"Why I'm voting Republican"

Now, don't let the thread title mislead you: obviously I'm not voting Republican, firstly because I'm not American, and secondly because everyone knows I'm a card-carrying, homo-loving, Reagan-hating liberal commie.

It's no secret that CD -- and indeed most of the internet, really -- is left-leaning. Derision of Romney, Santorum, Gingrich et al is a lot easier to find than derision of Democrats. So in this thread, free of derision or scorn, I want to hear from Republican voters, past and present (especially present). Who do you support above the rest for the 2012 nomination? Why? Do you agree with their social conservatism, or do you think they are economically more responsible and don't really care about social views, which they probably mostly espouse to win far-right votes? If you agree with their social standpoints, how do you react to claims that, for instance, social conservatives are almost always judged to be on the wrong side of history (e.g. pro-slavery)?

Republican voters, you can ask the same things back, but I'm aiming this thread at you because the "default" on the internet is pretty anti-GOP.

I will be EXTRA VIGILANT in this thread: there is to be no antagonising, no picking fights, no quibbling, no accusations, and no baiting. This thread is to gain insight into other people's views that you don't understand.

To be perfectly honest, this upcoming American presidential is pretty lose-lose for the rational Republican (in before "there's no such thing").

I think the best candidate we had was John Huntsman. He was experienced, diplomatic, not too extreme, and seemed to just have his shit together, generally. Unfortunately, he was too reasonable, and the base got rid of him pretty quickly.

Santorum, to be honest, is a little scary. I'm a religious person, I will admit, but he seems to be gunning for a theocracy. Not only is that bad policy and against everything America stands for, but it pretty much assures him as unelectable.

Gingrich is even scarier, mostly because I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. He kind of reeks of evil, Cheney like.

Mitt Romney is a panderer. I have no idea who he actually his, because his story is perpetually changing depending on who he is talking to. The base doesn't like him, the moderates don't like him, he's basically a default because all of the good republican candidates either didn't run or have been eliminated already.

Ron Paul is actually my favorite of those left standing. Sure, the gold standard is ridiculous and he has a few other ideas that are a bit out there, but Congress could keep his crazy in check and what he could get done I believe would actually be good.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and that's the way that I vote. I think that social issues are very subjective, and thus a poor reason to vote for anything. While I do have my beliefs about certain social issues, I can't really say I'm right because I don't believe there is a right. I can only judge things based upon that I view as truth, or at least things where I believe a truth exists. There are no truths on most social issues from my perspective, so I don't base my judgement on things like that one way or another unless someone is batshit crazy. I'm a fiscal conservative, because in my experience, with everything I have learned, that system seems like the one that works the best. I'm also a bit of a utilitarian, and conservative policy tends to fall in line with that moreso than liberal policy.

If a great democrat were to run (essentially a social progressive who was a fiscal conservative) I would vote for them. But barring the existence of that option I will always vote conservative, because for the things that matter most to me their way suits me better than the alternative.

I am pro gay marriage. I am, to an extent, pro abortion.I am pro religious freedom and believe religion has no place in politics or running a nation. However, these issues don't really matter to me. Does this make me a bad person? In all honesty, on some of those points (specifically the way I view the poor), maybe. But I am who I am, and that's all that I am. I'm Popeye the Republican man (toot toot).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

While I do have my beliefs about certain social issues, I can't really say I'm right because I don't believe there is a right. I can only judge things based upon that I view as truth, or at least things where I believe a truth exists. There are no truths on most social issues from my perspective, so I don't base my judgement on things like that one way or another unless someone is batshit crazy.

---

Take slavery again as an example of a social matter that divided the nation. Or women voting. Do you think there is no truth when it comes to the rightness of slavery, or gender-discriminating voting? Or do you just think all the big issues like that are sorted, and the social issues that remain today are by nature less black and white?

My own view on the matter is that, though issues today are subtler, and not as easy to discern right from wrong as in slavery, there IS still right and wrong, and we should strain ourselves to choose the best possible options. History grants us magnificent perspective -- we should always try to be on the right side of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. E

I'm a fiscal conservative, because in my experience, with everything I have learned, that system seems like the one that works the best. I'm also a bit of a utilitarian, and conservative policy tends to fall in line with that moreso than liberal policy.

---

Be specific: what is it about fiscal conservatism that works? Reaganism might have led to a flourishing economy in the sense of thriving, powerful, world-scale corporations, but the trickle-down solution seems to have contributed in a terrible sense to the depressingly massive wealth disparity in the U.S. "Trickle-down" and "cut spending!" are almost the only things I ever hear conservatives say in terms of the economy.

I stress to point out, I'm only pushing you on this because I so don't understand what about the GOP and conservatism is appealing. This is a sincere attempt at understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwahir

Take slavery again as an example of a social matter that divided the nation. Or women voting. Do you think there is no truth when it comes to the rightness of slavery, or gender-discriminating voting? Or do you just think all the big issues like that are sorted, and the social issues that remain today are by nature less black and white?

My own view on the matter is that, though issues today are subtler, and not as easy to discern right from wrong as in slavery, there IS still right and wrong, and we should strain ourselves to choose the best possible options. History grants us magnificent perspective -- we should always try to be on the right side of it.

Be specific: what is it about fiscal conservatism that works? Reaganism might have led to a flourishing economy in the sense of thriving, powerful, world-scale corporations, but the trickle-down solution seems to have contributed in a terrible sense to the depressingly massive wealth disparity in the U.S. "Trickle-down" and "cut spending!" are almost the only things I ever hear conservatives say in terms of the economy.

