things about "the other guys" you don't understand?

[rudeguy]

let's see if we can keep this civil. I am looking to try to understand the way other people think. And I always welcome an opportunity to explain the way my head works.


What are some key things that the other political party believes in that you can't wrap your head around?

If you are a Dem, give some Republican examples and vice versa. You moderates feel free to take your picks.



My main question for Dem's is:
How can you support women's right to abort a baby but oppose a state's right to kill a confessed murderer? Its ok to kill someone 100 percent innocent but not ok to kill someone who has confessed to taking another person's life? I can't seem to get that to process.

 

[shortylickens]

Capital Troll, chap!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Interesting thread idea and I hope it remains civil, but I'm not overly optimistic.

What I can not understand is the refusal of the people on the right to argue validly about Obama and what he represents. He is a man with many flaws and failings and yet people continue to go on about being a socialist, or a communist. Ranting about golfing or other empty rhetoric.

Clint Eastwood exemplified this for me. The Obama we are running against only exists in our imagination.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I feel like I "get" fiscal conservatism. While I may disagree with some of it (I consider myself center-left), I do see a compelling argument.

I have a much harder time with social conservatives, particularly regarding sex. I can understand how someone's faith would lead to disapproval of gay people, of premarital sex, of contraception, or of the right to die. I don't get, however, how those beliefs connect to law. Our government is not there to enforce a narrow view on morality on others. Crimes against oneself or one's soul are not the purview of government.

Abortion is the one exception to this. If I genuinely believed that a fertilized embryo were a sentient human, than I would be outraged that there are 1 million murders being committed in the United States every year, and no one seems particularly upset about it.

Which leads me to...

My main question for Dem's is:
How can you support women's right to abort a baby but oppose a state's right to kill a confessed murderer? Its ok to kill someone 100 percent innocent but not ok to kill someone who has confessed to taking another person's life? I can't seem to get that to process.

Most liberals don't see it as killing. You can't convince me that a small cluster of cells attached to the wall of a uterus is a living, sentient being deserving the full protection of the law. At the same time, I will concede that it's also equally hard to believe that a fetus the day before it is born is much different than a newborn baby. The question is then at what point is a fetus considered a human? There are many standards that could be used--some have suggested it's when there is a detectable heartbeat. I would suggest it's the point at which the fetus could conceivably be expected to survive outside its mother (about 24 weeks in). In either case, though, my default is to give deference on this issue to the person involved able to make decisions (the mother).

 

[HeXen]

Most liberals don't see it as killing. You can't convince me that a small cluster of cells attached to the wall of a uterus is a living, sentient being deserving the full protection of the law.

Insects are a small cluster of cell's too. i suppose we should make it illegal to step on one. I witnessed my cat murder a squirrel after i just fed it, then he left the body to rot there. He knows he shouldn't do it cause my wife disciplined him many, many times and he hides after he does stuff like that. Should i take him to jail?
The arguments of us being smarter, self aware or anything else is only to serve a selfish and hypocritical end means.

 

[buckshot24]

Most liberals don't see it as killing. You can't convince me that a small cluster of cells attached to the wall of a uterus is a living, sentient being deserving the full protection of the law. At the same time, I will concede that it's also equally hard to believe that a fetus the day before it is born is much different than a newborn baby. The question is then at what point is a fetus considered a human? There are many standards that could be used--some have suggested it's when there is a detectable heartbeat. I would suggest it's the point at which the fetus could conceivably be expected to survive outside its mother (about 24 weeks in). In either case, though, my default is to give deference on this issue to the person involved able to make decisions (the mother).

I have had discussions with those who support the right to an abortion recently. They would not say that a mother shouldn't be allowed to abort a baby the day before her due date for any reason. Not something I can understand.

 

[buckshot24]

What I can not understand is the refusal of the people on the right to argue validly about Obama and what he represents. He is a man with many flaws and failings and yet people continue to go on about being a socialist, or a communist. Ranting about golfing or other empty rhetoric.

