A tiger can't change it's stripes

For the last 9 months I have honestly tried to look at poltics with an open heart and mind too hear out both sides of the isle.
After listening to democrats and liberals in general, I have came to the decesion that I cannot support their ideas or ever cast a vote for one.....EVER
I will go to the polls again this year (for the first time ever as Erika) and cast another straight ballot vote all republican. I do this knowing I do not support Romney, knowing that I am voting agianst my own personal intrest, knowing that I would rather vote for whats best for my town, county, state and COUNTRY.

Do what you gotta do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Do what you gotta do.

---

Trish we are old poltical war horses that are far too entrenched to change. The lines where drawn years ago, the diffrance for me this time around is I have a more healthy respect for democrats as people, rather than an enemy.

We'll I'm not willing to cop to the role of "old war horse" nor to the state of being entrenched. My mind is still quite agile and you're certainly younger and more agile than I. All we can do is think about the problems we face, the solutions that are within reach and vote accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

For the last 9 months I have honestly tried to look at poltics with an open heart and mind too hear out both sides of the isle.
After listening to democrats and liberals in general, I have came to the decesion that I cannot support their ideas or ever cast a vote for one.....EVER
I will go to the polls again this year (for the first time ever as Erika) and cast another straight ballot vote all republican. I do this knowing I do not support Romney, knowing that I am voting agianst my own personal intrest, knowing that I would rather vote for whats best for my town, county, state and COUNTRY.

---

I think you should vote for your own interests.
There's an interesting book by Thomas Frank called: What's the Matter with Kansas....
Kansas used to be very left wing. But people now vote for the Republican Party. Why? Well, the Republicans focused and focus on issues like abortion, family values and gay marriage etc., etc. that attract the Christian vote, as it were.
I mean, the Republican base is made up of nativists, religious fundamentalists etc., etc.
So, Republicans have to appeal to them. They can't reveal their true policies -- which simply serve the super-rich -- because nobody would vote for them. So, they focus on issues, again, like gay marriage, abortion etc.
Anyway, we NEED a second political party in America.
The late author Gore Vidal pointed out -- correctly in my estimation -- that there is only one political party. The business party. And they're both right wing. Albeit the Republican faction of the business party is more extreme. And simply serve the super-rich. Whereas the so-called Democratic faction of the business party kinda/sorta represents the shrinking middle class.... Although they're moving in the same direction as the extreme-leaning faction of the business party. Which is, again, to simply serve the super-rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

For the last 9 months I have honestly tried to look at poltics with an open heart and mind too hear out both sides of the isle.
After listening to democrats and liberals in general, I have came to the decesion that I cannot support their ideas or ever cast a vote for one.....EVER
I will go to the polls again this year (for the first time ever as Erika) and cast another straight ballot vote all republican. I do this knowing I do not support Romney, knowing that I am voting agianst my own personal intrest, knowing that I would rather vote for whats best for my town, county, state and COUNTRY.

---

From what I have read of your posts, I think you are a Conservative on economic policy, and a liberal on social policy. That is a genuine dilemma and it affects a lot of people in the US and also in Europe. You have to decide where the balance of your concern lies -some will put social policy before economic policy and vice versa. Although abstaining is an option, I feel for myself that participating in an election is a moral duty, even if, as I have done at least once, I have written a pertinent message on the ballot paper rather than mark my preference with an 'X'. I participated. The vote in the Presidential race is unlikely to matter, unless there is some major scandal involving Obama, Romney has no chance. Your vote is more likely to have an impact locally, but I don't know enough to speak on that.

On the evidence I have seen there is likely to be a decline in the turnout across the US, possibly among the first time voters in 2008 who are disillusioned with Obama, but will the 'natural' Republicans who feel alienated from Romney and the Tea Party fringe also not turn out to vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

We'll I'm not willing to cop to the role of "old war horse" nor to the state of being entrenched. My mind is still quite agile and you're certainly younger and more agile than I. All we can do is think about the problems we face, the solutions that are within reach and vote accordingly.

