Six Good Reasons to Vote Republican

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,250
3,844
75
Six Good Reasons to Vote Democrat

1. I want to live in an America where economic success is available to all, not just the already-rich.

Historically, wealth has been concentrated in a select few rich people. The United States for the past century has been an exception to this rule. When the rich are exceptionally rich, the poor can't afford the luxuries of things like education that allow them the opportunity to become rich. We need Democrats to tax the rich so the American Dream isn't bartered away.

2. I want fair health care.

I believe that no American should be denied affordable health care for reasons that are out of their control, such as gender, age, or preexisting medical conditions. "Obamacare" protects us, at least to some degree, from insurance companies that would rather get rid of expensive clients than negotiate with providers to lower costs.

3. I want the federal government to reverse its metastatic growth.

Yes, we all want the same thing. Sure, since 2006, federal spending has increased by nearly a trillion dollars. Because of irresponsible, simultaneous tax cuts and spending increases by Republicans, it was necessary for Republicans and Democrats to work together on the bailout and stimulus to avert another great depression. We absolutely need to cut spending, but I don't trust Republicans to do so, at least not responsibly. I also want to see taxes increased, to stop our spiraling debt to China.

4. I want a House and Senate that can compromise and get things done.

Politics has become so polarized that the two parties have stopped compromising. Once they did that, they found it's a great way to get reelected after a loss. The only way I see to break this cycle is to vote for centrists. Tea Partiers don't just toe the party line on the right, they tow the party line to the right, away from the center. Many of their opponents are blue-dog democrats, who also "tow" their party line, but towards the center. Vote for a blue-dog democrat if you want a functional government.

5. I want to be able to disagree with Republicans without being berated with nonsense.

In recent years, Republicans have decided to appeal to the lowest common IQ. Eloquent orators spout nonsense that is contrary to all rational, scientific analysis, precisely to be contrary. Science is the best way we know of to discover truth. Fraud in science is rare and absolutely scandalous when discovered. Don't give up on science and scientists so quickly!

6. I want to be keep the American Dream alive.

America no longer has the luxury of believing in its own exceptionalism. While we squabble over who gets to hold a gavel, countries like China are grasping the lead in virtually every area, from manufacturing to finance to the high-tech sector. We can't just believe in our exceptionalism, we need to work harder than ever to earn it! And we need a government that will turn the ship of state toward that goal.

Vote tomorrow for a more rational, more functional, and more prosperous America. Vote Democrat.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
I spent all night reading about who was on my ballot tomorrow. Everyone being elected for federal office from one of the two major parties was primarily interested in "bringing jobs to Missoura (sic)." Really? You're campaigning based on earmarks? My other favorite was the incumbent state auditor, whose priority on reelection would be, "making sure the economy is working." Really? WTF? What else can I even say? Are people really this stupid? Does anyone really think that a D or an R is different from the other at the national level? No, they're not. Read a voter's guide online somewhere and you'll see that they are almost identical in platform. These parties are a joke. Supporting one to oust the other is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But none of us is as dumb as all of us, so my vote is worth less than nothing. Still, unlike in years past, I will vote tomorrow. I won't vote for anyone from either major party in any national elections, even though I looked at the candidates' stances without considering party before making my decision. I know I'm in the vast minority here and that almost no one will care what I have to say, but there it is.

/rant
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
If I were you I'd be wondering why I am living in a country that forces me to take orders from a community organizer from Chicago.

Son, we had the freedom to get rid of our puppet while you kept yours.

I take orders from no man i get one mission and then it is up to me.

You actually thought the SAS takes orders from US officers? Hell, from what i seen, not even the US troops follow any orders but in their case it's more a lack of doing anything what so ever.

I have no duty to the flag or country though, only to the SAS, the UK is a piss poor excuse of a nation, about one tenth as piss poor of a nation that the US is, which puts it marginally over Uganda.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I spent all night reading about who was on my ballot tomorrow. Everyone being elected for federal office from one of the two major parties was primarily interested in "bringing jobs to Missoura (sic)." Really? You're campaigning based on earmarks? My other favorite was the incumbent state auditor, whose priority on reelection would be, "making sure the economy is working." Really? WTF? What else can I even say? Are people really this stupid? Does anyone really think that a D or an R is different from the other at the national level? No, they're not. Read a voter's guide online somewhere and you'll see that they are almost identical in platform. These parties are a joke. Supporting one to oust the other is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But none of us is as dumb as all of us, so my vote is worth less than nothing. Still, unlike in years past, I will vote tomorrow. I won't vote for anyone from either major party in any national elections, even though I looked at the candidates' stances without considering party before making my decision. I know I'm in the vast minority here and that almost no one will care what I have to say, but there it is.

