Why do people hate republicans?

[Avenio]

I'm assuming you're gay? Or are you trans-sexual?

The former.

Ether way, I b that gays should have the right too marrie! I believe every one should be able too do stuff or change stuff about their bodies. But wih in good reason. You can change your gender, but once you do, you should stay that gender. Or you could be both genders! If that's what you wish too be.

That's nice. Doesn't change my opinion about Republicans, though.

[Tyrandel]

Well, they hate me so I hate them. Simple as that really.

To go more in-depth, the Republicans are homophobic, science denying, selfish, short-sighted and completely corrupted by greed. Before someone pulls out the 'Democrats are just as bad!' card, the Democrats did not try to put corporations in charge of the EPA. (Though the Democrats are notable nuclear/GMO phobics, which also sucks.)

Or just read this website.

This is the polarization I speak of-- see its general and worded to include all republicans. It presumes a homogenuous state of mind among republicans. Yet he likely believes his own side of the political coin hold great diversity of thought.

Its not a slight against you Tyrandel, its thought process that is a bill of goods youve been sold.

By identifying foremost with a political party, you are supportive of that party's political views. If you disagree, you should not identify with that party. There is a difference between voting for a political party and being a part of a political party. I vote Democrat but would not call myself a Democrat due to disagreements over nuclear energy, GMOs and foreign affairs.

Also, I never got a receipt for this bill of goods and refuse to pay for them.

[Timsvill]

The rampant support or admiration often expressed by the (R)s for terrorists like the Bundy Militia or those who bomb abortion clinics does very little to endear themselves to me. The absolute worship of tax cuts as the solution for all societies economic issues is at best a ludicrous delusion and far more likely a corrupt attempt to put more money into the pockets of those who contribute to their financial campaigns. Their homophobic policies make me ill. The push to eliminate the separation of church and state is an affront to me as an atheist. The obsession with voter ID laws that are often overly onerous to end the "rampant voter fraud" that doesn't actually exist (even in Chicago) smacks of voter suppression. Rampant gerrymandering, "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality, hostility to rational gun control laws and just about every plank in their platform. The leadership and candidates constantly lie and make up facts, they'll stand against something that was their own idea originally if the (D)s start supporting it and finally the fact that after Obama's election in '08, they immediately began doing everything in their power to undermine and sabotage the federal government and the Obama administration without regard to the harm it was doing to the country betrays the fact that for all their talk of patriotism almost every single one of them are in fact nothing but petty narcissists obsessed with their own power.

Here in Texas, you just have too show some sort of ID. Drivers license, military ID, ect. It's just like at any other place where you need too show a ID. That's the voter ID law. Which I think is pretty fare. Other states should follow suit if they want too have voter ID laws

[Distruzio]

Because my edge needs to be honed somehow

[Ripoll]

I do not.

People are tribalistic.

curious how old are you?

[Scyobayrynn]

This is the polarization I speak of-- see its general and worded to include all republicans. It presumes a homogenuous state of mind among republicans. Yet he likely believes his own side of the political coin hold great diversity of thought.

Its not a slight against you Tyrandel, its thought process that is a bill of goods youve been sold.

By identifying foremost with a political party, you are supportive of that party's political views. If you disagree, you should not identify with that party. There is a difference between voting for a political party and being a part of a political party. I vote Democrat but would not call myself a Democrat due to disagreements over nuclear energy, GMOs and foreign affairs.

Also, I never got a receipt for this bill of goods and refuse to pay for them.

So you presume that one must support all the stances of a party if they are a member, you will vote Democrat, thus empowering ALL of their views, but you arent one.
But someone who says "I am a Republican" is automatically holding ALL views associated with the Republican party no matter how radical.

Thats what you are saying? I want to be clear.

If you hold the view I just described, you are already paying for that bill of goods, by buying into the two-wing Right/Left Party Game.

[Northwest Slobovia]

This is the polarization I speak of-- see its general and worded to include all republicans. It presumes a homogenuous state of mind among republicans. Yet he likely believes his own side of the political coin hold great diversity of thought.

Its not a slight against you Tyrandel, its thought process that is a bill of goods youve been sold.

By identifying foremost with a political party, you are supportive of that party's political views. If you disagree, you should not identify with that party.

This is a fascinating view of party politics. Do you believe that all people who identify with any party* entirely support their party's views? I don't believe anybody does, and...

(*: Not just the American parties, but foreign ones as well.)

