why do people vote democratic?

[antsi]

There are two main threads in American government.

One: Americans want their government to give them a bunch of "free" stuff.

Two: Americans don't want to pay taxes to finance government spending.

When we want more "free" stuff, we elect Democrats. When we get tired of paying for our "free" stuff, we elect Republicans. If the Republicans try to actually cut off the flow of "free" stuff, we don't like that and go back to the Democrats. If the Democrats try to raise tax revenues to finance the "free" stuff, we go back to the Republicans.

Lately, the two parties have been trying to have it both ways. Bush and Co said "We'll throw in a bunch more "free" stuff (Medicare Part D), and give you tax cuts too." Obama and Co are saying "You can keep the Bush tax cuts (unless you're someone we want to scapegoat as a bad guy), and we'll give even more "free" stuff to you."

The American voter is like a child throwing a temper trantrum. We want everything! Now! And we don't want to have to spend our allowance to get it!

Our two major political parties are like the dysfunctional codependent parents of that child, competing for the child's affection, and encouraging more childish behavior.

We are getting the government we deserve, from both parties.

 

[SavageEagle]

There are two main threads in American government.

One: Americans want their government to give them a bunch of "free" stuff.

Two: Americans don't want to pay taxes to finance government spending.

When we want more "free" stuff, we elect Democrats. When we get tired of paying for our "free" stuff, we elect Republicans. If the Republicans try to actually cut off the flow of "free" stuff, we don't like that and go back to the Democrats. If the Democrats try to raise tax revenues to finance the "free" stuff, we go back to the Republicans.

Lately, the two parties have been trying to have it both ways. Bush and Co said "We'll throw in a bunch more "free" stuff (Medicare Part D), and give you tax cuts too." Obama and Co are saying "You can keep the Bush tax cuts (unless you're someone we want to scapegoat as a bad guy), and we'll give even more "free" stuff to you."

The American voter is like a child throwing a temper trantrum. We want everything! Now! And we don't want to have to spend our allowance to get it!

Our two major political parties are like the dysfunctional codependent parents of that child, competing for the child's affection, and encouraging more childish behavior.

We are getting the government we deserve, from both parties.

I need some rep to give this man. That's the best way I've seen it put yet.

 

[Phil502]

There are two main threads in American government.

One: Americans want their government to give them a bunch of "free" stuff.

Two: Americans don't want to pay taxes to finance government spending.

When we want more "free" stuff, we elect Democrats. When we get tired of paying for our "free" stuff, we elect Republicans. If the Republicans try to actually cut off the flow of "free" stuff, we don't like that and go back to the Democrats. If the Democrats try to raise tax revenues to finance the "free" stuff, we go back to the Republicans.

Lately, the two parties have been trying to have it both ways. Bush and Co said "We'll throw in a bunch more "free" stuff (Medicare Part D), and give you tax cuts too." Obama and Co are saying "You can keep the Bush tax cuts (unless you're someone we want to scapegoat as a bad guy), and we'll give even more "free" stuff to you."

The American voter is like a child throwing a temper trantrum. We want everything! Now! And we don't want to have to spend our allowance to get it!

Our two major political parties are like the dysfunctional codependent parents of that child, competing for the child's affection, and encouraging more childish behavior.

We are getting the government we deserve, from both parties.

Thats pretty good. Don't forget though the basic idealogy that comes with each party though. That's the one thing that surprises me on here sometimes, when a poster here defends the D-cats on a GUN OWNERS website, when the left (for the most part) would love to scrap all our guns and this website too.(I don't mean you Antsi)

 

[antsi]

Thats pretty good. Don't forget though the basic idealogy that comes with each party though. That's the one thing that surprises me on here sometimes, when a poster here defends the D-cats on a GUN OWNERS website, when the left (for the most part) would love to scrap all our guns and this website too.(I don't mean you Antsi)

I agree the parties are different on RKBA. But they're both catastrophically inept when it comes to fiscal policy.

 

[theweakerbrother]

As an existentialist, I have a hard time understanding why Christians don't vote as Libertarians over other political parties.

To the Christian, giving charitably is a wonderful thing. To the secular Democrat, the same applies. The legislate their own form of morality and demand that everyone partipate in the form of written law. In my view, this forced charitable giving in the form of a new tax is neither charitable nor giving. Forced giving becomes inefficient in the way it is doled out, is offensive to those who disagree with the 'charity' and the virtuous giving is no longer as such because it is no longer voluntary.