/rant

It won't matter much to you or anyone else but you did earn some respect from me with that stance.

Voting should be about exactly that, not about slogans and bullsheit but on people who have declared what actions they will take, what they will support and what they are against on ITEMS, not "i'm for freedom".. yippiee, so is everone else but since they didn't say that i suppose i should vote for you since you are for it...

The last UK election was a strange one, people knew they would get less money voting for the LibDems and yet they did because they realised that Labour was mostly just a puppet of the US policies, funny, isn't it, the most socialist party in the UK followed lockstep with what you are calling the non-socialist party of the US, the Republicans... and yet Americans say we are to the left even with our conservatives and Liberal Democrats..

A debate on actual issues and proposed solutions would be won hands down by any party of the US that resembles the LibDem and yet not one voter would care, they know the drill, tow the party line, tow it whether you are a Dem, Rep or Libertian, just tow it right over a fucking cliff and smile as it crushes you on the way down.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am going to vote a straight Party ticket. And I am going to vote Republican.

I know that there are good Democrats out there, a few I can count as very dear personal friends.

I know there are good liberals out there, more than a few I can count as very dear personal friends, though we do love to argue.

But the time has come for a wholesale rejection of what the "progressive" Democrat Party has become - an illiberal Party devoted to Big Government even at the cost of national bankruptcy.

So why do you live here when you hate the country so much?
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
index.php
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Son, we had the freedom to get rid of our puppet while you kept yours.

I take orders from no man i get one mission and then it is up to me.

You actually thought the SAS takes orders from US officers? Hell, from what i seen, not even the US troops follow any orders but in their case it's more a lack of doing anything what so ever.

I have no duty to the flag or country though, only to the SAS, the UK is a piss poor excuse of a nation, about one tenth as piss poor of a nation that the US is, which puts it marginally over Uganda.

I'm not sure Obama is technically an 'officer', so I guess you are right. You take orders from our commander in chief who is technically a civilian.. one that organizes communities. He's helping you organize Afghanistan.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Six Good Reasons to Vote Democrat

1. I want to live in an America where economic success is available to all, not just the already-rich.

Historically, wealth has been concentrated in a select few rich people. The United States for the past century has been an exception to this rule. When the rich are exceptionally rich, the poor can't afford the luxuries of things like education that allow them the opportunity to become rich. We need Democrats to tax the rich so the American Dream isn't bartered away.

2. I want fair health care.

I believe that no American should be denied affordable health care for reasons that are out of their control, such as gender, age, or preexisting medical conditions. "Obamacare" protects us, at least to some degree, from insurance companies that would rather get rid of expensive clients than negotiate with providers to lower costs.

3. I want the federal government to reverse its metastatic growth.

Yes, we all want the same thing. Sure, since 2006, federal spending has increased by nearly a trillion dollars. Because of irresponsible, simultaneous tax cuts and spending increases by Republicans, it was necessary for Republicans and Democrats to work together on the bailout and stimulus to avert another great depression. We absolutely need to cut spending, but I don't trust Republicans to do so, at least not responsibly. I also want to see taxes increased, to stop our spiraling debt to China.

.


1. Their will always be rich people in a capitalist society. How does some people being rich stop a poor person from affording things? The poor in the US live better than the middle class in many places. Everyone gets free public education up to high school and there are plenty decent government subsidized (i.e. public) universities and colleges that are cheap and there are cheap, private community colleges also.

The government also controls school loans, so pretty much anyone can take out a loan of $250,000 (LOL WTF?) to go to an expensive private university if you can get it. BTW, the government is driving up costs of private universities by doing this, good job Obama.

This is america, put in the damn effort, anyone can get an education if they want to. You have to want it though.


2. Obamacare does not do a damn thing to lower health care costs, its a handout to the insurance industry. The whole government-healthcare-insurance system needs to be radically changed.

Also its unconstitutional requiring people to get health insurance if they do not want it or can't afford it.

3. Ah yes, the same bullshit line about we have to spend money to get avert another great depression. We've been hearing this for almost 2 years now? No matter how much people say this doesn't make it true.

The democrats have been in power for 4 years, they have shit to show for it as far as I'm concerned. Well we do have more debt and more government control of the country, which the liberals love, so I could see why liberals would vote democrat. Fortunately most of the country does not want this, as will be shown today. Many have even been there for 20 years+ (Barney Frank LOL). I'm voting against all incumbents and if the new guys don't have something to show me in 2 years I'll happily vote them out too.
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Sound bites / talking points do not make good reasons for voting one way or another.