There is a difference between voting for a political party and being a part of a political party. I vote Democrat but would not call myself a Democrat due to disagreements over nuclear energy, GMOs and foreign affairs.

...you hit the nail on the head for why. But, wow, that looks like a lot of special pleading on your part. Are you registered as a Democrat? Do you vote in party primaries?

[Heraklea-]

Here in Texas, you just have too show some sort of ID. Drivers license, military ID, ect. It's just like at any other place where you need too show a ID. That's the voter ID law. Which I think is pretty fare. Other states should follow suit if they want too have voter ID laws

Texas isn't the worst, but it is still at times over necessarily onerous. Student IDs and the like don't work (fine, I understand that) but out of state IDs are also no go. Legal Texas residents who met the criteria to vote during the last election cycle were turned away because their DL were not issued by Texas. A number of other ones are also not allowable either. You need to have one of a small number of allowable IDs. That is unnecessary and burdensome. The only reason to be so restrictive on what IDs are usable is voter suppression.

And that is the only part you have to rebut?

[The Black Forrest]

Well OP?

I am not a democrat.

Why should I like the Republicans?

[Olthar]

I'm not a Democract, but I'll answer, anyways.

I hate Republicans because they are often socially regressive and economically heartless. When it comes to equality of race, sex, orientation, or gender, their position is "nope." They support policies to eliminate anything and everything that could possibly support minorities or the underprivileged. They continuously try to cut down the social safety nets to protect the poor, such as minimum wage and healthcare. In short, they're old, rich, white men trying to keep everyone else down.

[Jordsindia]

I miss the Goldwater conservatives...

[Tyrandel]

By identifying foremost with a political party, you are supportive of that party's political views. If you disagree, you should not identify with that party. There is a difference between voting for a political party and being a part of a political party. I vote Democrat but would not call myself a Democrat due to disagreements over nuclear energy, GMOs and foreign affairs.

Also, I never got a receipt for this bill of goods and refuse to pay for them.

So you presume that one must support all the stances of a party if they are a member, you will vote Democrat, thus empowering ALL of their views, but you arent one.
But someone who says "I am a Republican" is automatically holding ALL views associated with the Republican party no matter how radical.

Thats what you are saying? I want to be clear.

Saying 'I am a Republican' means one supports the views of the Republican Party, saying 'I vote Republican' does not.

It is a matter of picking the best out of the available options while not actually agreeing with any of them. I vote Democrat because the views I agree with them on are more important to me than the views I agree with the Republicans on. However, because I vehemently disagree with Democrats on some views I would never identify as one and would happily vote for another political party that better matched my views if one appeared. So far, none has and the Democrats remain the party I oppose the least.

By identifying foremost with a political party, you are supportive of that party's political views. If you disagree, you should not identify with that party.

This is a fascinating view of party politics. Do you believe that all people who identify with any party* entirely support their party's views? I don't believe anybody does, and...

(*: Not just the American parties, but foreign ones as well.)

My idea on party politics actually works a lot better with foreign countries, as they usually have more parties and parties split more often.
I consider anyone who identifies with the British Labour Party to beclosely aligned to it in the same way someone who identifies with the UKIP identifies with it. The British Labour Party may have a bit more wiggle room, such as what policy best supports Labour, but the same principle applies. Identifying with it also identifies you with its goals and viewpoints. If a party does not have an overriding ideal that it strives for, then it really shouldn't even bother to remain intact. Better to split up into different, more ideologically unified, parties and form a coalition government or something. American politics makes this difficult, as the Democrats and Republicans consume any new political movements before they can form parties, which is why the two political parties act so erratically.

There is a difference between voting for a political party and being a part of a political party. I vote Democrat but would not call myself a Democrat due to disagreements over nuclear energy, GMOs and foreign affairs.

...you hit the nail on the head for why. But, wow, that looks like a lot of special pleading on your part. Are you registered as a Democrat? Do you vote in party primaries?

I am not registered as a Democrat and do not vote in party primaries.


This may become a threadjack. If anyone would like, I could create a new thread on the topic.

[Jordsindia]

I'm not a Democract, but I'll answer, anyways.

I hate Republicans because they are often socially regressive and economically heartless. When it comes to equality of race, sex, orientation, or gender, their position is "nope." They support policies to eliminate anything and everything that could possibly support minorities or the underprivileged. They continuously try to cut down the social safety nets to protect the poor, such as minimum wage and healthcare. In short, they're old, rich, white men trying to keep everyone else down.

