Poll: Republicans: Your take

[Varitel]

I am a Republican (for the most part). I am pro gay-marriage, pro-choice, but still a Republican in terms of many economic issues and some foreign policy issues. I think that Republicans can be complete and total morons, and yet so can Democrats. Though I can tolerate moronic Democrats more than moronic Republicans.

 

[Tdc2182]

Yet to meet one who doesn't have rather skewed views.

Then again, they kinda have it unfair from the get go with people like Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin.

But seeing how she is actually kinda popular for president I go back to my original statement.

 

[loc978]

Eh, I vote Whig.

...but seriously, I voted the idiot option. Anyone who believes the Republicans have their best interests at heart are either rich or stupid. Anyone who thinks the Democrats have their best interests at heart are just plain stupid. Both parties work for whoever throws the most money into lobbying for 'em. I don't define myself as nonpartisan so much as anti-partisan.

also:

Spoiler: Language, George! Language!

 

[thefrizzlefry]

Honestly, the republican waters are rather murky, far more so than the democrat's; my father and grandfather are part of a group that I would assume to be fairly sizable - social leftists with economically conservative views. Basically, they're libertarians, but vote republican for... some reason, most likely so they can keep earning more money than they might be able to under a democratic administration. And that's not an insult, that's a fact. Every person like this that I've talked to is mostly concerned with fiscal policy. But I honestly think that this group is starting to realize how insane supporting the republican party is, what with all the crazy-ass, unbelievably oppressive legislation that's been proposed in the past few months by conservatives, and I have a feeling that these sorts of people make up more of the GOP's voter base than they'd care to admit.
And then the people that actually support them (including and/or especially the tea party segments of the party) are just fucking insane. Like, I can't even argue with them. They're right, Ronald Reagan was a saint, Muslims are scary, I'm going to hell, etc. You can't debate them. They have no ideological flexibility whatsoever.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

I don't like conservative policies - I believe primarily in free choice, equal rights to all men and women, democracy and that all people should get a say in how their country is run. I do NOT believe in hate at all - and therefore I do not believe in discrimination of any kind. I am also anti-materialist, and an anarcho-syndicalist.

Conservatives are often very black-and-white, idealist in the way things should be, traditional in their beliefs, and often religious. I don't have a problem with religion generally, but when it becomes involved in politics things become biased and corrupt. Keep the state secular - it keeps things balanced.

The Republican Party (generally) believes in "the right to bear arms"; denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry, or even be legally recognised; strict constitutionalism, capital punishment, and a free market.

A free market leads to a hierarchal society, divided by financial status. This means those with less money have less rights, because in a "free market" everything must be bought. If you don't have money, you don't have the right to own anything. So in this system, society becomes materialistic, and money-oriented. And as an anti-materialist, i don't believe in that.

Capital punishment = legally approved vengeance. I don't believe in vengeance; i don't believe it does any good

Strict constitutionalism means two things I am against - the first is lack of democracy. If the government adheres strictly to the constitution, the government can't make independent decisions on some things, so the people's choice in how the country is run (democracy) is not fully recognised. Secondly, and more importantly, a constitution which was written in the 18th century is going to be less and less relevant over time (it's relevance is questionable even today) - strict adherence allows no room for changes in social values to keep up with changes in society.

Denying the rights of legally recognised same-sex couples infringes on my personal beliefs of free choice and equal rights. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, and i don't see how there is any justification on otherwise. Homosexuals should have the right to choose to marry or not, the same as heterosexuals. Now, the argument on "marriage" is tough, personally I don't see why the definition of "marriage" - being strictly between a man and a woman - should be strictly adhered to when it denies the rights and freedoms of some individuals. But to keep it simple, there is absolutely no reason a government should deny a homosexual couple at LEAST legal recognition as a couple, such as a 'civil union', even if it is not the Christian "marriage" ritual.