You should vote for the better candidate, not Democrats or Republicans.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,171
42,224
136
I believe that many Independent voices are better than the duality of the two major Parties. However, until an independent Party like the Modern Whigs gains substantial traction, we are stuck with Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. Both have failed us, but I have some real hope that the influence of the Tea Party and their massive re-energizing of the Republicans will be an important step to keeping the R's on the right track. And if they don't, there is always 2012.

images
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
It won't matter much to you or anyone else but you did earn some respect from me with that stance.

Voting should be about exactly that, not about slogans and bullsheit but on people who have declared what actions they will take, what they will support and what they are against on ITEMS, not "i'm for freedom".. yippiee, so is everone else but since they didn't say that i suppose i should vote for you since you are for it...

The last UK election was a strange one, people knew they would get less money voting for the LibDems and yet they did because they realised that Labour was mostly just a puppet of the US policies, funny, isn't it, the most socialist party in the UK followed lockstep with what you are calling the non-socialist party of the US, the Republicans... and yet Americans say we are to the left even with our conservatives and Liberal Democrats..

A debate on actual issues and proposed solutions would be won hands down by any party of the US that resembles the LibDem and yet not one voter would care, they know the drill, tow the party line, tow it whether you are a Dem, Rep or Libertian, just tow it right over a fucking cliff and smile as it crushes you on the way down.
I read a book on British culture before I came over there this January. It's amazing how different it is from US culture, but the thing I found most depressing was that the British think people in the US are morons because we actually believe the earnest crap our politicians spew at us. Until then, I never realized that people here actually bought it - I just assumed that politicians spoke that way because that was the way politicians spoke.

edit: And yes, the UK is well to the right of the US, which is one of the big reasons I came back. It's scary that even the academics there are in love with the CCTVs everywhere and heavy-handed police work.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
The question i posed is if it's possible to have three parties in the senate and house rather than two and if that could force negotiations, as i admittedly don't know enough about US political system to know if that can happen that is what i want to know, do you know?

Well, we actually have Senators from other parties. I think Bernie Sanders is a member of the Socialist party, and I think 1 other is an Independant.

But seems both the House and the Senate have rules that tend to force these 3rd party Congresspersons to join/associate with either the Dems or Repubs.

According to their rules, whichever party has the majority gets the power. They get all the committee chairmanships and the leadership positions (decide what gets scheduled for a vote and what just dies in the stack of bills/legislation left in the drawer etc).

Right now, those two 3rd party Senators are aligned ("caucus") with the Democrats. For all practical purposes they are Democrats.

Fern
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Bernie is Independent party. He has described his views as Democratic Socialist. I consider him a Canadian populist type Democrat.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,072
1,553
126
Progressive Democrats are very different from corporatist Democrats and Republicans.

Name one progressive democrat who can be trusted?
IMO, the party as a whole is corrupt and pretty much you have to sell out to be in the party.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,006
47,965
136
1. Their will always be rich people in a capitalist society. How does some people being rich stop a poor person from affording things? The poor in the US live better than the middle class in many places. Everyone gets free public education up to high school and there are plenty decent government subsidized (i.e. public) universities and colleges that are cheap and there are cheap, private community colleges also.

The government also controls school loans, so pretty much anyone can take out a loan of $250,000 (LOL WTF?) to go to an expensive private university if you can get it. BTW, the government is driving up costs of private universities by doing this, good job Obama.

This is america, put in the damn effort, anyone can get an education if they want to. You have to want it though.


2. Obamacare does not do a damn thing to lower health care costs, its a handout to the insurance industry. The whole government-healthcare-insurance system needs to be radically changed.

Also its unconstitutional requiring people to get health insurance if they do not want it or can't afford it.

3. Ah yes, the same bullshit line about we have to spend money to get avert another great depression. We've been hearing this for almost 2 years now? No matter how much people say this doesn't make it true.

The democrats have been in power for 4 years, they have shit to show for it as far as I'm concerned. Well we do have more debt and more government control of the country, which the liberals love, so I could see why liberals would vote democrat. Fortunately most of the country does not want this, as will be shown today. Many have even been there for 20 years+ (Barney Frank LOL). I'm voting against all incumbents and if the new guys don't have something to show me in 2 years I'll happily vote them out too.

1.) The gains in wealth made by the United States since 1970 have gone overwhelmingly to the top quintile.

