Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Did anyone actually read the article? Most people are just saying stuff like "people vote for Republicans because they are rich." That is the idea that this article tried to refute.
    lol mate it was way too long.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    Lol even though I believe that the majority of republicans are intelligent - as in vote for proper reasons - I have to agree with Don Scott that there is at least a large minority who vote for stupid reasons. I mean I think that the decision to make Palin the VP nominee highlighted that, before her nomination I thought McCain was a level headed conservative - but I mean she was just ....:eek2:
    While I agree that Palin wasn't a good candidate, I don't think you can dismiss those who vote Republican because of abortion as havin stupid reasoning. Many Americans believe abortion to be on parallel with murder and considering that they are abou 820,000 abortions in the US every year, it does seem like an important issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    While I agree that Palin wasn't a good candidate, I don't think you can dismiss those who vote Republican because of abortion as havin stupid reasoning. Many Americans believe abortion to be on parallel with murder and considering that they are abou 820,000 abortions in the US every year, it does seem like an important issue.
    Sorry stupid was a bad choice of word for abortion, is 'secondary' better? But I was also trying to get at other reasons such as 'Blah Blah is a good Christian' which I will label as Stupid.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe because they simply support traditional American values and a reduced sized government?

    It's the reasons why I'd vote Republican if I were American, and I'm an athiest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    Lol even though I believe that the majority of republicans are intelligent - as in vote for proper reasons - I have to agree with Don Scott that there is at least a large minority who vote for stupid reasons. I mean I think that the decision to make Palin the VP nominee highlighted that, before her nomination I thought McCain was a level headed conservative - but I mean she was just ....:eek2:
    She was just what?

    I didn't think she was the best VP choice but I still thought she was a good candidate at the time, and I don't fault McCain as he needed to take a gamble to win the election anyways.

    While I do like her, I hope she won't run in 2012 as that would hurt Romney/Huckabees chances
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    She was just what?

    I didn't think she was the best VP choice but I still thought she was a good candidate at the time, and I don't fault McCain as he needed to take a gamble to win the election anyways.

    While I do like her, I hope she won't run in 2012 as that would hurt Romney/Huckabees chances
    I'm sorry mate I got to disagree with you on the Palin front - she was just naive. I am sure she is smarter and more knowledgeable than the media portrayed her - but that is not very tough to accomplish. She would have been a disaster as president because she knows nothing about either domestic or foreign policy. She is not the level headed, intelligent conservative of the old Republican party.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    I'm sorry mate I got to disagree with you on the Palin front - she was just naive. I am sure she is smarter and more knowledgeable than the media portrayed her - but that is not very tough to accomplish. She would have been a disaster as president because she knows nothing about either domestic or foreign policy. She is not the level headed, intelligent conservative of the old Republican party.
    How was she naive? She had more executive experience than Obama and Biden, she ran her own business, she worked her way up through the system, took on her own party many times, and had the highest approval rating of any Governor in the US at one point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    How was she naive? She had more executive experience than Obama and Biden, she ran her own business, she worked her way up through the system, took on her own party many times, and had the highest approval rating of any Governor in the US at one point.
    She also thought Africa was a country. Look dude I am sorry but I just disagree with you on this point - but lets end this argument because to be honest I don't think either of us will change our minds over Palin.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dn013)
    She also thought Africa was a country. Look dude I am sorry but I just disagree with you on this point - but lets end this argument because to be honest I don't think either of us will change our minds over Palin.
    I'm not letting this go because you and so many others I know have been misled by the media on Palin.

    She did not think Africa was a country, that was made up.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/ar...on/13hoax.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    I'm not letting this go because you and so many others I know have been misled by the media on Palin.

    She did not think Africa was a country, that was made up.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/ar...on/13hoax.html
    Well thank god that was a fake, I was wrong on that point.

    Look I watched her in the debate, I have followed her actions when she was governor of Alaska, and I watched what she said on the campaign - and all in all I was not impressed. The Africa thing is a hoax, but how about when she thought that Sarkozy called her, or the fact that she did not know what conservatism was, or how in debates she never gave a straight answer, or how she did not use the money given to her by the stimulus package - even though her electorate wanted it and it was democratically chosen as the economic policy of the USA-, or how she could not even name one newspaper that she read frequently.

    She may be good at running a business, she might have been the most popular governor of Alaska, but by God please may she not be my President.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Because Palin, Mccain and the absolute wreck that is the modern Republicans have committed strongly to leaving the American citizen well alone, right?
    Care to give me specific examples on how republicans are trying to control my life? I know you aren't American and have your own idiot politicians to worry about back in the UK, but I can give you specific examples of how the democrats have been very successful in taking away all kinds of freedoms in the US.

    Have you been paying attention while they have been busy passing trans-fat laws, the menu/ingredient laws, the smoking laws, talking on a cellular phone/driving laws, banning all energy exploration, and putting restrictions on gun ownership? How about the infamous Eminent domain case where the left wing judges on the supreme court decided that the government can seize your property for reasons other than for public works? The left in this country know better know better how to use your property than you do, so they confiscate it! The federal government has already outlawed the 3.5-gallon toilet and replaced it with the 1.6-gallon toilet. Where in the constitution does it say the government has a right to control the inner workings of a bathroom?