Well I personally don't think he is a straight socialist but he seems to prefer more government involvement in people's lives. He is more "socialist" than Ronald Reagan. I don't care about the golfing.

 

[lotus503]

Well I personally don't think he is a straight socialist but he seems to prefer more government involvement in people's lives. He is more "socialist" than Ronald Reagan. I don't care about the golfing.

See I don't get this, Reagan by policy was actually more socialist. Reagan signed EITC, wealth redistribution and arguably the reason most poor people don't owe net fed income tax.

 

[Perknose]

I have had discussions with those who support the right to an abortion recently. They would not say that a mother shouldn't be allowed to abort a baby the day before her due date for any reason. Not something I can understand.

Shens. You either ran into an extremely stupid person who in no way represents 99.999% of pro-choice people, or you are straight up lying your ass off here.

Either way, STRAW MAN.

 

[BoomerD]

let's see if we can keep this civil. I am looking to try to understand the way other people think. And I always welcome an opportunity to explain the way my head works.


What are some key things that the other political party believes in that you can't wrap your head around?

If you are a Dem, give some Republican examples and vice versa. You moderates feel free to take your picks.



My main question for Dem's is:
How can you support women's right to abort a baby but oppose a state's right to kill a confessed murderer? Its ok to kill someone 100 percent innocent but not ok to kill someone who has confessed to taking another person's life? I can't seem to get that to process.

You're confusing "Democrats" with "Liberals." Not all Dems are libs...

I support the woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses to do so. I personally don't like abortion...and as such, I will never have one...but since I don't have a vagina, it's not my place to tell a woman what she can/must do with hers.

I'm also strongly in favor of the death penalty...in fact, I'd support expanding its use...habitual criminals, (never mind 3-strikes you're out...3-strikes you're dead) armed robbery, burglary, rape, child molestation, political corruption, reposting on internet forums...those kinds of serious crimes against humanity ALL deserve the death penalty.



Why do people on the right vote for the Republican party to "fix" the economy when history shows the Democrats have done a MUCH better job with the economy?

Republicans held the presidency at the onset of the last NINE (9) economic downturns, including the two greatest economic collapses in our history.

1. The Great Depression: Herbert Hoover (Republican)
2. Recession of 1953: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
3. Recession of 1957: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
4. Recession of 1960: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) *
5. The Oil Crisis: Richard Nixon (Republican)
6. 1980's Recession: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
7. 1990 Recession: George H.W. Bush (Republican)
8. 2002 Recession: George W. Bush (Republican)
9. The Second Great Depression: George W. Bush (Republican)
* The Recession of 1960 began during the presidential campaign of that same year. The chart originally assigned the recession to President Kennedy, who was not inaugurated until 1961. It is important to note that what ended the recession was the call President Kennedy made for government spending. It helped to reduce unemployment and restore confidence in the economy. The recession came to an end that very year.

Clinton was right...The under Democratic presidents, FAR more jobs have been created than under Republican presidents....the stock market has fared MUCH better under Democratic presidents...and the federal debt, as a percentage of GDP has been lower under Democrats than under Republicans.

http://www.bloomberg.com/chart/isqi31tjaZFo/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investin...shows-markets-gdp-outperform-under-democrats/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...g/29/democrats-better-wall-street-republicans

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...t-republicans-on-11-of-12-economic-indicators

Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box, written by Lew Goldfarb and Bob Deitrick, looked at 12 indicators of the economy—including the deficit, months in recession and stock market performance—to assess how American presidents of the last 80 years have performed. In 11 of 12 of those indicators, the authors found that Democratic presidents came out on top.

The only indicator in which the GOP outperformed Democrats on the economy was in the average annual unemployment rate.

President Barack Obama does not feature in the rankings, as he has not yet completed a four-year term. But if Obama were evaluated now on all 12 of the indicators, he would fall somewhere in the middle of the pack, Deitrick says. The bottom of the pack overall is populated by Republicans: Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover.

"When we started writing, we did not cherry pick any of the data," says Deitrick, who said he knew only the stock market data when he began and "had no idea where the rest of the chips would fall."