---

I am sorry Trish, I did not mean too offend. I am steeped in so much political dogma its hard for me to be 'agile' anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

I think you should vote for your own interests.
There's an interesting book by Thomas Frank called: What's the Matter with Kansas....
Kansas used to be very left wing. But people now vote for the Republican Party. Why? Well, the Republicans focused and focus on issues like abortion, family values and gay marriage etc., etc. that attract the Christian vote, as it were.
I mean, the Republican base is made up of nativists, religious fundamentalists etc., etc.
So, Republicans have to appeal to them. They can't reveal their true policies -- which simply serve the super-rich -- because nobody would vote for them. So, they focus on issues, again, like gay marriage, abortion etc.
Anyway, we NEED a second political party in America.
The late author Gore Vidal pointed out -- correctly in my estimation -- that there is only one political party. The business party. And they're both right wing. Albeit the Republican faction of the business party is more extreme. And simply serve the super-rich. Whereas the so-called Democratic faction of the business party kinda/sorta represents the shrinking middle class.... Although they're moving in the same direction as the extreme-leaning faction of the business party. Which is, again, to simply serve the super-rich.

---

Ben, I hear what your saying and as a trans person voting for anyone with an 'R' behind their name could be seen as 'not a good idea'. For a lack of reasoning or just being plain stubborn I am conservative despite knowing that my personal intrest ( lgbt, rights, and trans rights) could be harmed by doing so. I used to work for the GOP, and know full well the scope of unsavory tatics used to get folks to vote. Btw are you Derick Berry's agent? Boyfriend? You have some very alluring photo's of him ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

From what I have read of your posts, I think you are a Conservative on economic policy, and a liberal on social policy. That is a genuine dilemma and it affects a lot of people in the US and also in Europe. You have to decide where the balance of your concern lies -some will put social policy before economic policy and vice versa. Although abstaining is an option, I feel for myself that participating in an election is a moral duty, even if, as I have done at least once, I have written a pertinent message on the ballot paper rather than mark my preference with an 'X'. I participated. The vote in the Presidential race is unlikely to matter, unless there is some major scandal involving Obama, Romney has no chance. Your vote is more likely to have an impact locally, but I don't know enough to speak on that.

On the evidence I have seen there is likely to be a decline in the turnout across the US, possibly among the first time voters in 2008 who are disillusioned with Obama, but will the 'natural' Republicans who feel alienated from Romney and the Tea Party fringe also not turn out to vote?

---

Well Stavros, count me in among the 'torn between social policy and economic intrest' I hate to say it, but I feel obligated to vote because of the econmomic down turn. Without an economy, social justice and lgbt rights and protection will fall by too wayside if we fall into an economic deppression. As far as voter turn out? I expect a big turn out for both parties this year.

Quote:

---

I am conservative despite knowing that my personal intrest ( lgbt, rights, and trans rights) could be harmed by doing so. I

---

but isn't the whole philosophy behind modern conservatism that if we all seek to satisfy our own self interests everything will modulate toward one happy equilibrium? (Not that I'm buying it; I tend to think we have to have each other's backs_which is a different philosophy.)

Quote:

---

..l I feel obligated to vote because of the econmomic down turn

---

Me too, the difference is that I'm well aware that trickle down theory is absolutely wrongheaded. Moreover implementing austerity at this time will make the economy worse...just as the housing market is showing sins of recovery too. Keynesian economics is the standard theory. It's well understood; it worked in the past, it will work now and real economists know why it works. I'm economically conservative; I'm sticking to the tried and true standard practice. That trickle down stuff is not conservative...it's new fangled, false, was tried twice and failed twice. It's a major reason behind how we got into the present fix.

Erika.... I do find it remarkable that even though you know you are voting against your own interests you say it is impossible to change... why would that be? Why if you see the truth of a situation (as you suggest you do) do you not vote for what you see as in your interests rather than the way you always voted?

If you live in Rural America,
You can go outside and shoot your gun in the air all day for a year and never hit anything.
The only person who needs an abortion is the town slut.
You have no need to lock your doors because you know everybody in town.

