What Makes People Vote Democrat?

Post Reply New Topic

That would have happened regardless of your vote so you may as well make it the right vote.

Yeah I'm sure people passing unconstitutional items designed to turn this country into a dictatorship is a good thing.

Actually, with this attitude you disenfranchise yourself. See, the Republicans know that they're never getting your vote no matter what they do, so they say f*ck you. On the other hand, the Democrats know you're never going to vote Republican and are unwilling to vote third party, so f*ck you too as far as they're concerned. Basically, you're f*cked.

Vote Third Party in Solid States and Vote for the lesser evil (the Democratic nominee) in Swing States and one finds this problem doesn't occur.*


NOTE
* I'm talking about a handful of progressives voting this way, in a large aggregate it wouldn't work if so many people voted third party in a solidly blue state to cause the Democrats to lose that state. But a few hundred voting third party in a solidly red or blue state isn't going to have that detrimental of an effect.

LaVeyan Satanism is radically capitalistic, so it looks like the Libertarian Party has a greater stake in him!

LaVeyan Satanism is the republican model for economics.


Libertarian party at least looks to protect you from theft. Republicans encourage theft.

Nay, LeVeyan Satanists believe "Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.", which is pretty much exactly what you'd hear from a doctrinaire minarchist!

You should look up again what LaVey says about stupid people. If you consider everyone else stupid (like how Inuyasha does) then you can essentially treat them as nastily as you wish...after all, they're begging you to take their money.

I don't think you're stupid, I just think you are grossly ill informed when it comes to politics and history.

That isn't what I've observed the past thirty years I've been voting. The Republicans favor the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else and the environment more than the Democrats do. Since the biggest crooks are the ones who write the laws, what they do may not technically be illegal but it is sure as hell immoral, I'd even say evil. I don't like nannystate or big government, but I also don't like the super rich being able to exploit things unfairly to their advantage and pretend they are justified in doing so because they measure success in terms of money and power.



Republicans are hypocrites for claiming they are pro-Individual rights when most of the legislation I've seen trying to control the private lives of citizens comes from their side. They favor the "right" of the individual to make as much money as possible whether or not that wealth is acquired by ethical means, and the "right" of that individual to buy the government to rewrite laws for more loopholes for the wealthiest, and the "right" of individuals to agree with fundamentalist Christian values or else. I would say the Republicans are the party of greed, fear and ignorance while the Democrats try to be fair to everyone. As I said before though, both parties are corrupt.

So we should penalize people for being successful, because we can't have people making money it must mean they are evil. What you are suggesting is a class warfare argument which is just plain immoral. About 80% of the rich are self-made, they didn't start off rich. You want to penalize someone for working hard how bout you move to a Communist Country.



What the heck are you talking about, since when? If you are referring to abortion, ever consider the life of the child? The stuff about illegal drugs, you ever consider that when someone is high on drugs they can and often are a threat to others whether they realize it or not.

I'm going to completely and utterly destroy your entire argument right now.

favor the "right" of the individual to make as money as possible whether or not that wealth is acquired by ethical means, and the "right" of that individual to buy the government to rewrite laws for more loopholes for the wealthiest, and the "right" of individuals to agree with fundamentalist Christian values or else.

1. Under the Constitution people are innocent until proven guilty, what you are advocating is directly in violation of the United States Constitution. You cannot penalize someone for supposedly committing a crime without due process and you should be careful because prosecutors have gotten in trouble for something known as prosecutorial misconduct for engaging on witchhunts to ruin people's lives.

2. If you want to look at who was writing all the loopholes, that happened on both sides but more recently it was entirely Democrats, or did you forget who controlled both chambers of congress from 2007 up till when the new Congress comes in January?

3. If what you were saying is true why was it the Conservative Justices on the United States Supreme Court that were against government being allowed to use eminent domain to seize people's homes and give the property to businesses. It was a 5 to 4 decision with the swing vote siding with the Liberal Justices.

4. This country was formed on Judeo/Christian Values while history books in classrooms praise the most secular founding fathers, quite a few of this country's founding fathers were Priests/pastors/etc. or were very religious.

The 1st Amendment does not give one the right to ban religion from the public venue. If you can't handle people practicing Christianity, then you are the intolerant one, we're not forcing you to come to a church. You shouldn't attempt to force us to give up our ability to practice our faith.

I will agree that both parties are corrupt, but the Republicans are saints compared to the Democrats at this point.

I think it's because some of them feel as if they are being left out economically, especially with a shrinking middle class. Others associate the GOP with religious fundamentalism, namely through people like Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson, etc. Still others permanently associate it with Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, even though they are just two people.

Well George W. Bush now has a better job approval rating than Barack Obama, so I'm not sure being associated with W. is a bad thing for the Republicans. At least people didn't feel like they had to question Bush's love of this country.

If that wealth is acquired by unethical means, by exploiting the poor or raping the planet, that's not being successful by my standards.


What are you talking about? What am I advocating that is unconstitutional? I have seen the Republicans push agendas that favor the rich to an unfair degree considering the source of some of their wealth. Like I said, it might not be illegal but it's sure as hell immoral. I've also seen Republicans push a fundamentalist Christian agenda. Some go so far as to advocate a Christian theocracy. Now that IS unconstitutional.


I'm going by what I've seen in my life as a voting adult since the early 1980s. Even when the Republicans didn't control Congress, they still pushed those evil agendas I mention.



This country was founded upon the principles of the Enlightenment, not a Judeo-Christian thing at all. Some well-meaning but misguided Christians are trying to repeal the Enlightenment and send us back to the Dark Ages. I oppose that.



From what I've seen, neither party are saints, but the Republicans offend my sense of what is right and fair more than the Democrats do.

So maybe we should all be living out in the open and living like animals... Seriously, you can't claim people made their money unethically without proof, innocent until proven guilty remember.



What you are proposing is punishing people because they are successful, because in your mind if they are successful they must have done something immoral to make their money. You are doing the very thing you're accusing Republicans of.



Again you're painting an entire group of people as villains just cause they happen to have made more money then you. I would say you need to beware of the Green-eyed monster (which is inside you).



Example instead of a blatent accusation, cause I could argue atheists are trying to send us back to the Dark Ages. Muslims are trying to conquer the world, etc. You accuse Christians of being intolerant, but you really should look in a mirror.



I'm sorry, but your definition of what is right and wrong where it is okay to hurt someone because they are wealthy so they are obviously evil, is morally wrong.

I have great trouble taking seriously anything said by anyone who thinks Glenn Beck or Fox News are reliable sources of information.

That is NOT what I am proposing, and you are misunderstanding my reasoning. I hope that more openness in politics and business will make it harder for some to unfairly exploit people or resources at the expense of everyone else. I am not proposing punishing rich people for being rich. I'm also not saying that all rich people acquire their wealth unethically. What I hope for is that those who do unethical unfair and downright mean things for their self-aggrandizement at the cost of everyone else including future generations will be less able to do that. Also, regarding those who write loopholes in the law where the rich somehow manage to avoid paying their fair share simply because they can hire the best lawyers and have money to grease palms, I hope that stops too. I know, wishful thinking. Those dang humans!



Again you misrepresent me. That is not my definition. You are putting words into my mouth that I do not agree with. What I object to are that some rich get their wealth in ways that are quite frankly not very nice or fair to other people or future generations. And I object that some rich buy the government to rewrite the laws so they can not only get away with doing what I just said, but also not even pay their fair share compared to other classes. None of what I say strikes me as morally wrong. And I want to reemphasize that even if many or most of these practices are not technically illegal, that is only because the biggest crooks write the laws.