People vote Democrat because they've been lied to about them being on their side. We've seen the birth of this thread and discussion several times. My opinion is still the same.

Democrats want the state to be your nanny/mother.

Republicans want to be the authoritarian government.

Both are opposite winged governments that want to restrict the rights of the truly free man or woman.

Jesus was big on living and let live. The time he encouraged others to discipline others was only 'within the family' and was surprisingly silent on a lot of political activity. Especially as he was someone politics was heavily interested in both within his own Jewish realm and from the Roman/Gentile establishment.

I'm reluctant to dismiss the legitimacy of a Democrat's faith in Christianity because they are a Democrat but I understand the criticism. The same goes for Republics. Obviously since I identify most with Libertarianism and I am a Christian, it seems to be the most likely political spectrum or flavour that I would expect other Christians to naturally follow suit. However, I think a lot of Christianity suffers from the same problem that culture does... ignorance, laziness and people are 'born into it' rather than experiencing it.

Though if I must study Christianity at its core, I have to admit that politics (and this will make me unpopular on the board, I expect) are vastly superceding by the importance of faith. I have come to the point where I can live without politics but not without faith. Philosophically speaking, I gain my faith from religion which shapes my view of politics... not the other way around.

:two cents:

 

[apovinelli]

I learned a long time ago to not believe anything that came out of the "Catholic Church", they are just another Upper Management that has Corrupted its self beyond rescue. I feel bad for those who are devoted Catholics caught in Limbo between God's Law of Love and what the "Church" tells them to do. Realizing I didn't need a middle man was the reason I left in the first place.

Well, I am sure you did not intend on insulting my religion as well, but its not their belief in God that is bad, it is their politics. We can have a whole nother discussion about Catholicism but lets not because it will only end up in 2 people being pissed off at each other...like at a bar or in vegas...lets leave religion out of it.

 

[Fletch]

As an existentialist, I have a hard time understanding why Christians don't vote as Libertarians over other political parties.

...

Jesus was big on living and let live. The time he encouraged others to discipline others was only 'within the family' and was surprisingly silent on a lot of political activity. Especially as he was someone politics was heavily interested in both within his own Jewish realm and from the Roman/Gentile establishment.

I'm reluctant to dismiss the legitimacy of a Democrat's faith in Christianity because they are a Democrat but I understand the criticism. The same goes for Republics. Obviously since I identify most with Libertarianism and I am a Christian, it seems to be the most likely political spectrum or flavour that I would expect other Christians to naturally follow suit. However, I think a lot of Christianity suffers from the same problem that culture does... ignorance, laziness and people are 'born into it' rather than experiencing it.

Though if I must study Christianity at its core, I have to admit that politics (and this will make me unpopular on the board, I expect) are vastly superceding by the importance of faith. I have come to the point where I can live without politics but not without faith. Philosophically speaking, I gain my faith from religion which shapes my view of politics... not the other way around.

It's like you're reading my mind. I've stated it before as "libertarianism is Christianity as applied to politics". I'd rep you, but I'm out of ammo.

Democrats want the state to be your nanny/mother.

Republicans want to be the authoritarian government.

Both are opposite winged governments that want to restrict the rights of the truly free man or woman.

"Liberals want the government to be your Mommy.
Conservatives want government to be your Daddy.
Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult."
-- Andre Marrou

 

[antsi]

As an existentialist, I have a hard time understanding why Christians don't vote as Libertarians over other political parties.

Agency is a key part of my faith, and agency is just another way of saying 'liberty.' If we are not free to choose between good and evil, then life on Earth has little if any purpose.

This can have political implications. For example, we choose in my family not to watch certain kinds of movies or ingest intoxicating substances. However I am not generally a fan of laws to restrict what kind of movies or substances other people indulge in.

So, yes, 'libertarian' with a small 'l.' However I do think it is important to make a distinction between being a libertarian and a member or supporter of the Libertarian Party. The Party looks like a mess to me. I see little or no evidence of political skill or ability to accomplish effective change in real-world politics.

I do vote for Libertarians occasionally, particularly when there is no meaningful distinction between the major party candidates. Which I admit is happening more and more often these days. But I have a hard time declaring myself a devoted follower of a party that is so inept and ineffective.

 

[irishfan]

Thats pretty good. Don't forget though the basic idealogy that comes with each party though. That's the one thing that surprises me on here sometimes, when a poster here defends the D-cats on a GUN OWNERS website, when the left (for the most part) would love to scrap all our guns and this website too.(I don't mean you Antsi)

A lot of Republicans want to take your guns away just as much as the Democrats you refer to. (Ronald Reagan) A lot of people on this website don't want to admit that many in the Republican leadership want to take your freedoms away just like the evil Dems do.