Oh, please. Those programs are unsustainable and you know it, they are bankrupting our country. Something has to be done with them. Cutting it is one thing that could be done. (Before you go berzerk, I also support some cuts to the military, but this will not be near enough to solve any spending problem)

Old, white men? Just stop, seriously. You KNOW this isn't true.

[Timsvill]

Here in Texas, you just have too show some sort of ID. Drivers license, military ID, ect. It's just like at any other place where you need too show a ID. That's the voter ID law. Which I think is pretty fare. Other states should follow suit if they want too have voter ID laws

Texas isn't the worst, but it is still at times over necessarily onerous. Student IDs and the like don't work (fine, I understand that) but out of state IDs are also no go. Legal Texas residents who met the criteria to vote during the last election cycle were turned away because their DL were not issued by Texas. A number of other ones are also not allowable either. You need to have one of a small number of allowable IDs. That is unnecessary and burdensome. The only reason to be so restrictive on what IDs are usable is voter suppression.

And that is the only part you have to rebut?

If we didn't have voters ID. Then people would vote multiple times at multiple places. They would do this too help the person he or she voted for win. We have voters ID to help prevent that. All you have too do is show some sort of ID to vote! You do that at other places!

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

Most people on NS are leftist nutters. Take everything they say with about a teaspoon of salt. Also, glad that this is my 1000th post.

[Scyobayrynn]

So you presume that one must support all the stances of a party if they are a member, you will vote Democrat, thus empowering ALL of their views, but you arent one.
But someone who says "I am a Republican" is automatically holding ALL views associated with the Republican party no matter how radical.

Thats what you are saying? I want to be clear.

Saying 'I am a Republican' means one supports the views of the Republican Party, saying 'I vote Republican' does not.

It is a matter of picking the best out of the available options while not actually agreeing with any of them. I vote Democrat because the views I agree with them on are more important to me than the views I agree with the Republicans on. However, because I vehemently disagree with Democrats on some views I would never identify as one and would happily vote for another political party that better matched my views if one appeared. So far, none has and the Democrats remain the party I oppose the least.

This is a fascinating view of party politics. Do you believe that all people who identify with any party* entirely support their party's views? I don't believe anybody does, and...

(*: Not just the American parties, but foreign ones as well.)

My idea on party politics actually works a lot better with foreign countries, as they usually have more parties and parties split more often.
I consider anyone who identifies with the British Labour Party to beclosely aligned to it in the same way someone who identifies with the UKIP identifies with it. The British Labour Party may have a bit more wiggle room, such as what policy best supports Labour, but the same principle applies. Identifying with it also identifies you with its goals and viewpoints. If a party does not have an overriding ideal that it strives for, then it really shouldn't even bother to remain intact. Better to split up into different, more ideologically unified, parties and form a coalition government or something. American politics makes this difficult, as the Democrats and Republicans consume any new political movements before they can form parties, which is why the two political parties act so erratically.

...you hit the nail on the head for why. But, wow, that looks like a lot of special pleading on your part. Are you registered as a Democrat? Do you vote in party primaries?

I am not registered as a Democrat and do not vote in party primaries.


This may become a threadjack. If anyone would like, I could create a new thread on the topic.

Okay but you do understand that if you asked the Heads of these Parties, if you asked even the most radical members none of them would say they agree with every single view of the party as whole right?

I mean you understand that the official position of both the Democrat and Republican Parties is to be as inclusive as possible-- that is to say we all dont agree with each other entirely, we just agree with the other guys even less.

And by your generalization you are in fact far more radical in your view of the opposition than say The Islamic State Group.

[Reploid Productions]

Most people on NS are leftist nutters. Take everything they say with about a teaspoon of salt.

How about we not make with the "All X are Y" trolling, mm'kay?

[Manisdog]

I like the Republicans

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

Most people on NS are leftist nutters. Take everything they say with about a teaspoon of salt.

How about we not make with the "All X are Y" trolling, mm'kay?

In my defence, I did say most.

[Manisdog]

Most people on NS are leftist nutters. Take everything they say with about a teaspoon of salt.

How about we not make with the "All X are Y" trolling, mm'kay?

Hey If I say all birds have wings would it be considered as trolling or stating a universal fact

just asking ?

[Scyobayrynn]

I'm not a Democract, but I'll answer, anyways.

