Rand Rover, we often (almost always) disagree, and I think you let yourself get dragged down into pettiness too often with the hardcore left-wing segment of the board, but you are not a political hack.
I also understand your sentiment about wanting people to vote for a republican no matter the reason, but I hope you’ll reconsider it and go from “meh” to “people probably shouldn’t be saying hateful, bigoted things just to get people to vote for them or their positions/beliefs.”
As a gay person who respects a lot of what republican philosophy stands for, it really hurts me that the conservative party in this country constantly attacks me. Not me personally, of course, but a huge part of who I am. I hope that perhaps you could take a moment to reflect on what it would be like if you were gay, and to have to hear things like what’s in that video, and perhaps think to yourself that there are better ways to get people to support the republican party.
Anyhow, even though I’m a pretty liberal guy, unlike the rest of the liberal posters here,I like you Rand Rover, despite our differences in opinion, and I really just hope you’ll consider what I’ve said.
At risk of bringing this thread further into the weeds of Christian theology, Tony Sinclair, Christians don’t follow Mosaic Law because Jesus’ death and resurrection was the fulfillment of the law. Beyond that, I’m not going to play a game of Gotcha Ya with you.
Gay bashing is hateful, much of the Republican base is extreme and anti-gay, not all Christians are anti-gay. I didn’t mean to drag this thread into the theological weeds, so let’s just get back to pointing and laughing at the crazy lady “debating” Anderson.
That’s actually not true. There’s: cut government programs for the poor and middle class, cut jobs, cut/don’t raise taxes for the rich, cut regulations.
Condescending Robot, and Happy Lendervedder, those comments are definitely approaching what one could genuinely attribute to a political hack.
The republican party generally supports a lot of good ideas. If you can’t see ANY of them, then I’d say that makes you a pretty strong candidate for being a partisan hack.
Even someone like Rand Rover (who has been called a partisan hack here) doesn’t support denying gays the right to marry, so at least on that issue, he’s more in line with the democrats than the republicans.
Like I said earlier, I’m a pretty liberal guy overall, but I can definitely see positives and negatives in both political parties. The republicans aren’t all terrible.
Actual gay voters, probably not. Actual gay voters plus supporters of gay rights, maybe. This group largely wouldn’t have voted for Romney but a lot of them might have skipped voting altogether had Obama not have made his announcement. There is a lot of apathy and disappointment with Obama amongst the far left and this could motivate them to vote and to campaign. This might do something like swing Florida.
The argument is clearly there–you just seem to have a chronic inability to process arguments that are not in a specific form. You based your argument on your previous behavior. Your previous behavior contradicts what you say. Heck, being okay with people voting for your party whose beliefs you hate itself argues against the idea that you don’t defend people just for being Republican, as you just got through defending that person because you like their vote.
Also, people treat you like shit because you continually show that you want people to do so. People treat you the way you treat them. For someone who doesn’t believe in absolute morals, you sure constantly use them to try and shame people. Until you apologize for treating people like shit and actually show a lack of desire to do it again, you will be treated like shit.
It’s absolute morality once again. One of the basics: how you treat other people is how they will treat you.
Of course, all of this is assuming you don’t act like this so you can justify your own beliefs by using your anger that people treat your poorly. But that would mean believing in an absolute moral that you treat people well, and you claim you don’t. Without absolute morality, you can’t object to the actions of others–they just have a different morality than you do.
The Republican Party pays lip service to some ideas I support, such as lowering taxes and cutting spending. Similarly, the Democratic Party pays lip service to some ideas I support, such as gay rights and a peaceful foreign policy.
In power, Republicans forget all of that, raise spending, make desultory efforts at best to cut taxes (and of course run up huge deficits that force tax increases in the long run), but seemingly never forget to gay-bash. In power, Democrats forget all of that hippy-dippy liberal shit and become obsessed with nonsense like smoking bans and gun regulation.
If judging people by their actions rather than their pie in the sky promises, or questioning why a black person would join the KKK, which is what a gay person joining the Republican Party is, makes me a “partisan hack,” then hack away.
I was agreeing with EVERYTHING you said, up until “which is what a gay person joining the Republican Party is.”