 

[Phil502]

A lot of Republicans want to take your guns away just as much as the Democrats you refer to. (Ronald Reagan) A lot of people on this website don't want to admit that many in the Republican leadership want to take your freedoms away just like the evil Dems do.

Well, President Reagan is dead now.
I would venture a guess that I could back up with what the Gun Owners of America think. 90% of Democrats consistently vote against what most of us would consider common sense gun laws while 90% of Republicans vote for them. Lugar scores as badly as Bayh but the general opinion stated here is Lugar should go away. Nothing in life is absolute but the percentages are often clear.

 

[thecanuck]

Very well said about "free" stuff...

 

[IBTL]

Why do people vote Democratic?

Well, do you know what a country that is 100% conservative looks like? It's called Iran.

Ok, I call BS on this comment. It pisses me off when people associate religious zealots as conservatives. Furthermore, it really pisses me off when people associate religion with a particular party.

 

[Designer99]

Ok, I call BS on this comment. It pisses me off when people associate religious zealots as conservatives. Furthermore, it really pisses me off when people associate religion with a particular party.

It has nothing to do with religion. It has to due with how they do business and the literal definition of conservative which is: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

 

[IBTL]

Alright, then maybe that comment wasn't directed at you as much as the other comments about being "Christian" and voting. I saw your comment about Iran and thought it meant another religion=this particular party. My apologies.

 

[irishfan]

Well, President Reagan is dead now.
I would venture a guess that I could back up with what the Gun Owners of America think. 90% of Democrats consistently vote against what most of us would consider common sense gun laws while 90% of Republicans vote for them. Lugar scores as badly as Bayh but the general opinion stated here is Lugar should go away. Nothing in life is absolute but the percentages are often clear.

Everytime somebody says that Republicans are pro-whatever more than Democrats and that statement is opposed with an example then it is followed by "well other than him." A lot of top level Republicans would love to get rid of your guns just like they have voted to take away your privacy(just like Dems) and will sell whatever they have to when it comes election time. Lets just agree to disagree except my position that most of them regarless of affiliation are a lare lot of liars and thieves. That position I can't ease up on.

 

[groovatron]

We not everyone can be perfect....

Actually my question is this:

How can anyone who has voted Democrat in the last few election call themselves a Christian?

:wtf: Okay, someone needs to step off their religious pedestal. For someone who has thin skin when it comes to opposing religious viewpoints, you sure don't have a problem dishing it out. And I thought I was arrogant....sheesh

I agree the parties are different on RKBA. But they're both catastrophically inept when it comes to fiscal policy.

Yep

 

[Bill of Rights]

What we need to do is get a metric -ton of people with truly libertarian beliefs into the two big parties. Really... there are enough ideals in both of them for libertarians to flourish... and this would allow the Americans to take the country back. Simple principles: Small government; there when we want them to be, but otherwise, neutered, inefficient, and out of our way.

Government: kind of like a vacuum cleaner. It only sucks when you use it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

:wtf: Okay, someone needs to step off their religious pedestal. For someone who has thin skin when it comes to opposing religious viewpoints, you sure don't have a problem dishing it out. And I thought I was arrogant....sheesh



Yep

 

[mrjarrell]

What we need to do is get a metric -ton of people with truly libertarian beliefs into the two big parties. Really... there are enough ideals in both of them for libertarians to flourish... and this would allow the Americans to take the country back. Simple principles: Small government; there when we want them to be, but otherwise, neutered, inefficient, and out of our way.

Government: kind of like a vacuum cleaner. It only sucks when you use it.

Blessings,
Bill

The only problem with that, Bill, is that neither wing of the Boot On Your Neck Party has any interest in smaller government. The progressives on the left like it large and so do the conservatives on the right. It's been that way for decades and will be unlikely to change anytime in the near future, no matter how hard we try.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As long as all we do is think shortsightedly, you're correct. We need to get libertarian-minded people in from the ground up.. Sadly, we're about fifty years too late in starting, but that does not mean we shouldn't start at all.



ETA: I just looked back at this and realized it might have come across that I was calling mrjarrell shortsighted. This was not my intent and I regret not making that more clear. I was referring to political thought in general and the tendency of some people (at times, myself included) to look to the short-term goal and ignore the much more important objective, i.e. winning the battle but losing the war. Again, I meant no offense and hope none was taken.

Blessings,
Bill