---

I do think that today's social issues are, for the most part, less black and white. The major obvious issues have already been sorted through (in America anyway), and now we are down to issues where there is just a lot of gray. Granted, I know what I believe is right on things like abortion, but it would be very presumptuous of me to say that what I think is the way it should be.

It wasn't like that in the past. There was no "Well, I think we should stop killing, beating, and enslaving black people, but I'm not so sure..." in the mind of any rational and ethical human being. With the big stuff sorted out we are now debating issues such as "Is he being paid too much?", "Should she get this just because she exists?", "When are you alive?", and similar gray issues. There are rational arguments on both sides, and to me not a lot of real answers to be had. I know what I believe, I know what others believe, but there is no way for me to honestly and undoubtedly know that I am correct or they are incorrect.

As far as the economics go, that actually boils down to my opinions on what people deserve. You and I have sparred on this topic many-a-time, but for the uninitiated I will divulge a bit. I believe that anyone can accomplish what they set out to. Call me an idealist, a fool, or anything else, but from everything I've lived through and seen others live through I believe in the power of the individual. I believe that when you excel you should be rewarded. Along with that I also believe that when you stagnate or fail to excel you should not be rewarded. Needless to say, I am very anti-everyone-gets-a-trophy.

There is wealth disparity, but that disparity is not to blame for the current state of the economy. I won't get into an at length discussion of the issues responsible for the market crash and slow recovery, but I will say that it doesn't have much to do with the fact that rich guys exist. It has more to do with the fact that rich guys were given too much wiggle room to play on the outskirts of the rules (thanks, Bill Clinton).

I don't really view the wealth disparity to be a bad thing. The wealth disparity is not a barrier to entry into the working world. The wealth disparity isn't to blame for low graduation rates or the increased complacency within American culture. When not properly motivated any given American would more likely than not prefer to be given something at the expense of someone else than to work for it. This is a problem regardless of wealth. While no Republican really has the platform that I would want from an economic perspective at the moment, Republican's are closer. Entitlements disincentivize innovation and exceptionalism in America. This is not true in basically every other country in the world, but in America it is, and it will not easily be changed (if it can be at all).

I think America becoming an entitlement society will be more or less the end of it barring some sort of massive and sudden cultural shift, and therefore I support conservative politics. I also think that the wealthy should not be punished for the fact that they made of themselves the best they could. I know if I was a millionaire I wouldn't want to be taxed at 60% or more like in some other countries to fund programs for those without the initiative to work themselves into position to be able to care for themselves. Why should I wish to enact that on someone else?

I could get deeper into the economics here, calling on theory and whatnot, but it is late and I don't feel like it.

Sycld, consider this a warning: the tone of that post was RIGHT on the line of "inflammatory". One tiptoe any further and you'd be looking at an infraction. Back right down and play it safe in this thread, please.

For the record, sycld, I said in the OP that I was going to be "EXTA VIGILANT", in caps and everything.

I'm voting Ron Paul or writing him in, I've voted republican my whole life and simply cannot vote for any of the other three. In my view, Obama, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all want bigger government, more gov't spending, more wars and less civil liberties. Paul is the only one running on a major ticket that takes his oath of office seriously and will actually uphold and defend the Constitution, he will actually reign in spending and do his best to shrink the Federal gov't. He will also not send our troops into harms way without a good reason and proper declaration of war by our Congress. On that note, Paul is the only repub in the race now that has served in he military, and his donations from active duty military are several times over the combined amount given to everyone else. If you want your computer fixed, you ask a geek. If you want your foreign policy fixed you should listen to the troops.

Okay, attempting to restart this thread.

Here's the deep, important kernel of my question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1366994.html

You have Republicans -- popular Republicans, respected lawmakers -- in a whole bunch of states making these insane, OUTRAGEOUS punitive laws that defy any sense of right-thinkingness or judicial sense, and seeming to give no shits at all about the constitutionality of their laws. This is just an example, one single battle in what some people are calling a "war on women" by the Republicans. (I wouldn't use that language, personally.) Republicans everywhere are sponsoring and supporting insane bills and spouting enough religious rhetoric to make Afghanistan seem like their role model.

I don't think anyone at this site thinks like that. I don't think anyone here is a religious fanatic or wants stupid, offensive, punitive laws for women, or wants people like this Chuck Winder making the rules -- but that what we get when we vote Republican. The states with the strongest Republican representation are the states where you're finding all these crazy new laws, of course. (Tellingly, the above bill passed 23 to 12, with all seven Democrats voting against.)

I bring this up not as a "checkmate!" but because it's indicative of the ass-backwards unconstitutional religiously motivated insanity that you get when you have fuckballs like this guy running the joint. Now, with that stuff in mind, why vote Republican?

EDIT: This thread is one long row of maesce character avatars. We need Atmosfear and coqauvin in here.

just checkin in to say American Republicans are all crazy and I'm glad I don't have to deal with 'em. All this focus around abortion seems like such a trivial non-issue that I can't take any part of that establishment seriously.

I would vote Republican if there was a legitimate candidate that didn't pander to non-issues like abortion, establishment of English as the official language, create overly-simplistic tax plans to highly complicated systems, inspire student's in their former state to discriminate, or was just so rich they were only running because they had the money and felt like they deserve it. I think Ron Paul is more Republican than any of the other candidates vying for currently or had previously done so. I would give him a serious look, but I know there are a few things that I disagree with and would not think would help the government right now. Maybe his son will be better off in the future, and if he is anything like Ron then I'll give them serious consideration.