"It was overwhelming and surprising to see the Democrats win on almost all of the economic indicators," he said.

You'd think that people who are for "smaller government" and economic growth would vote for the Democrats, in spite of the "abortion issue."

 

[cybrsage]

What I do not understand is why dems want to punish people and companies for providing great healthcare coverage at low cost to the employees (cadillac plans).

 

[BoomerD]

What I do not understand is why dems want to punish people and companies for providing great healthcare coverage at low cost to the employees (cadillac plans).

I don't know anyone who wants that.

My self, I'd like to see basic universal medical coverage for ALL Americans...and those who want "extras" can purchase the "cadillac" plan, either through their place of employment...or privately.

Of course, I'm not gonna hold my breath for such a thing...that'd be a pre-existing condition and wouldn't be covered by most plans...

 

[cybrsage]

Shens. You either ran into an extremely stupid person who in no way represents 99.999% of pro-choice people, or you are straight up lying your ass off here.

Either way, STRAW MAN.

It represents 31% of pro-choice people. 31% are FOR the late term abortion procedure dubbed "partial birth abortion". That is almost 1/3 of them. You clearly are horrifically uninformed, else you would never have made your painfully ludicrious claim.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148631/Common-State-Abortion-Restrictions-Spark-Mixed-Reviews.aspx

 

[Rainsford]

I generally don't get the Republican stance on social issues as a matter of public policy. I can definitely understand people having individual views about abortion, gay marriage, religious education, etc, but I honestly don't understand why anyone would think their personal views should be codified into law in such a way that they limit the choices of others.

I also don't understand the anti-science stance on some issues, particularly teaching creationism in schools. Again, I don't object to people who have their own religious views, but thinking that something that's demonstrably not science should be taught in a science classroom is baffling to me...particularly when we're talking about PUBLIC schools where not everyone shares your religious views.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't know anyone who wants that.

The dems in Congress do, as well as Obama. The dems on this forum are going to vote for them. Just wondering if any dem can explain the mindset of those they want in government...it does not make sense to me.

My self, I'd like to see basic universal medical coverage for ALL Americans...and those who want "extras" can purchase the "cadillac" plan, either through their place of employment...or privately.

Of course, I'm not gonna hold my breath for such a thing...that'd be a pre-existing condition and wouldn't be covered by most plans...

I have no problem with a basic healthcare coverage for everyone, created at the State level though. It is MUCH easier to control the legislatures of a state than the fed gov. Each state has different needs due to different population types and different environmental concerns. Hawaii does not need to have frostbite kits handy, for example.

Then, like you said, allow people to buy plans from insurance companies to suppliment it to obtain good healthcare coverage.

 

[cybrsage]

I generally don't get the Republican stance on social issues as a matter of public policy. I can definitely understand people having individual views about abortion, gay marriage, religious education, etc, but I honestly don't understand why anyone would think their personal views should be codified into law in such a way that they limit the choices of others.

Social issues are codified into law all the time, in every nation, from the beginning of time. You cannot walk around town naked, for example. You cannot have sex on a street corner either.

Where the line is drawn on what morality should be legislated and what should not be legislated is where the two parties differ - not on whether morality should or should not be legislated at all.

I also don't understand the anti-science stance on some issues, particularly teaching creationism in schools. Again, I don't object to people who have their own religious views, but thinking that something that's demonstrably not science should be taught in a science classroom is baffling to me...particularly when we're talking about PUBLIC schools where not everyone shares your religious views.

I personally think ID (which is not creationism no matter how many idiots cry that it is) should be taught - but as an example of what is NOT a valid scientific theory. String theory should be taught for the same reason...but that is harder to understand. Neither one is falsifiable, so both horribly fail as scientific theories. The basics of both should be taught to show people why they are not valid theories. They can be great learning tools for the students.