The "right to bear arms" is a constitutional right in the US. Now why this is a 'right' and other more important rights are denied to some people I can't imagine. Guns are made for killing - simple as that. There is no way around it. Allowing, and almost condoning the possession of firearms is practically encouraging murder. Sure, there are laws against that, but if you arrest someone who's just shot someone else, at the end of the day, someone still died. Punishing murderers is ineffective, because people still die. You can't rely on justice and laws to prevent murder when people are legally allowed to hold a firearm.

The other aspect is religion - I believe in peoples right to believe, so I support religious practices. But I don't believe in preaching; religious practices and beliefs are for the individual only. When a politicians' religious values are majorly involved in politics, it creates an unbalance and unnecessary complication in the parliament. Not all people will agree on one religion, so no on in power should express their religious beliefs as part of their policies. Keeping a secular state keeps things simple, realistic, down to earth and allows for focussing on the issues immediately at hand as quickly and as effectively as possible

tl;dr: I don't like conservatives, therefore I don't like Republicans.

EDIT: In regards to your poll options, I couldn't accurately pick any. I chose "Republicans are racist/homophobic/whatever". I wouldn't ever say that, but there was no option with basically said "I don't like Republicans". I don't hate Republicans, but I definitely dislike Republican policies

 

[The Gnome King]

There's a lot of talk about biasis in the media these days: Walmart underpays women, black men are targetted by the police, straight men are being corrupted by Dragon Age, etc. Today though I want to ask you about initial reactions to a simple demographic, one that encompasses about 50% of Americans - Republicans. Sure, that number's a bit off, but that's not really the point of this thread, what is is how you feel towards Republicans. What is your gut reaction to them? What is your perception? Would you date one, and would you feel different if a friend "came out" as being one to you? I ask this to you Escapists because let's be honest, this is a very Left-leaning website, and I'm curious just how much weight the "do not judge" mentality holds in the face of the Right Wing.

Lots of questions there.

* Gut reaction - Kind of disappointed if I like the person otherwise, my gut reaction isn't a good one. I can't say much more and still be polite.

* Perception - I think they're misguided. Most republicans I know fight against policies that would actually HELP them if they fully understood. Wasn't there a recent poll that showed Fox news watchers to be the most misinformed? (And watchers of "The Daily Show" to be the best informed?) <-- It's kinda like that.

Oh, here's the link to the study:
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/20/Study_Fox_News_Viewers_Misinformed/

* Would I date one - No. And I doubt a republican would want to date an ultra-liberal polyamorous bisexual like myself, either. If I tried it there would be lots of fighting, methinks.

* Do I have republican friends - Yes. We don't talk politics. Usually we end up drinking together and discussing other things. Like... gaming. Always a safe topic.

 

[SleepingDragon]

I'm from Georgia so the majority of the people I meet are Republicans. I'm not the kind of person who lets differences in political views affect my relationships with others. I'm quite liberal and one of my best friends is a staunch Republican. We disagree but that doesn't hurt our friendship. If I hated Republicans I probably wouldn't have any friends.

 

[Rex Fallout]

This is really tricky not stooping to name calling (oh and I dont appreciate your thinly veiled "fascist" insult btw) and flaming.
After reading and rereading your post something struck me in where your reasoning from- a position best dubbed "people are arseholes so fuck them" and then go onto blaming others for your problems, which forgive me if Ive got this backwards but I thought conservatism was all about personal responsibility and winning at all costs?
And whats more I have no idea where this "altruism means not doing what you want" thing comes from- as I define altruism it means others help you achieve and do what you want (within reason) and vice versa.

And as for saying that my philosophy leads to oppression and the preservation of outdated paradigms is just frankly inane, I cant put it any other way then that, maybe I havent explained myself plainly enough- I was arguing in the support of altruism from the perspective of a humanist and libertarian, the very philosophies that carried the torches of these movements to the bitter end, the keeping and hanging onto to crap like no voting for women is the preserve of the tradition loving right.

