After the last eight years, what could possibly posses you to vote Republican?

[Jschmuck2]

Honestly, I'd like to know.

Seeing the state of the country the way it stands now, why would you do it?

I'd particularly like to hear reasoning from the more vocal members on the right.

 

[nageov3t]

the prospect of another 4 years with a rubber-stamp president while a single party runs DC?

 

[sandorski]

Stupidity

 

[Moonbeam]

I just did a thread on this proving that people who voted for Bush and will vote for McCain are incapable of critical thinking.

A fool is a person who continues to do something proven to fail over and over again with the certain expectation they are going, next time, to get a different result. There is no accounting for fools, as they say.

 

[dbk]

People don't like change.

 

[MovingTarget]

Nothing. They had my vote 8 years ago, but have betrayed me for it. Until the R's clean house, they won't be seeing any support from me. The Dems on the other hand are on very thin ice still. The past two years they have had a slight majority, but even this wasn't effective as the R's had the bully pulpit and the fillibuster in the Senate. Any real change in direction from the other party could be (and sometimes was) shut down with the snap of their fingers. The Dems haven't yet shown me that they should be running the show either. I dread pulling any lever in the voting booth come November. Nevertheless, I will try to do so as an informed citizen... I'll just have to hold my nose while doing so.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Stupidity

That's all I could come up with.

 

[Balt]

In before "It was all Bill Clinton's fault".

 

[MorrisDancer]

On July 28 1943 Jan Klarski was sent by the Polish resistance leadership to ask Roosevelt to please bomb the ovens Please slow down the processes. The official Democrat response to Auschwitz was "they are only Pollacks and Jews"

I voted for a democrat once. Never Again.

In the United States I am often accused of wasting my vote if I do not vote for one of the two major parties. I am often told to choose between two evils, as others must. I have always argued that; if my vote is cast for one of two evils then I can only expect evil to win. Therefore I look elsewhere to place my vote.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MorrisDancer
On July 28 1943 Jan Klarski was sent by the Polish resistance leadership to ask Roosevelt to please bomb the ovens Please slow down the processes. The official Democrat response to Auschwitz was "they are only Pollacks and Jews"

I voted for a democrat once. Never Again.

In the United States I am often accused of wasting my vote if I do not vote for one of the two major parties. I am often told to choose between two evils, as others must. I have always argued that; if my vote is cast for one of two evils then I can only expect evil to win. Therefore I look elsewhere to place my vote.

You really sound like the fringe type of person who latches on to some esoteric thing, and doesn't give much weight to a hundred relevant issues.

Do you have a link for your story on Karski (not Klarski), not that it would justify your position if you did?

Here's an interview with him, he doesn't say anything like you say:

2. In your opinion, what were the factors that caused Roosevelt's administration not to act sooner and do more to save the European Jews?

Roosevelt was an American president. When Americans vote for president, the vote for him because they believe he will be a good president. He is not a Jewish, or Polish or French president, but an American president. Roosevelt was a great man. He changed history because Americans did not want to enter the war. But America entered the war. Hitler declared war on America. The president had many tasks and he had to be careful that Hitler did not defeat Russia. If Hitler had defeated Russia, the war would have continued for very many years. Roosevelt had to defeat Hitler and Germany and he did. He saved Russia from defeat. American help to Russia is still underestimated. Large amounts of military equipment were sent. In the winter of 1941-42, America sent 30,000,000 military boots and the Russian soldiers didn't (care) whether they wore two left or two right shoes. Russia did not collapse. The defeat of German was on his shoulders and another war with Japan. He defeated Japan. The United States lost less than half a million GIs. In Poland, one city, Warsaw had greater losses that all of America. After the war, America emerged twice as rich as before the war.

Why didn't he extend more aid? How can I know? I couldn't ask the president, "What do you think about the Jews, what are you going to do." I couldn't. I was just a messenger.

3. David S. Wyman in his book, Abandonment of the Jews, felt that the U. S. should have bombed Auschwitz. Why do you think they didn't?

I knew that the Jews in Poland had their own underground that was divided between socialists and Zionists. Thousands upon thousands of Jews were in the underground. In Poland, Hungary, Holland, France, Greece Jews were engaging in underground activities -- not as Jews. My direct superior was a man of Jewish descent, but he didn't tell me because it would jeopardize, it would be a double danger, one because he was part of the underground and two, because it meant execution.