On the same token, they should also teach that Newton's Law of Gravity is not a valid scientific theory as well...due to being easily falsified. This can show that even the greats of science can be proven wrong.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Let's be clear... being a democrat does not equal being liberal... There are moderates, even some conservatives (mostly old dixiecrats)

I personally don't support abortion,I would NEVER have an abortion with my wife. But I'm not a woman and it's not my place to her whats right or wrong about her body.
Conservatives should LOVE abortion and birth control. Unwanted babies take up welfare, increase crime rates (according to Freakonomics).

I'm against the death penalty, for two reasons. 1) It costs more to kill a person than to have him in the system for his entire life time simply because of the appeal process.
2)Because the system is broken. I hear about almost constantly how those who get the death penalty are mentally retarded or declared innocent due to bloodwork. Like it or not, the vast majority of those innocent killed... are young black men in the states of Texas, or Alabama. Until the system gets fixed, there should be no death penalty.

HealthCare - ObamaCare is a Republican plan, made by the Heritage Foundation. Mitt Romney as Governor hailed it as his greatest accomplishment. So yes, it's not perfect. But it helps alot of people that don't have healthcare.

Single-payer or the Canadian healthcare system all the way. That way you get basic health care coverage for everyone, and the wealthier people can buy the Cadillac plan on top of it.

 

[cybrsage]

The "republican plan" nonsense has been debunked already. It was a poison pill, designed to kill of the dem plan at that time. It was never to be taken seriously.

 

[buckshot24]

Shens. You either ran into an extremely stupid person who in no way represents 99.999% of pro-choice people, or you are straight up lying your ass off here.

Either way, STRAW MAN.

Where did I say they (there were two by the way) represented the majority of pro choicers? This is a position I couldn't understand so I posted in a thread about positions "the other guys" hold that I don't understand.

At least one person is not stupid at all, she's actually very intelligent which makes it harder to understand. Militant pro choicer I guess.

 

[sMiLeYz]

The "republican plan" nonsense has been debunked already. It was a poison pill, designed to kill of the dem plan at that time. It was never to be taken seriously.

Governor Romney took it seriously.

So you're telling me... conservatives plan for health insurance IS let those who can't afford it, die or go bankrupt.

That's the conundrum I have with conservatives: You care about fetuses, but don't give a shit what happens after they're born.

 

[buckshot24]

I also don't understand the anti-science stance on some issues, particularly teaching creationism in schools. Again, I don't object to people who have their own religious views, but thinking that something that's demonstrably not science should be taught in a science classroom is baffling to me...particularly when we're talking about PUBLIC schools where not everyone shares your religious views.

I think when science masquerades as "truth" is when we can get into trouble. Science is a framework with pretty strict guidelines which, by definition, eliminate the possibility of super natural events. Religion is not science nor should it be taught in science classes. On the same token scientific limitations should be pointed out as well. Science /= truth.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Shens. You either ran into an extremely stupid person who in no way represents 99.999% of pro-choice people, or you are straight up lying your ass off here.

Either way, STRAW MAN.

exactly!!

 

[cybrsage]

Governor Romney took it seriously.

Nope. Gov Romney did not attempt to setup a national healthcare plan. Can you show me where he did and, if you cannot, admit you are wrong?

So you're telling me... conservatives plan for health insurance IS let those who can't afford it, die or go bankrupt.

Nope. Said otherwise in this very thread - not too long a thread yet, you should actually read it.

That's the conundrum I have with conservatives: You care about fetuses, but don't give a shit what happens after they're born.

Many do, and that is a valid complaint. If we do not care for the children, they will grow to be burdens on society in many ways. We should try to help them become productive members of society instead.

 

[cybrsage]

exactly!!

Exactly wrong.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34124258&postcount=13

 

[buckshot24]

Governor Romney took it seriously.

So you're telling me... conservatives plan for health insurance IS let those who can't afford it, die or go bankrupt.

That's the conundrum I have with conservatives: You care about fetuses, but don't give a shit what happens after they're born.

Liberals use this classic argument. Either state controlled plan or nothing at all.

If we don't want people to be on food stamps their entire lives we must want them to die of starvation. We want them to provide for themselves at some point. We spent over 1 trillion dollars on "helping" others last year, but are they truly helped?