The GOP and Emotion Politics

[Glorious KASSRD]

Well, if it helps in the arguments, remind that that according to the constitution banning slavery is un-American. But yeah, emotion arguments are really annoying, and are mainly used by people with little knowledge of politics besides "he's a democrats and she's a republican". Perhaps reminding them to use evidence could help?

[Galloism]

Well, if it helps in the arguments, remind that that according to the constitution banning slavery is un-American. But yeah, emotion arguments are really annoying, and are mainly used by people with little knowledge of politics besides "he's a democrats and she's a republican". Perhaps reminding them to use evidence could help?

Using evidence is unamerican.

[Ashmoria]

Well, if it helps in the arguments, remind that that according to the constitution banning slavery is un-American. But yeah, emotion arguments are really annoying, and are mainly used by people with little knowledge of politics besides "he's a democrats and she's a republican". Perhaps reminding them to use evidence could help?

Using evidence is unamerican.

baby jesus hates evidence almost as much as he hates democrats.

[Glorious KASSRD]

Using evidence is unamerican.

baby jesus hates evidence almost as much as he hates democrats.

And we know he does because......uh.......because reasons...

[Rednekylvania]

The GOP has to try to express itsel from within a hall of mirrors. Because of the preconcieved narratives based upon where the Overton Window looks out upon what passes for contemporary culture today, the GOP finds it rather difficult to get an accurate reflection of itself. The condition only worsens when they practice tactics that one, they have no talent or expertise in, particularly emotionally charged pandering and identity politics, and two are deemed unacceptable to use from the pov of the influence peddlers who shape the general public view.

[Ashmoria]

baby jesus hates evidence almost as much as he hates democrats.

And we know he does because......uh.......because reasons...

because our ministers tell us so in church

(some churches, some places)

[New Werpland]

I don't see anything too wrong with conservatives arguing against welfare based on the fact that it's spent on other people's tax monies. Sure it's hypocritical as at the same time they'd probably argue for a larger military budget or whatever, but you'd have to prove their hypocrisy before rendering them morons.

[Lalaki]

Welll, while the GOP does tend to use ridiculous emotionalism in some of their arguments, many of the things you accused of being false are actually true. Welfare does inhibit the economy. Any government program does, because any tax whatsoever takes money away from its most efficient free-market allocation and its use as capital for investment, and uses it for an inherently less efficient purpose. Government is just here to determine whether or not said purpose is more worthwhile than the lack of the program and the return of those dollars/capital into the economy. A lot of environmental regulation Obama/the EPA desires actually will harm the coal industry, as regulations increase operating costs and raise the entry level. If you don't believe this, just ask congressmen/women from coaling districts. Obamacare does hurt doctors because it expands programs like Medicaid, which often pay physicians and other medical professionals disgusting amounts for their service. Benghazi also raises legitimate concerns because Hillary Clinton and her underlings lied to the media, attempted a cover-up, and demonstrated a blatant disregard for American life. That being said, the majority of GOP warhawk and religious rhetoric is still ridiculous. Also, if you want a free-market view on why universal healthcare and universal college education, you should visit libertarianism.org. On the vast majority of the other stuff though, I completely agree.

~Just my 2 cents

See, you've defended your arguments with actual policy positions we can debate. That is exactly what I'm looking for from people like Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker. While I disagree with you on most of the above, I respect your civility and well-researched positions.

That said, let me take you up on that.

1) Other countries with robust social welfare systems have better ease of doing business and have higher levels of economic freedom than the United States according to the conservative Heritage Foundation. Think Canada and Germany. Also, social mobility/equal opportunity (two core principles of capitalism) are more found in nations with more public services. You may argue that it is just because of their low regulations and free markets, but that only proves my point. Limited progressive taxes and welfare do not inhibit growth as demonstrated by the evidence.

2) With regards to coal, we must ask ourselves a question. Are we willing to make sacrifices for the long-term good? Nonrenewable resources having damaging effects on our climate, as proven by data from NASA, the NOAA, the EPA, and many non-government science institutes. A better investment would be in green energy.

3) First off, Medicaid expansion has the potential to lead/has already led to millions of low income Americans attaining health insurance. Without the PPACA, they wouldn't have protections. There are many things we could do to reform the Medicaid payment system, but to cut the program is not the answer.

4) We have seen through many politically-motivated investigations that no indictments have been warranted. At this point, it continues to be a tool for voter manipulation. While our compound in Libya should have had more security per a request from a representative there, there is also proof to show that previous pushes for protections were disregarded from the other side. And with regards to the cover-up, was Clinton really trying to hide facts because it was thought to be a spur-of-the-moment protest instead of a coordinated attack?

[Lalaki]

The Democrats do the exact same thing. Anytime someone mentions deporting illegal immigrants, they start screaming "YOU'RE BREAKING UP FAMILIES!".

That's something I mentioned in the OP. But with regards to immigration, the GOP is demonstrably worse with emotion. Again, Cruz/Walker/Jindal statements prove this, along with the actual Republican platform.

