays
- Minorities except some Hispanics
- Women in general
Who are stereotypical Republicans: - Very wealthy people
- Functionally illiterate white people
- Fundamentalist Christians
- Military members
- Small business owners
- American-Cubans
- White middle-class men
- Libertarians
You can add more if you want. Each group has factions that are fundamentally opposed to one another in goals, lifestyle, and everything else. It is ridiculous to back a particular party in the U.S. because each one is such dysfunctional amalgam of lots of different alliances that are mostly the result of historical oddities.
That said, there are many Republicans on the local, state, and national level that I admire and will happily vote for. They do work for smaller government and the stereotypical ideals and the same is true for some Democratic candidates. My world view just happens to be more aligned with the ideal Republican rather than the ideal Democrat in most cases. If the party and the candidates themselves are a flawed or a sham of ideals, then that is something to work towards rather than just throwing our hands up and saying the whole thing is a waste.
I write to my elected officials and explain what I want, I support Libertarian candidates.
However, when I go to the polls, the choices get decidedly binary.
Voting for who I believe to be the lesser of two evils is a valid choice. The alternative is to not vote.
I’m a totally non-religious Republican. That said, I am very pro-choice and pro gay marriage. My feeling is and always has been that over-population causes most of the world’s problems at its core, so anything that encourages less offspring is ideal. I am in a heterosexual marriage and have no kids.
For me, the main reasons I still vote Republican despite having Democratic social leanings is quality of life. Policy wise, I have never seen either party do a single thing that had a significant impact on my life. Maybe they did without me realizing it, but it certainly wasn’t obvious. That said, I work in defense and have a decent portfolio of investments. When Clinton was in office, I can remember getting raped on my taxes every year he was in office while struggling to keep a good job. I’m sure he was a decent President overall, but from my own personal standpoint, my life sucked. Now I am going through that with Obama and the massive cuts in military spending. Maybe that’s helping the economy in other ways, but if it’s making me poorer, how can I get behind that?
I want the federal government to be signifigantly smaller than its current size.
I am well aware that the Republicans have repeatedly broken promises to reduce it.
But the Democrats keep promising to expand it. Why should I vote for that?
I am aware that corporate greed is bad.
I am aware that recessions suck.
But I believe that, overall, in general, in the long run, private-sector employment lifts far more people out of poverty than any government handout.
I would love to believe that we can sit down at the UN, and sign peace treaties, and sing Kumbaya.
But an unenforceable treaty is nothing but a collection of autographs, as Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way. (Actually that’s not fair to Chamberlain. He inherited a weak army, and had little choice in the matter.)
Ehhh, it’s a living.
Reported in case the mods think it is advertising. They can make a call 
The link is to his home page(in profile) and there’s nothing there, just a blank blog page.