Why I will never vote for most Republicans, and will occasionally vote for Democrats

[hillertexas]

Most of those are true but the bold one isn't completely correct:



Edit: The Al Gore, Sr thing isn't exactly true either:

thanks! corrected.

 

[Jingles]

Those do not understand economic liberty cannot truly understand personal liberty. That is my view on the "Dems". They may claim to fight for civil liberties, but they want to control every facet of your life. What you can buy, who you can trade with, what you want to eat, drink, smoke, (OMG IT'S BAD FOR YOU! WE NEED TO SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF) etc... Liberals have "good" intentions. They want us all to have a house, have a car, be healthy, etc... But they wish to do so by using the violence of the state to do anything and everything.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

And it seems like people are still being blinded to what I'm saying simply because I used the words "Republican" and "Democrat" and they have deep-running feelings about those words.


Let's try this without them, and with a little bit more explicitness.


Why I will never vote for most FreedomWorks- and establishment-backed candidates, but will occasionally vote for CREDO- and HumansRightsCampaign-backed candidates:

Two things: Rights and Research

FreedomWorks/Establishment GOP are horrible with respect to both.


The Rachel Maddow Show outlines a little bit of just how adamant the GOP is on attacking vulnerable targets (minorities including gays, women, and low-income families) behind the scenes - and then refusing to talk about it

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47381091

Half of it seems to be that the GOP members refuse to look at the research data on crucial subjects (e.g. teen pregnancy, sex ed, bullying, adoption)

The other half seems to be a personal distaste for people who are unlike them


Many voters will not look closely at the candidates in an election. Fewer still will look carefully enough to see if a Republican candidate is is part of the FreewdomWorks/GOP machine. Many will assume that a Republican is anti-gay, anti-abortion (sometimes to the point of being anti-contraception), anti-science, anti-poor, anti-legalization (drugs), and so on.

The only way that a movement for limited government will succeed in the long run is by purposely distancing themselves from these GOP policies and members, and identifying themselves by a different name. There needs to be a "party within the party" - and it obviously shouldn't go by "the TEA Party". The name needs to clearly define what its members stand for - not just against. "Liberty" is too vague and misunderstood by the casual voter.

"The EARNEST Party - Equality and Accountability in Republicans' New Endeavors for Security and Trade" may be a name that these people can use to make themselves distinct - as in "I'm an EARNEST Republican".

We need something that communicates, "We're a party of individual rights and economic success".

I think we need the same kind of name and movement in the Democratic party in the next cycle, for the voters who will never look at a GOP candidate, period.


Note: I posted this in this sub-forum because of the video on recent rights issues, which was provided as education for anyone who hasn't been following along with these non-NDAA kinds of situations.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The Dems are no more on the side of individual rights than The Repubs are. They're both fascists in teh truest sense of teh word. Look at Obama. He is everything that was bad about Bush-and worse.

This x ∞

Anybody who thinks that the Democrat party is somehow more attuned to "personal liberties" is as deluded as somebody who thinks the GOP is somehow more attuned to "fiscal responsibility".

They are nothing more than a right boot and left boot marching together toward tyranny.

Vote for neither.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

This x ∞

Anybody who thinks that the Democrat party is somehow more attuned to "personal liberties" is as deluded as somebody who thinks the GOP is somehow more attuned to "fiscal responsibility".

They are nothing more than a right boot and left boot marching together toward tyranny.

Vote for neither.

Because every election is only for US senators and presidents, right?

I'm starting to think that half of the RPF community is just covering their ears and shouting their long-standing personal opinions.

 

[Travlyr]

Because every election is only for US senators and presidents, right?

I'm starting to think that half of the RPF community is just covering their ears and shouting their long-standing personal opinions.

What differences do you see between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

What differences do you see between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party?

How about reading my posts in the thread?

 

[Travlyr]

The difference isn't just in talk. Look at any Dem/Rep state legislature and the bills that they pass and the difference is clear.

Perhaps give me a real world example to prove this ^ because I don't see any difference between the Republicans and Democrats other than one claims the blue donkey and the other the red elephant.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Perhaps give me a real world example to prove this ^ because I don't see any difference between the Republicans and Democrats other than one claims the blue donkey and the other the red elephant.