That sort of sentiment is extremely offensive to blacks, and the many hundreds or thousands of men, women and families who were terrorized and killed by the KKK. I agree that a gay person who openly votes for and supports republicans are actively voting against some of their own interests, but that is not at all the same as a black person joining a group that goes around killing other black people. I hope you realize this and were resorting to hyperbole.
I’m not saying you have to support the republican party, or even like them (I certainly mostly don’t). I was just pointing out that the sentiments and statements you made clear earlier came off as particularly partisan hack-like.
Furthermore, the republicans do more than just lip service with regards to taxes. The Bush era tax cuts did significantly reduce taxes for everyone, including the rich and the middle class. That’s why even democrats only want to let them expire for the rich, and keep extending them to the rest of Americans. Now obviously the Republicans are having none of that, which I disagree with vehemently, but it was a republican tax cut in the first place that the democrats are wanting to extend a part of.
And remember, it was a Republican president who took action when the market tanked and our economy was on the verge of collapse by bailing out AIG and such (money we have mostly if not all recovered by now). The rank and file republicans weren’t all that supportive of it, but many did support him and it did pass under his request. Obama went on to do more to boost the economy, and the republicans were all opposed to him, which was wrong IMO.
And with regards to deficits, you are 100% spot on that the republicans have been mostly responsible for egregious raises to our national debt, but it at least APPEARS that they are trying to force more fiscal responsibility. I agree that it may just be lip-service, and who knows if they actually want to turn our yearly annual deficit into a surplus, but at least they are forcing the issue to be known. I remember back in the 90’s and early 2000’s, the national debt was something that politicians never even really talked about. It was a huge looming issue, and now it’s in the forefront of most american’s minds, and we have the republicans to thank for that.
With that being said, I disagree with them 1000% on how to reduce the deficit and the national debt. They are opposed to any tax increases whatsoever, and want to initiate deep cuts to government and social security and medicare. I think these are terrible approaches, and it seems they are unwilling to compromise on any of this with the democrats, which I find entirely reprehensible. So please don’t think I’m giving them too much credit.
Well, the Republicans are actually on record as favoring the destruction of Medicare, replacing it with a voucher system to enable seniors to buy the insurance policy of there choice from among the oodles of companies champing at the bit to offer health insurance to the elderly at affordable prices. Of course, this wouldn’t effect current seniors (they need their votes), they assume that the current seniors won’t mind a bit if we fuck their children over.
As far as Social Security, the Republicans have despised it for generations and would dearly love to destroy it. Every once in a while they tip their hand and float trial balloons about privatizing it.
As far as contraception goes, they’ve gone on record as opposing requiring insurance coverage for it. Given the rabid puritanical nature of the religious right, it’s a very short hop to banning contraception altogther.
I’m a registered Democrat. I don’t think the Republican Party, especially this modern incarnation of it, really supports (in practice or lip service) much of anything I support. There was a time when I could still respectfully disagree with Republican ideology, but these days, it’s pretty hard to respect what they’re offering. If you want to call me a political hack for that, go right ahead. But I don’t *root *for the Democrats because they’re my team, right or wrong. I *support *the Democrats because I think they have better ideas compared to the nightmare the Republicans are offering or trying to accomplish.
You’re right, I know several very nice Republicans.
Since I became aware of politics (and I’m now 46), people have talked about the federal deficit and debt as a problem. An electronic billboard showing the total was installed near Times Square in 1989. The rhetoric has been ramped up recently, but isn’t really new. The party that I’ve seen to really do something about it, rather than just talk, has by-and-large been the Democrats.
Maybe Republicans really have changed. Maybe they really will take a responsible, balanced approach to reducing the deficit. Maybe this time tax cuts will lead to increased revenue. Maybe they’re not just fear mongering. But I doubt it.
Actually, it goes along the lines of informing the sinner in private, then in public, then bringing witnesses to their sin, then treating them like a pagan or a tax collector.
As for the tangent on the role of the parties, here is the House of Representatives breakdown for various bills (for and against):
CISPA. R 206, D 42
NDAA R 190, D 93
PPACA R 0, D 219
Hunger Free Kids Act R 17, D 247
DADT Repeal R 15, D 235
Tax relief D 139 R 138
As for lowering taxes and expenditure: which expenditure precisely? Why not adopt the Swedish system with higher lifespan, lower infant mortality, higher rates of education and a lower debt to GDP ratio? Not to mention, lower per capita expenditure on healthcare?