And yes I am an idealist, i fully recognise that my beliefs are not fully compatible with the baser elements of human nature buut then to me "a man is an overcoming"- the whole point of existence to me is to improve upon yourself for the benefit of the species, and in my opinion nothing that is achieved in isolation that cant be bettered in collaboration.
And your completely ignore the fact that humanity is tribal- we have always depended on our neighbours for survival.

And no I didnt answer your war question as it wasnt my intention ot start an arguement, but I guess I failed at that too- let me find that the post and ill be right back.

Could you please tell me what the 'fascist' insult was? Because I can honestly say i didnt mean to insult you. And I have never believed that people are arseholes so fuck them, in fact 90% of you post is about refering to me as some lesser creature that hates humanity. You've also put me off as someone who aparently blames everyone else for my problems, which I dont do. If I do something wrong I take responsibility for it. I would gladly debate with you, if I could understand where you were coming from with these insults at all.

In your post I just see the thinly veiled praise for the poison of marxism. I have nothing against collaberation, working together we can achieve great things, but then it is not impossible for these things to be achieved by individuals either. History was made by the individuals, ones who refused to accept the status quo that the commune was shoveling at them, and wanted change. You say that the collaberation was what helped move forward these ideals but the majority of people, your, 'collaberation' was against them from the very beginning.

I have nothing against working together to succeed an end.

 

[Togs]

Could you please tell me what the 'fascist' insult was? Because I can honestly say i didnt mean to insult you. And I have never believed that people are arseholes so fuck them, in fact 90% of you post is about refering to me as some lesser creature that hates humanity. You've also put me off as someone who aparently blames everyone else for my problems, which I dont do. If I do something wrong I take responsibility for it. I would gladly debate with you, if I could understand where you were coming from with these insults at all.

In your post I just see the thinly veiled praise for the poison of marxism. I have nothing against collaberation, working together we can achieve great things, but then it is not impossible for these things to be achieved by individuals either. History was made by the individuals, ones who refused to accept the status quo that the commune was shoveling at them, and wanted change. You say that the collaberation was what helped move forward these ideals but the majority of people, your, 'collaberation' was against them from the very beginning.

I have nothing against working together to succeed an end.

And a stalemate is reached- no matter my points you willfully ignore them and regurgitate the same old cliches- you cling onto this escapist fantasy that it was a few great men who moved the proverbial moutain, like your hanging onto some vicarious thrill.
These heroes who you worship did not come from nothing and nor did they achieve greatness on the sweat of their backs alone- Im not doubting they were great people and no nothing would of been achieved without them, but any movement starts small, a tiny grievance spreads throughout the common man (that the political right seems to almost be embarrassed by and tries its damned hardest to ignore) before a leader unites and gives form to it.

And the fascist insult was implied by your logical failure of a statement that the left would of served to keep the outdated and morally questionable practices of yesteryear.

Yet another example of a critical failure in logic is you decrying me as a "poisonous marxist" DESPITE me already clearly stating my opinion on the neccessity of hierarchy in human society.

Do you honestly think that the evolution of society was the work of a chosen few? do you honestly think these people are solely responsible? Have you honestly fallen that victim to political propaganda? To what the stories have told you? Nothing is that black and white, nothing is that simple.

If it seems like my vitriol has increased its because my incredulity is approaching breaking point, your every sentence confirms my previously stated bias that the right wing has a much a grasp on reality as any religious nutter or new age hippy.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Short answer: Republicans suck. Democrats suck. The best political party is the Libertarian party.

Pretty much this.

I'm a conservative Libertarian.

Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom!

OT:
Republicans and Democrats are to broad of terms to use today for identification with political philosophies. Each party in their own respect have strayed from what their party was 'created' to represent. Now days I tend not to associate myself with the left or right wing. Instead I call myself a Libertarian which really encompasses a lot of what I think to be right in one dimension or another.

Politicians are inherently dishonest. It's what they've got to do to get votes. That's just how the game is played.