Did you watch the linked video? Have you followed the legislation in MI, GA, WI, AZ, or any state where there are supermajorities or near supermajorities?

 

[Travlyr]

Did you watch the linked video?

I tried to watch the video but it is too full of antics for me.

Have you followed the legislation in MI, GA, WI, AZ, or any state where there are supermajorities or near supermajorities?

I don't follow legislation in states other than my own.

Do you have a specific example that you can share to prove your claim?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Antics?


Here's a small sampling of articles related to recent state legislature issues in MI (GOP heavy) and IL (Dem heavy). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures

http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinio...arch-reporting-at-the-university-of-michigan/

http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/05/abortion_coercion_bills_headed.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/illinois-gay-marriage-bil_n_1263318.html

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_daa49526-952e-11e1-b1d0-001a4bcf6878.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/illinois-bullying-bill-ad_n_1387623.html


Edit: This is perfect: The debate this past Friday between Joe Walsh (IL Rep) and Tammy Duckworth (IL Dem)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/12/joe-walsh-tammy-duckworth_n_1511604.html?ref=topbar

 

[Anti Federalist]

Because every election is only for US senators and presidents, right?

I'm starting to think that half of the RPF community is just covering their ears and shouting their long-standing personal opinions.

My federal representation is both democrat and republican.

All four are awful.

What are you on about now?

Without referencing a bunch of copypasta.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The Rachel Maddow Show outlines a little bit of just how adamant the GOP is on attacking vulnerable targets (minorities including gays, women, and low-income families) behind the scenes - and then refusing to talk about it

Fail.

How are women "vulnerable" and a "minority"?

Consider:

A - There are more women than men in the United States.

B - Women now make more money than men.

C - Are less likely to be laid off or lose their jobs.

D - Live longer and have better access to health care than men.

E - Are much less likely to be imprisoned or executed.

 

[LibertyEagle]

LG, with few exceptions, the only difference between the Rs and the Ds is rhetoric.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

My federal representation is both democrat and republican.

All four are awful.

What are you on about now?

Without referencing a bunch of copypasta.

You are either being intentionally careless or are in some kind of mindframe that doesn't enable you to understand what I write, so I'm not going to keep responding to you.

How are women "vulnerable" and a "minority"?

Consider:

A - There are more women than men in the United States.

B - Women now make more money than men.

C - Are less likely to be laid off or lose their jobs.

D - Live longer and have better access to health care than men.

E - Are much less likely to be imprisoned or executed.

Women are a minority in power. B and C are false.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You are either being intentionally careless or are in some kind of mindframe that doesn't enable you to understand what I write, so I'm not going to keep responding to you.

Meh.

Won't break my heart.

Concise summarizing: learn it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

LG, with few exceptions, the only difference between the Rs and the Ds is rhetoric.

I think everybody understands that.

Unless LG has a new and relevant insight that he is unwilling to share with us.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Limited Government, I fear you have been misled...

Using individual cases and not recognizing the change in party dynamics over the history of the party systems (1-5) harms, rather than helps, your case.

Link for histories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

 

[Brett85]

I've always voted straight Republican and have never voted for a Democrat before. I refuse to vote for any member of a party that has a platform of allowing the murder of innocent human beings. Having said that, I've become disillusioned with the national GOP and refuse to vote for Romney for a number of reasons, but primarily because of his support for invading foreign countries. Being pro life shouldn't simply mean defending the unborn. It should also mean stopping the slaughter of innocent people overseas. When the GOP is losing the support of someone like me, you know they have a big problem.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I've always voted straight Republican and have never voted for a Democrat before. I refuse to vote for any member of a party that has a platform of allowing the murder of innocent human beings. Having said that, I've become disillusioned with the national GOP and refuse to vote for Romney for a number of reasons, but primarily because of his support for invading foreign countries. Being pro life shouldn't simply mean defending the unborn. It should also mean stopping the slaughter of innocent people overseas.

This thread is not about reasons for voting GOP or not. It's about the casual public's impressions of the GOP and how limited government candidates can become identified as a separate group even if they're in one of the two major parties.

Please stay on topic.