I hate Republicans because they are often socially regressive and economically heartless. When it comes to equality of race, sex, orientation, or gender, their position is "nope." They support policies to eliminate anything and everything that could possibly support minorities or the underprivileged. They continuously try to cut down the social safety nets to protect the poor, such as minimum wage and healthcare. In short, they're old, rich, white men trying to keep everyone else down.

Oh, please. Those programs are unsustainable and you know it, they are bankrupting our country. Something has to be done with them. Cutting it is one thing that could be done. (Before you go berzerk, I also support some cuts to the military, but this will not be near enough to solve any spending problem)

Old, white men? Just stop, seriously. You KNOW this isn't true.

It really is true.

and its Rich Old White men, they dont care for working class Whites either I mean beyond using fear mongering and pandering to the lowest common denominator to get the votes then they have no use for the working poor, and absolutely no intention of doing anything to help them be anything but poor.

[Heraklea-]

If we didn't have voters ID. Then people would vote multiple times at multiple places. They would do this too help the person he or she voted for win. We have voters ID to help prevent that. All you have too do is show some sort of ID to vote! You do that at other places!

Do you have any evidence this happens? There are no voter ID requirements in California. There is no noticeable amounts of voter fraud in the state. Does it happen? Maybe, but the number of times it does is so minuscule as to be meaningless. Voter fraud is not actually a problem. So why create solutions for problems that don't exist?

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

Oh, please. Those programs are unsustainable and you know it, they are bankrupting our country. Something has to be done with them. Cutting it is one thing that could be done. (Before you go berzerk, I also support some cuts to the military, but this will not be near enough to solve any spending problem)

Old, white men? Just stop, seriously. You KNOW this isn't true.

It really is true.

and its Rich Old White men, they dont care for working class Whites either I mean beyond using fear mongering and pandering to the lowest common denominator to get the votes then they have no use for the working poor, and absolutely no intention of doing anything to help them be anything but poor.

So is this not "All the X are Y" trolling, then? Just checking.

[Tyrandel]

Saying 'I am a Republican' means one supports the views of the Republican Party, saying 'I vote Republican' does not.

It is a matter of picking the best out of the available options while not actually agreeing with any of them. I vote Democrat because the views I agree with them on are more important to me than the views I agree with the Republicans on. However, because I vehemently disagree with Democrats on some views I would never identify as one and would happily vote for another political party that better matched my views if one appeared. So far, none has and the Democrats remain the party I oppose the least.



My idea on party politics actually works a lot better with foreign countries, as they usually have more parties and parties split more often.
I consider anyone who identifies with the British Labour Party to beclosely aligned to it in the same way someone who identifies with the UKIP identifies with it. The British Labour Party may have a bit more wiggle room, such as what policy best supports Labour, but the same principle applies. Identifying with it also identifies you with its goals and viewpoints. If a party does not have an overriding ideal that it strives for, then it really shouldn't even bother to remain intact. Better to split up into different, more ideologically unified, parties and form a coalition government or something. American politics makes this difficult, as the Democrats and Republicans consume any new political movements before they can form parties, which is why the two political parties act so erratically.



I am not registered as a Democrat and do not vote in party primaries.


This may become a threadjack. If anyone would like, I could create a new thread on the topic.

Okay but you do understand that if you asked the Heads of these Parties, if you asked even the most radical members none of them would say they agree with every single view of the party as whole right?

I mean you understand that the official position of both the Democrat and Republican Parties is to be as inclusive as possible-- that is to say we all dont agree with each other entirely, we just agree with the other guys even less.

And by your generalization you are in fact far more radical in your view of the opposition than say The Islamic State Group.

Yes, I know the Democratic and Republican Parties want to be inclusive. That is a bad thing. It prevents the formation of distinct party ideologies and forces American politics into a deadlock between two factions nobody actually likes or supports. It also allows for radical groups like the Tea Party to highjack a major political party, rather than getting stuck as a weak minor party like the UKIP or BNP.

Also, unless I have been beheading Republicans in my sleep, I do not think I am comparable to ISIS.

[Scyobayrynn]

It really is true.

and its Rich Old White men, they dont care for working class Whites either I mean beyond using fear mongering and pandering to the lowest common denominator to get the votes then they have no use for the working poor, and absolutely no intention of doing anything to help them be anything but poor.

So is this not "All the X are Y" trolling, then? Just checking.

No it isnt, because I am speaking of a perceived view of a political party, not the members of this forum.