The world did not know, it didn't know, it didn't know about my superior, he didn't look Semitic. I sent various messages to the allies. I was not the only courier. The American Jewish Congress had their own agents, a man named Easterman who was a liaison with Dr. Riegner in Switzerland. I was not the only one. They were sending reports.

I didn't carry any messages about the bombing of Auschwitz. But I was at one of the conferences with intelligence officers, secret agents discussing psychological warfare, I had several meetings and they spoke with me frankly. At one meeting, they engaged in animated discussion between themselves about bombing the railroad -- "those Jews in Poland are crazy; don't know what they are talking about, stupid -- bomb a narrow railroad, the planes would have to fly low, they would have many losses, the precision of thebombs is not good, for narrow railroads, would have to drop ten times as many bombs. And where will the bombs fall? They will fall on Polish peasants. And what will be the reaction of the Poles to the bombing without any reason?" To destroy from the air railroads would be very costly. And the Germans having slave labor to repair the railroads, they can do it in no time.

 

[Craig234]

To answer your question, in my opinion:

Some people either belive positive marketing info about the right, demonization info about the left, or both, that can weigh more than the facts.

It's sort of like the common refrain among con victims, that it seemed obvious looking back, but they weren't suspicious at the time.

Look no further than the post below from MorrisDancer for an extreme version of the latter category above.

To such people, they aren't voting for the 'factual' party in power, but for the 'ideals' or 'principles'.

The "the other party is still worse" can keep a *lot* of people voting for a bad party.

If George Bush ate a baby, some would say the democrats would probably have killed it painfully, too, they're still worse.

You're going to have a hard time getting through to people who are thorougly indoctrinated. They aren't rational in their view.

It's a little like the people who respond to claims about the 2000 election having really been won by Gore by making all kinds of attacks, and refusing to get informed.

They think the democrats are going to make the stories up, and so they decide they did, and they yell loudly their view. They refuse to look at the facts much.

I think such people are the answer to your question.

They'll vote Republican because they think Bush *tried* to do the right things, and democrats are downright dangerous.

They're voting with the 'if you love America you vote Republican' type level of brainwashing.

Howver, I've never seen as many Republicans who are taking note of the facts (hi Obsoleet).

Here's an excerpt from an interview with one of them who left the Republicans some time back, conservative John Dean:

Amazon.com: You describe yourself as a "Goldwater conservative on many issues," but note that conservatives' "fundamentally antigovernmental attitude" can make it hard for them to govern effectively. In other words, if people hate government, why would they be good at it? What do you think are the models of good conservative governance?

Dean: Senator Goldwater said during the 1964 presidential campaign--and I have found him saying the same thing years later in speeches--that when history looked back on his political philosophy that he would be called a liberal. Goldwater conservatism is actually drawn from classic liberalism. I particularly admire Senator Goldwater's positions on "process" issues, the way he rejected the incivility and intellectual dishonesty that has overpowered conservatism. While he did not like big government--in fact, nobody does and he was merely ahead of his time in raising the issue--he believed that which was essential must function in the best interest of all Americans, not merely Republicans. He never embraced the Reagan mantra that government is the problem not the solution. I always thought Senator Goldwater's definition of conservatism a good motto for good conservative governance: "a conservative draws on the wisdom and best of the past to apply it to the present and the future." Today, conservatives are drawing on the worst of the past, not because they are true conservatives; rather they are radicals more interested in power for themselves and other Republicans instead of serving the general public interest.

 

[CanOWorms]

Some people vote for the person, not a party. But I don't know why anyone would vote for McCain after he chose Palin. How can you let someone dumber than the pretzel that almost assassinated Bush be president after grandpa McCain dies?

 

[Kadarin]

People often don't base their vote on rational factors. Some people will, for example, completely ignore everything bad that the Republicans have done to the US in the past 8 years, and vote for the candidate who is against abortion, or the one who wants to have kids pray in public schools. Or they'll vote for McCain because Palin is "hot".

 

[StageLeft]

Stupidity and/or poor self-esteem (specifically, inability to admit fault and learn from errors).