Population of the US increased from 200 million to 300 million from 1970-present. (around a 50% increase)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_United_States_Census
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=current+us+population

The GDP of the United States increased from around 3.8 trillion to 13 trillion in inflation adjusted terms during this time. (around a 300% increase)

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230&page=3&count=100

The median personal income in the US increased by about 5%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Income_in_the_United_States

This has nothing to do with rich people stopping other people from having good lives, but those numbers hardly indicate that economic success has been available to all people to an equal extent. It doesn't have to be perfect, but certainly it should be better than this.

2.) He said fair health care, not about cost decreases. While I agree that it won't limit costs nearly as much as it should have, it will help some. More importantly it lays the groundwork for future legislation.

If you believe it is unconstitutional I'm sorry but it's extremely likely you are going to be met with a terrible surprise when it hits the USSC. This court is very friendly to expansive government interpretations of its powers.

3.) The vast majority of economists back government stimulus spending in order to do just that. You're welcome to disagree if you want, but the experts agree. (well, most of them)
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Well, we actually have Senators from other parties. I think Bernie Sanders is a member of the Socialist party, and I think 1 other is an Independant.

But seems both the House and the Senate have rules that tend to force these 3rd party Congresspersons to join/associate with either the Dems or Repubs.

According to their rules, whichever party has the majority gets the power. They get all the committee chairmanships and the leadership positions (decide what gets scheduled for a vote and what just dies in the stack of bills/legislation left in the drawer etc).

Right now, those two 3rd party Senators are aligned ("caucus") with the Democrats. For all practical purposes they are Democrats.

Fern

But if there was a third choice, large enough so neither side could have clear majority without having to negotiate with at least one other party, that might be quite healthy?

Of course, there need to be enough influence to actually make a difference or like you say, they effectively become an extension of another party.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I'm not sure Obama is technically an 'officer', so I guess you are right. You take orders from our commander in chief who is technically a civilian.. one that organizes communities. He's helping you organize Afghanistan.

I'm going to assume you are joking because no one is stupid enough to believe that.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I read a book on British culture before I came over there this January. It's amazing how different it is from US culture, but the thing I found most depressing was that the British think people in the US are morons because we actually believe the earnest crap our politicians spew at us. Until then, I never realized that people here actually bought it - I just assumed that politicians spoke that way because that was the way politicians spoke.

edit: And yes, the UK is well to the right of the US, which is one of the big reasons I came back. It's scary that even the academics there are in love with the CCTVs everywhere and heavy-handed police work.

TBH, i learned that while discussing politics with American soldiers back in the early 90's, i worked mostly with the 401 since we were part of a larger recon unit at the time. I didn't get it then and it's strange that in 20 years no one has learned anything at all either, well, perhaps not "no one" but a lot.

In ways it seems like in the US you are born into both your religion and your political standpoint and most really don't ever change that, they are just looking for slogans to confirm what they "know", like "we the people", it's repeated as a mantra and twats like Spidey gets so hooked on it that he starts repeating it all on his own... It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.


The CCTV crap is going to come to an end before 2012, you heard it here first. ;)

When it comes to heavy handed police work, we still don't have surveillance without suspicion in private locations like the US have had for 8 years now, we still cannot make arrests without reasonable suspicion and can't lock anyone up or ship them away without a judges order based on a pre-trial like in the US.

SO while you are right about the CCTV shit, you are dead wrong on the police actions (that is, if your problem isn't that our laws are different, which would have nothing to do with the police doing their job but if that is what you meant, i can understand what you meant better).
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Name one progressive democrat who can be trusted?
IMO, the party as a whole is corrupt and pretty much you have to sell out to be in the party.

I trusted Russ... but it doesn't look like he's going to get through this.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
1.) The gains in wealth made by the United States since 1970 have gone overwhelmingly to the top quintile.

Population of the US increased from 200 million to 300 million from 1970-present. (around a 50% increase)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_United_States_Census
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=current+us+population

The GDP of the United States increased from around 3.8 trillion to 13 trillion in inflation adjusted terms during this time. (around a 300% increase)

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230&page=3&count=100

The median personal income in the US increased by about 5%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Income_in_the_United_States

This has nothing to do with rich people stopping other people from having good lives, but those numbers hardly indicate that economic success has been available to all people to an equal extent. It doesn't have to be perfect, but certainly it should be better than this.

2.) He said fair health care, not about cost decreases. While I agree that it won't limit costs nearly as much as it should have, it will help some. More importantly it lays the groundwork for future legislation.

If you believe it is unconstitutional I'm sorry but it's extremely likely you are going to be met with a terrible surprise when it hits the USSC. This court is very friendly to expansive government interpretations of its powers.

3.) The vast majority of economists back government stimulus spending in order to do just that. You're welcome to disagree if you want, but the experts agree. (well, most of them)

Where have you been Esk? Haven't seen you in a while.