[Romalae]

I don't see anything too wrong with conservatives arguing against welfare based on the fact that it's spent on other people's tax monies. Sure it's hypocritical as at the same time they'd probably argue for a larger military budget or whatever, but you'd have to prove their hypocrisy before rendering them morons.

The problem is that they only seem to rail against a single specific type of welfare on a regular basis: food stamps. How often do we hear from a typical Republican/conservative about corporate welfare or farm subsidies? They frequently remark about how poor people living off $30 a week are "moochers" or "sponges" and part of a "culture of dependency" living off the "government teat." But rarely a word about how corporate welfare in the federal budget costs US taxpayers almost $100 billion each year. $80 billion a year in food stamps to 46 million poor people vs. $100 billion a year to large corporations with millions or even billions of dollars a year each in profit.

Ideological inconsistency is moronic, if you ask me. It's certainly a pet peeve of mine.

[Big Jim P]

Well, if it helps in the arguments, remind that that according to the constitution banning slavery is un-American. But yeah, emotion arguments are really annoying, and are mainly used by people with little knowledge of politics besides "he's a democrats and she's a republican". Perhaps reminding them to use evidence could help?

Forget the 13th Amendment did we?

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Kvatchdom]

I don't see anything too wrong with conservatives arguing against welfare based on the fact that it's spent on other people's tax monies. Sure it's hypocritical as at the same time they'd probably argue for a larger military budget or whatever, but you'd have to prove their hypocrisy before rendering them morons.

The problem is that they only seem to rail against a single specific type of welfare on a regular basis: food stamps. How often do we hear from a typical Republican/conservative about corporate welfare or farm subsidies? They frequently remark about how poor people living off $30 a week are "moochers" or "sponges" and part of a "culture of dependency" living off the "government teat." But rarely a word about how corporate welfare in the federal budget costs US taxpayers almost $100 billion each year. $80 billion a year in food stamps to 46 million poor people vs. $100 billion a year to large corporations with millions or even billions of dollars a year each in profit.

Ideological inconsistency is moronic, if you ask me. It's certainly a pet peeve of mine.

Corporate welfare is useful, but I agree. It is hypocritical to oppose social welfare while feeding money to large corporations.

[Rednekylvania]

The problem is that they only seem to rail against a single specific type of welfare on a regular basis: food stamps. How often do we hear from a typical Republican/conservative about corporate welfare or farm subsidies? They frequently remark about how poor people living off $30 a week are "moochers" or "sponges" and part of a "culture of dependency" living off the "government teat." But rarely a word about how corporate welfare in the federal budget costs US taxpayers almost $100 billion each year. $80 billion a year in food stamps to 46 million poor people vs. $100 billion a year to large corporations with millions or even billions of dollars a year each in profit.

Ideological inconsistency is moronic, if you ask me. It's certainly a pet peeve of mine.

Corporate welfare is useful, but I agree. It is hypocritical to oppose social welfare while feeding money to large corporations.

The combined efforts of both parties pandering to their respective special interests has tempted half the nation into accepting and becoming dependant upon one kind of subsidy or another. At this point it's almost impossible for anyone, be they elected or elector, to rightfully speak about "welfare" with a straight face. To use drugs as an analogy, the issue has become one huge round table discussion where each seat wants to limit or prohibit the use of another's substance but leave their own particular poison sacrosanct.

[Jefferson and Madison]

I have to agree with most of what you are saying in terms of emotion baiting.

My problem is that the Republicans end up misrepresenting what economic deregulation and markets are supposed to be about. Take Obamacare for example. I agree that the Affordable Care Act has raised health costs (specifically premiums/deductibles), stifles competition, places too much of a financial burden on taxpayers, and forces people onto plans they wouldn't necessarily procure themselves. To that end, I support a market-based approach to health care reform that allows consumers choice. I also support certain exemptions from mandated benefits, and allowing companies to compete across state lines.

Do I sound like a Republican? Well, I sure hope not. I would still make sure that all citizens can purchase health care by means of vouchers if they are lower income and have demonstrated consistent employment. In effect, establishing a competition-based but still universal plan. That to me is what our system should symbolize. And that is not what the GOP and the Koch Brothers represent. Their plans are grounded in maximizing profits without ensuring those who need help can get it, instead of actual patient choice via capitalism.

[Diopolis]

This kind of rhetoric is on the rise on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. From the birther nonsense to the "war on women" rhetoric to the benghazi conspiracy theories, it's definitely problematic. But emotion politics are how it's always worked, unfortunately.

[Jefferson and Madison]

This kind of rhetoric is on the rise on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. From the birther nonsense to the "war on women" rhetoric to the benghazi conspiracy theories, it's definitely problematic. But emotion politics are how it's always worked, unfortunately.

That's why we need to be the change we seek.

My side (the libertarians) have also been guilty of it. "DEMOPUBLICANS," they yell loudly without willing to compromise or acknowledging the need for vouchers.

[Geen Gelul]

I'm going to take the risk of sounding like an o'contrarian when I say that all political movements in America are based on emotion, to some degree. Pragmatic, bipartisan politics are a thing of the past, it's depressing, and is beginning to happen in the country I reside in.