NONE of these things has anything to do with the Republican Party.

There is a reason you won't see George W Bush at the Republican National Convention- His Policies destroyed the Economy of the entire Western World.

If Dwight David Eisenhower had been President from 2000-2008, there would have been no Delay, Abramoff, or Cheney. No Afghanjstan, Iraq, Bin Laden would have been deaded by 11-11. There would not have been a "heck of a job" done by Brownie.
Eisenhower left office SPECIFICALLY warning about Businessmen taking over the Government. And that's exactly what has happened. Maybe they'll be a coup. ha ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Maybe they'll be a coup. ha ha.

---

Aren't the puppets of the Koch brothers trying to engineer that coup?

Erika,
what is it you find attractive about Republicans' economic policy? I hear a lot of people say they're liberal socially and conservative fiscally, but it's not nearly as specific a description as they think. If fiscal conservatives seek a balanced budget there are two ways to accomplish that. The most popular among conservatives is by cutting social programs. This makes the old social liberal/ fiscal conservative dichotomy almost irreconcilable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

but isn't the whole philosophy behind modern conservatism that if we all seek to satisfy our own self interests everything will modulate toward one happy equilibrium? (Not that I'm buying it; I tend to think we have to have each other's backs_which is a different philosophy.)

---

Many of my friends that work within the party (now a days are pages and personal assitaints) are gay and in the closet. They feel the same way I do and sacrifice self intrest for the better good. I am not saying everyone can or should make such sacrifices, but there is a small stubbron group of us that are in conservative poltics that have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Erika.... I do find it remarkable that even though you know you are voting against your own interests you say it is impossible to change... why would that be? Why if you see the truth of a situation (as you suggest you do) do you not vote for what you see as in your interests rather than the way you always voted?

---

Sacrifice over self....
I would rather try to keep our economic intrests afloat, than agrue over whats happing on the party deck as the whole ship goes down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Erika,
what is it you find attractive about Republicans' economic policy? I hear a lot of people say they're liberal socially and conservative fiscally, but it's not nearly as specific a description as they think. If fiscal conservatives seek a balanced budget there are two ways to accomplish that. The most popular among conservatives is by cutting social programs. This makes the old social liberal/ fiscal conservative dichotomy almost irreconcilable.

---

People are in need of JOBS NOW! Most republicans I know are willing to do ANYTHING to make that happen, including bending epa and tax regulations to encourage businesses to spend and create jobs. Most democarts won't make that kind of judgement call. Unless its for a union shop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

... to encourage businesses to spend and create jobs.

---

Although I disagree that the EPA or the tax rate is in any significant way responsible for the unemployment crisis, we seem to agree on the premise that our current problem is one of demand which spending would alleviate, which btw, is the Krugman diagnosis. And to second Trish, this is the conservative point of view - a traditional textbook response to an economic downturn rather than a wild never-proven theory. You really have to have a deep disdain for language to call trickle-down theory conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

Ben, I hear what your saying and as a trans person voting for anyone with an 'R' behind their name could be seen as 'not a good idea'. For a lack of reasoning or just being plain stubborn I am conservative despite knowing that my personal intrest ( lgbt, rights, and trans rights) could be harmed by doing so. I used to work for the GOP, and know full well the scope of unsavory tatics used to get folks to vote. Btw are you Derick Berry's agent? Boyfriend? You have some very alluring photo's of him ;)

