The General American Politics Thread

[Patticus]

I have to say, this is laughably pretentious of you to say. I honestly hope you didn't mean that the way it looks, because it's fucking absurd of you to claim that someone who doesn't share your personal interests is going against their interests because they aren't following yours.

Any woman who votes Republican is going against her own interests by endorsing through her vote (no matter her personal convictions) party policies which would raise her insurance premiums back up to where they were before (i.e. higher than those men get), have the government reach right into her womb to take away her right to choose when and whether to have a family (be it with a man or another woman), and probably make the gender pay gap worse if the Fair Pay Act had passed, which it didn't, thanks to the GOP. If her interest is freedom, genuine freedom to live her life the way she wants, to pursue happiness and liberty and all that good stuff, and do so on an equal footing with men, she is most definitely less likely to find it by voting for an increasingly unhinged, extremist Republican Party fixated on rolling back America to some impossibly simplistic 1950s world.

I call them sheep because they'll believe anything any Republican politician tells them without questioning it. Or at least, that's been my experience of meeting Republican women thus far.

[Shan Zhu]

Any woman who votes Republican is going against her own interests by endorsing through her vote (no matter her personal convictions) party policies which would raise her insurance premiums back up to where they were before (i.e. higher than those men get), have the government reach right into her womb to take away her right to choose when and whether to have a family (be it with a man or another woman), and probably make the gender pay gap worse if the Fair Pay Act had passed, which it didn't, thanks to the GOP. If her interest is freedom, genuine freedom to live her life the way she wants, to pursue happiness and liberty and all that good stuff, and do so on an equal footing with men, she is most definitely less likely to find it by voting for an increasingly unhinged, extremist Republican Party fixated on rolling back America to some impossibly simplistic 1950s world.

If anything's simplistic, it's the view that policies and their effects are so cut and dry--as if half the political spectrum consists of nothing but the unthinking and the exploitative.

In fact, arguments involving gender price/income discrimination, the effects and justice of family law, and the morality of abortion are deeply complex and involve far more subtlety than what's suggested here. There's no consensus even among the people who've invested their entire careers in passionate research and argument on the subject. The idea that there's no argument other than your own any reasonable person (anyone who isn't a "sheep") could believe is astonishingly narrow-minded.

I call them sheep because they'll believe anything any Republican politician tells them without questioning it. Or at least, that's been my experience of meeting Republican women thus far.

Your experience is narrow. It (probably) does not involve the women you've just finished insulting. It certainly doesn't involve the friends I've grown to respect who are implicitly insulted by this broad and disrespectful rant.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[Tornado]

Any woman who votes Republican is going against her own interests by endorsing through her vote (no matter her personal convictions)

And who are you to dictate that? You're not doing a good job refuting the claim of pretentiousness by saying there is some objective standard above their own personal convictions that you demand they look out for first; and if they don't you get to judge them.

which would raise her insurance premiums back up to where they were before (i.e. higher than those men get), have the government reach right into her womb to take away her right to choose when and whether to have a family (be it with a man or another woman), and probably make the gender pay gap worse if the Fair Pay Act had passed, which it didn't, thanks to the GOP. If her interest is freedom, genuine freedom to live her life the way she wants, to pursue happiness and liberty and all that good stuff, and do so on an equal footing with men, she is most definitely less likely to find it by voting for an increasingly unhinged, extremist Republican Party fixated on rolling back America to some impossibly simplistic 1950s world.

Perhaps they don't think the various RNC hardline stances will come to pass if Romney wins. Perhaps they feel the RNC's other stances outweigh those hardline stances. Perhaps they just don't care about those hardline stances. Perhaps they don't like those hardline stances, but dislike Obama's more. Perhaps, heaven forbid, they agree with those hardline stances for whatever reason!

I call them sheep because they'll believe anything any Republican politician tells them without questioning it. Or at least, that's been my experience of meeting Republican women thus far.

My experience with die hard supporters of either party is the same. Do I walk into this thread and threw out huge proclamations about how anyone who supports the party also supports the hard line conservative/liberal stances (which, keep in mind that Romney is nothing remotely like a hardcore conservative nor is Obama anything like a hardcore liberal) and is a sheep simply for doing so? You don't know the reasons there were women at the RNC, and you certainly don't get to call them stupid because of it.

And you know what? It pisses me off that you think you can. Believe it or not, not everyone shares the same set of principles and beliefs as you do Pat. If feminism isn't something that people who are voting for candidates this election cycle are really worried about right now, that doesn't make them stupid sheep. I don't care how many IRL Republicans you've met.