    Now Democrats want to ban any talk radio program that isn't "fair". In California, there was talk of government regulation of your house thermostat by radio control. And putting a GPS tracking device on your car so they can tax you based on the distance you drive. And a ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs! Most bad left wing ideas start in California and then spread to the rest of the nation.

    How about the in the 2008 elections when we were all preoccupied with who the “SUPERDELEGATES” would choose? That's right, to make sure that the working people and the common citizens don’t screw up and nominate someone that the "Rulers of the Democrat Party" would not want as a candidate, they have people to pick the correct candidate. Worst of all, almost half of these superdelegates aren't even elected and have neither anything to lose nor any incentives to represent anyone's interests but their own.

    I could keep going but you get the point. The elitist label is used because it is very effective in painting the party as a bunch of know it alls who want to dictate to the rest of society how they should live.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    Very few people vote Republican because of their abortion views. If they did they are dumb Republicans as Roe v. Wade looks pretty secure at this point.

    Most vote for economic reasons, Liberals vote for charisma and the person, Republicans vote for policy.

    (Biased opinion I admit lol:cool: )
    I think Americans put too much weight on Roe v. Wade's influence. People think that if it is overturned, it criminalize abortion in the all of the US, but that's impossible.

    If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I doubt things will change much. The question of abortion rights would just revert back to the individual states. The states can then decide if they want to regulate or not, which is, imo, more democratic than having the supreme court impose their moral standards on a disagreeing majority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Roe v. Wade looks pretty secure at this point.
    I wouldn't be so sure, 4 of the Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) would quite likely vote to overturn it, just one more judge who agrees with them would be enough for a majority. Public support support for Roe V. Wade has slowly been waning ever since it was passed, and last year most Americans (still only 51% so hardly a clear majority) described themselves as pro-life rather than pro-choice for the first time. I think that overturning Roe V. Wade will probably become a major point in future elections though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sawyer1990)
    I wouldn't be so sure, 4 of the Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) would quite likely vote to overturn it, just one more judge who agrees with them would be enough for a majority. Public support support for Roe V. Wade has slowly been waning ever since it was passed, and last year most Americans (still only 51% so hardly a clear majority) described themselves as pro-life rather than pro-choice for the first time. I think that overturning Roe V. Wade will probably become a major point in future elections though.
    It should be overturned because Roe v Wade is bad law. According to the US Constitution, this issue should be decided at the state level not by the Federal Government. The federal government has no jurisdiction to make law regarding abortion. The majority of Americans don't want to see it overturned because they misunderstand the law after over 35 years of misinformation on what the ruling actually dictates.

    I think it will stay in place for a while though because the judges that Obama is replacing won't upset the balance of the court. David Souter will probably be replaced by Sonia Sotomayor, who is very left wing. John Paul Stevens is 89 years old and I think there is a good chance he will be replaced during Obama's term with another leftist, which also won't change the balance of the court.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Eh, I dunno, some people can make an informed opinion. I had a friend once who voted republican in the latest presidential election, because congress had a democrat majority and it'd help debate/deadlock.

    (sorry, thread necromancy)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muffinz)
    Eh, I dunno, some people can make an informed opinion. I had a friend once who voted republican in the latest presidential election, because congress had a democrat majority and it'd help debate/deadlock.

    (sorry, thread necromancy)
    That's one of the reasons why I'm hoping Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley in this coming week's Massachusetts Senate race. One party rule is never a good thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    That's one of the reasons why I'm hoping Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley in this coming week's Massachusetts Senate race. One party rule is never a good thing.
    One of my other friends is campaigning for Coakley, lol. He says that Brown's got some nasty policy ideas like banning rape victims from contraception/abortions...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harris)
    I'm not letting this go because you and so many others I know have been misled by the media on Palin.

    She did not think Africa was a country, that was made up.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/ar...on/13hoax.html
    How does that link show she didn't say it, it merely shows that it's source is yet to be confirmed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muffinz)
    One of my other friends is campaigning for Coakley, lol. He says that Brown's got some nasty policy ideas like banning rape victims from contraception/abortions...
    Not true. The bill that Brown voted for was a religious conscience exemption for ER workers who would not have to provide morning after pills to those who came in the the ER, but would allow them to refer them to a hospital or medical provider who would at no extra charge to the victim. Somehow in the average lefty mind this translates into Scott Brown supporting rape and denying medical coverage to rape victims...I'm not sure how they are connecting the dots on that one. Remember, the US is more religious that secular western Europe, so this is an issue that is going to come up at hospitals.

    This is the ad that Coakley is running:



    This ad is so outrageous and so malicious that I don't think she is going to be able to get away with it. I think the ad is going to backfire, turn off voters, and cost her some votes she desperately needs. This is part of the reason she ruined the lead of 30 points she had as recently as just a few months ago.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Not true. The bill that Brown voted for was a religious conscience exemption for ER workers who would not have to provide morning after pills to those who came in the the ER, but would allow them to refer them to a hospital or medical provider who would at no extra charge to the victim. Somehow in the average lefty mind this translates into Scott Brown supporting rape and denying medical coverage to rape victims...I'm not sure how they are connecting the dots on that one. Remember, the US is more religious that secular western Europe, so this is an issue that is going to come up at hospitals.
    Hmm. Well, on the face of it it certainly seems like he's denying rape victims medication... fair enough, though. It kind of sucks that this is the kind of thing they falsely advertise for politics in America...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.