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Democrat Circle Jerk Powers, activate!

LOL, too true

for me it is that I just don't like or trust Obama, I think his policy ideas sound bloated and expensive/unnecessary and it isn't a platform I want to support.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MorrisDancer
On July 28 1943 Jan Klarski was sent by the Polish resistance leadership to ask Roosevelt to please bomb the ovens Please slow down the processes. The official Democrat response to Auschwitz was "they are only Pollacks and Jews"

I voted for a democrat once. Never Again.

In the United States I am often accused of wasting my vote if I do not vote for one of the two major parties. I am often told to choose between two evils, as others must. I have always argued that; if my vote is cast for one of two evils then I can only expect evil to win. Therefore I look elsewhere to place my vote.

Originally posted by: Kadarin
People often don't base their vote on rational factors. Some people will, for example, completely ignore everything bad that the Republicans have done to the US in the past 8 years, and vote for the candidate who is against abortion, or the one who wants to have kids pray in public schools. Or they'll vote for McCain because Palin is "hot".

As you can see in the post above you that Republicans will say anything to justify their hatred for America.

Besides blaming Bill Clinton you have a giy placing blame all the way back to Democrats in 1943. They'll do that rather than look at the record of Republicans the immediate past 8 years.

There's no words for this other than pure hatred for the U.S., pure.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bozack

for me it is that I just don't like or trust Obama,

I think his policy ideas sound bloated and expensive/unnecessary

and it isn't a platform I want to support.

and the Republican platform of the last 8 years hasn't been

"bloated and expensive/unnecessary" ?

How do you people sleep with such hatred for this country in which you live?

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bozack

for me it is that I just don't like or trust Obama,

I think his policy ideas sound bloated and expensive/unnecessary

and it isn't a platform I want to support.

and the Republican platform of the last 8 years hasn't been

"bloated and expensive/unnecessary" ?

How do you people sleep with such hatred for this country in which you live?

I'll ask you the same question.

I'll quote you below.

America deserves to go down in flames.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bozack

for me it is that I just don't like or trust Obama,

I think his policy ideas sound bloated and expensive/unnecessary

and it isn't a platform I want to support.

and the Republican platform of the last 8 years hasn't been

"bloated and expensive/unnecessary" ?

How do you people sleep with such hatred for this country in which you live?

the excesses of republican rule were only allowed to take place because a single party was in control of the entire system.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the prospect of another 4 years with a rubber-stamp president while a single party runs DC?

This.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bozack

for me it is that I just don't like or trust Obama,

I think his policy ideas sound bloated and expensive/unnecessary

and it isn't a platform I want to support.

and the Republican platform of the last 8 years hasn't been

"bloated and expensive/unnecessary" ?

How do you people sleep with such hatred for this country in which you live?

the excesses of republican rule were only allowed to take place because a single party was in control of the entire system.

:thumbsup:

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: loki8481
the prospect of another 4 years with a rubber-stamp president while a single party runs DC?

This.

Why don't you just vote in a Democratic President and kick out the replace Democratic comgressmen with Republican Congressmen? The problem starts from the top and I don't trust McCain, especially after his endorsements of countless Bush initiatives.

 

[Genx87]

We have witnessed what a one party govt can do. Lets not give the other party at least 4 years to prove the previous 8 werent a fluke. If the republicans owned congress Obama would get my vote.

That is all.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Honestly, I'd like to know.

Seeing the state of the country the way it stands now, why would you do it?

I'd particularly like to hear reasoning from the more vocal members on the right.

Actually, the way I see it, I'd say how could you NOT?

1 - McCain is running on a reformer platform, claiming he wants to clean up everything Republicans have done wrong over the past years.

2 - Also, like others said, I dont want dems running both houses and the white house. We all saw what happened when the repubs had it.

3 - While both parties are to blame for the current economic situation, key democrat leaders were in bed (some litterally (Barney Frank) with the same mortgage companies giving out the bad loans that caused this situation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
We have witnessed what a one party govt can do. Lets not give the other party at least 4 years to prove the previous 8 werent a fluke. If the republicans owned congress Obama would get my vote.

That is all.

Yeah right, what a load of bullshit.