The wide reaching logic of that statement you made, where you literally stated that anyone who votes against their interests in life is a moron following the herd, is idiotic at best. The Republican Party is not the Rich White Men Party with a little asterisk below it that says "And you're dumb if you vote for them and you aren't one", nor is the Democrat Party the Multi-Ethnic Poor Women Party with the same asterisk underneath it. You are allowed to believe in a group's overall ideals even if they contradict your own in spots.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Tornado

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

As much as I want to believe it, I highly doubt these women who support the GOP are sheep going into a slaughterhouse. Maybe some are, but considering that we've seen a lot of them in the GOP I'm inclined to believe that they know what they're voting for and happen to support the very things endorsed by the GOP.

[turbojet]

Perhaps they don't think the various RNC hardline stances will come to pass if Romney wins. Perhaps they feel the RNC's other stances outweigh those hardline stances. Perhaps they just don't care about those hardline stances. Perhaps they don't like those hardline stances, but dislike Obama's more. Perhaps, heaven forbid, they agree with those hardline stances for whatever reason! There are gay people who vote Republican too. So do some black people, and youth, and Hispanics. Are they all stupid sheep too? What about the incredibly wealthy who vote Democrat? What about white men who support things like affirmative action? Stupid sheep?

When it is a 1 to 10 ratio and that is probably incorrect because a third of the total population is disenfranchised from voting, I am not too sure the Republicans could say that having their support is a good thing or true proof of cultural multiplicity within the party. Especially since the ideologues of these likes to think that they are smarter and more exceptional because they are Republican, and Republicans love picking these people to make example of the problems that the majority claim and they tend to do more harm than good(Clarence Thomas) or to jig it up for the party(Herman Cain, Michael Steele). The zealots of them just may be sheep. I understand what you are saying and I am perfectly aware that there are some Black Democrats that need to shut the hell up as well(Al Sharpton), but I am serious. You know the saying, "Not all Republicans are racists, but if you are racist, you are probably a Republican." The same could be said about Black Republicans. Not all Black republicans are self-hating black people, but Uncle Ruckus sure as hell would not be a Democrat.

[Shan Zhu]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Could someone 'splain what Turbojet's saying, please :3?

Edited September 1, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[Sami]

So I took a relatively short Political Personality Quiz of sorts to see visually how my stances stack up against other politicians:

The results were rather depressing:

[Tornado]

Left?! Filthy Commie.[/American political discourse]

Edit:

How did you get your image to work Dissident? I'm sure all of the regular posters of this thread are waiting with abated breath to see how much of a full-blown, buck-toothed war-mongering deep Southerner I am politically.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tornado

[The Kid]

There are probably a ton of women at the RNC that support Romney's "hardline stances." I knew a lot of women in high school that were very against abortion to the point of saying Rape is no excuse for one. You may think they're crazy for thinking something like that, but they probably have their reasons...

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Why isn't there a neutral option on these things? Some of these questions are very vague as well.

Here is mine.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5253/pcgraphpngq.png

[Tornado]

Why isn't there a neutral option on these things? Some of these questions are very vague as well.

Because neutral options tend to color the results.When people are faced with difficult questions with controversial choices, people choose not to answer them than to take a stand to risk offending (See also: "Taking a Romney") and a neutral option gives them a way out without actually answering anything (See: "Taking a Romney: Advance"). The vague questions are also intentional, to get a feel for your stances rather than how you respond to specific situations.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tornado

[Solkia]

Some of these questions can't really be answered by "disagree" or "agree". Hell, some of them don't even seem like they should even be there.

"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."

What...

But yeah, I'll post my results here in a sec, I'm afraid of what they might be :U

[Tornado]

"People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce."

What...

It's a eugenics/personal liberty question. Believe it or not some people still believe in eugenics as a national enforced policy (*cough cough* China *cough cough*), and it would have to be on there for the international comparison option (ie. How well do you stack up... TO HITLER!) anyway.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tornado

[Shan Zhu]

Here we go:

Edited September 1, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[turbojet]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Could someone 'splain what Turbojet's saying, please :3?

I'll sum it up. Some black republicans that are intentionally chosen and highlighted because they are black and Republican truly are sheep.

[Tornado]

Think Joe the Plumber. That was a national publicity on the part of the Republican Party to try to prove to people that they are in line with the needs to small business owners. What turbojet is referring to is when Republicans march said Republican-voting black people around to try to appeal to other black people as if one or two black people that they found proves that the Republican Party is the one for ethnic groups to vote for; and it generally goes over about as well as you'd expect.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Tornado

[Shan Zhu]

I'll sum it up. Some black republicans that are intentionally chosen and highlighted because they are black and Republican truly are sheep.

I understand the "race can be of political utility" bit, but I'm not sure how the sheep bit follows from this. Is what you're saying that people like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain are more cookie-cutter, party-manufactured ideologues rather than culturally black Republicans, and that their African-American supporters are thus sheep in some way?