---

I wish I was Derrick's boyfriend -- ha ha ha!
Anyway, everyone should vote for their own interests. What Republicans play on are cultural issues. Like, of course, gay marriage, abortion, and even xenophobia.
But it's politics. It's a game.
And with any game, well, you've gotta decide how you're going to win. The Republicans have decided to appeal to their base: Christian Conservatives. (Oh, you could vote for Gary Johnson. He's libertarian. He might be good with respect to gay rights, transgender rights etc., etc.)
Anyway, change -- whether it's transgender rights, gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, environmental rights etc., etc. -- comes through popular movements.
I mean, Martin Luther King Jr. could've just said: I won't do anything. I'll simply vote. And if we just get the right person in.... Well, the world doesn't operate like that. Change happens through popular movements, people organizing -- and then politicians do respond.
Same with, well, Franklin Roosevelt. It was through people organizing, taking to the streets and demanding change.
Change doesn't happen by electing someone like Barack Obama. It isn't the way the world, again, functions, works.
So, take, say, transgender and gay rights. Change happens when people organize and commit to a popular movement.
But people should vote. And they should vote for their own interests.
Problem is, too, that both so-called political parties are to the right of the vast majority of the population.
America is a heavily polled country. And what you find is that most Americans are social democrats. (I'm not a social democrat. But I certainly respect democracy. And a meaningful democracy would institute policies that reflect the will of the majority of Americans.)

Quote:

---

People are in need of JOBS NOW! Most republicans I know are willing to do ANYTHING to make that happen, including bending epa and tax regulations to encourage businesses to spend and create jobs. Most democarts won't make that kind of judgement call. Unless its for a union shop.

---

Caterpiilar made record profits last year, more than ever efor. Their CEO who already made tens of millions of dollars was voted a raise. The workers were asked to give up their benefits and take wage cuts. Policies that put more money in the hands of "job creators" don't guarantee they will use it to create jobs. Businesses respond to demand, not tax breaks. Power and money attract power and money; that's the gradient along which money flows...it doesn't trickle from the wealthy to the poor, it trickles from the consumer to the shareholders. To create jobs we need to create consumers. We don't need to be firing teachers, police, firemen, public workers and busting unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

People are in need of JOBS NOW! Most republicans I know are willing to do ANYTHING to make that happen, including bending epa and tax regulations to encourage businesses to spend and create jobs. Most democarts won't make that kind of judgement call. Unless its for a union shop.

---

"... including bending epa."
Well, the economy is primary. And the natural world is secondary. Hence the reason we're in this environmental mess.
When Indigenous people look at a tree they say it is their mother. I thought this was a metaphor. But they really believe that a tree is their mother. And the sky is the father.
The point being: Indigenous people have a deep kinship with the natural world. We don't. We don't care about the natural world.
And hence we don't care about future generations.
I mean, future generations aren't gonna care who won the Super Bowl in 2012 or who won the Oscar for Best Actor in 2012 or why did Tom and Katie divorce. They're gonna care about: is the air clean etc., etc.
We're leaving behind a terrible legacy for future generations.
And, again, we've arrived at this predicament because we've decided that the economy is primary and the natural world is a distant second and hence future generations have no value.
When one swats a mosquito one is saying: that mosquito has no value. So, we are collectively saying, because of global warming, that future generations have no value.

David Suzuki 5 of 5 - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erika1487

People are in need of JOBS NOW! Most republicans I know are willing to do ANYTHING to make that happen, including bending epa and tax regulations to encourage businesses to spend and create jobs. Most democarts won't make that kind of judgement call. Unless its for a union shop.

---

I was watching an interview with Warren Buffett and he said something amusing as he often does. He said in his fifty plus years of experience in business he has never seen a business owner or investor turn down a good opportunity because the tax rate reduced his incentive. This goes for the capital gains rate as well as the highest marginal income tax rate.

It is almost pure common sense to realize that good opportunities are created for businessmen not by reduced tax rates but by having a base of consumers who have disposable income. The only people who blocked policies that would have put money into the hands of those with the highest marginal propensity to consume (those living near the poverty line) were Republicans. The businesses of the so-called job creators would expand if demand were stimulated.

If the problem is demand based, and it stands to reason that it is after millions of people lost their homes and now have to cut back, we are not going to restore our economy based on promises of eliminating the epa and dumping arsenic in our tap water. I also don't see how a business is going to suddenly decide to hire more people because various tax rates are slashed, when their business prospects remain dismal. Anyhow, I find the conservative position on economic matters to be pretty low credibility; afterall, what happens to a balanced budget with all of these tax breaks that have no stimulus effect whatsoever?