What turbojet is referring to is when Republicans march said Republican-voting black people around to try to appeal to other black people as if one or two black people that they found proves that the Republican Party is the one for ethnic groups to vote for; and it generally goes over about as well as you'd expect.

I s'pose? I just don't see Cain or Thomas or Sowell as being good examples of this. Cain was a serious candidate for president, not just a side-show, and the other two are influential intellectuals--however we may feel about their conclusions.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[Patticus]

There are probably a ton of women at the RNC that support Romney's "hardline stances." I knew a lot of women in high school that were very against abortion to the point of saying Rape is no excuse for one. You may think they're crazy for thinking something like that, but they probably have their reasons...

And they have probably never been raped (although, well, I can't exactly prove that).

My wife has suffered greatly at the hands of men, and it fills us both (but especially her) with an almost uncontrollable rage when women and men (also Ryan) at the RNC go on TV and talk about how they don't believe abortion should be legal in any instances, or indeed when they talk about how they want "Obamacare" to be repealed on Romney's first day in office.

Women voting for the GOP will do so for a variety of good and sometimes not so good reasons, just like men; Obama's abortion and gay rights stances, Romney's religiousness, Fox News or attack ad propaganda, disillusionment at an administration forever stymied by a recalcitrant house, apathy caused by the continuing economic malaise, and sometimes they might just vote for whoever their husband or family likes because that might be easiest. But when they do, however, they are also voting for a party which often seems intent on taking away the woman's right to choose when and whether to have a family, and on maintaining gender inequality, among other things. While they must have their reasons, it still scares and confuses me.

I'm going to do the sensible thing and leave my post at that. I have no more ridiculous assertions or insults to spew tonight.

My results were as follows:

Oh boy.

[Solkia]

It's a eugenics/personal liberty question. Believe it or not some people still believe in eugenics as a national enforced policy (*cough cough* China *cough cough*), and it would have to be on there for the international comparison option (ie. How well do you stack up... TO HITLER!) anyway.

Ah. Ok. There are other questions that bugged me though and some I just plain didn't understand.

Anyways:

I have no idea what this means.

[turbojet]

I understand the "race can be of political utility" bit, but I'm not sure how the sheep bit follows from this. Is what you're saying that people like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain are more cookie-cutter, party-manufactured ideologues rather than culturally black Republicans, and that their African-American supporters are thus sheep in some way?

I s'pose? I just don't see Cain or Thomas or Sowell as being good examples of this. Cain was a serious candidate for president, not just a side-show, and the other two are real intellectuals--however we may feel about their conclusions.

I am seriously about to...okay.

Cain was a clown who had no idea what the hell he was talking about half of the time. He had no idea about the Libya Crisis and was stupidified by the question. When called out on it, he says 9-9-9! No. He was a clown. A disk jockey with an accent. A moron.

Do not get me started on Clarence Thomas. I know the man's political life by heart and you don't want to have walls of texts filled with rage and indignation

[Shan Zhu]

Cain was a clown who had no idea what the hell he was talking about half of the time. He had no idea about the Libya Crisis and was stupidified by the question. When called out on it, he says 9-9-9! No. He was a clown. A disk jockey with an accent. A moron.

I agree; I feel more or less the same way about Ron Paul and especially Sarah Palin, and a lot of other important politicians. They're populists or idealists who don't actually have a working understanding of the important issues. Still, he was genuinely popular and had a run at it based on pragmatic considerations of electability. Such is democracy. I still don't see this primarily as a matter of race.

Do not get me started on Clarence Thomas. I know the man's political life by heart and you don't want to have walls of texts filled with rage and indignationp.

OK, OK |D I disagree with the evaluation, but it's not worth rage.

--

Edit: Also, those candidate points are ridiculous. Anything that puts me to the left of Obama seems a bit off.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Shan Zhu

[Kiovle]

So apparently I'm a communist...

[Sami]

Ah. Ok. There are other questions that bugged me though and some I just plain didn't understand.

Anyways:

*Picture*

I have no idea what this means.

Humanitarian/Liberal

If I remember correctly, it basically means that you believe in a government that is powered by the people and values individual rights over an all-powerful government, and care more about evolution of government for the greater good than maintaining tradition.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong about this, by the way; I'm still learning this stuff.

[Solkia]

That's sounds about right.

[turbojet]

Clarence Thomas is just a personal pet peeve of mine. I loathe the man. Everything about him, I despise. It says something that I respect Scalia, but cannot stand Thomas.

Also, the scale represents world ideology. Not U.S. Obama is quite conservative.

Speaking of which.

I am surprised that I am not more left...