Joseph Brunoli, a étudié à Harvard University
Répondu il y a 6w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 191 et de vues de réponses 373.7k
First, I should say that some of my best friends are Republicans (seriously), and I have even worked on one Republican friend’s campaign for elected office.
That said, I generally do not care for Republicans because of the way they seem to lack empathy. In my case, and in my age group, most of the Republicans I know have fully bought into the Neoliberal propaganda that puts a price on everything and which basically asserts that “The Market is the Mother of All Things".
I am a progressive Democrat and Bernie Sanders fan, so you can see how this would put me on the other side of many Republicans when it comes to Economics. I believe that my political beliefs are based on humanism, Christianity, The Golden Rule and such aphorisms as “there, but for the grace of God, go I.”
This earns me derision by my Republican friends, who like to portray liberals and progressives as “naive” and “unrealistic” while extolling themselves and their GOP cohorts as the hard-nosed realists who accept reality and embrace “the world as it is.”
THAT is one of my biggest problems with Republicans - their complete lack of imagination and ability to “think anew”, as Lincoln said. This blindness, which is often combined with a certain ignorance of history, is VERY frustrating. Republicans don’t believe in thinking big. They do not believe in fostering and relying on the human spirit.
JFK put the first man on the moon; Reagan took the space program and basically turned it into s shuttle-based cargo delivery service. When I was a kid watching Neil Armstrong take that first step, I was convinced we would have sent a man to Mars by now - but no. That is simply not feasible, not affordable and - above all - not PROFITABLE, according to the Republicans.
The same argument goes towards social programs like Medicare For All, expanding Social Security, bringing back tuition-free college, instituting paid family and medical leave, and so on. WE CANNOT AFFORD IT, according to Republicans.
Which brings me to another reason why I don’t like the GOP: their sheer, unadulterated HYPOCRISY.
They rail against those “tax and spend Democrats” and condemn new spending programs, but then rabidly oppose any tax rises to pay for them. They bleat on and on about “balanced budgets” and “exploding deficits” and “placing a burden on our grand-kids.”
The GOP and their lackeys in the Media make sure that deficits are front and center all the time when a Democrat is in power, but no mention of deficits is allowed when a Republican Administration sits in the White House.
The chart below shows just how this works.
Once they get their hands on the levers of Government, Republicans spend like drunken sailors. They shower the Defense Dept with more money than even they have asked for (au sens propre), they pass more subsidies for Corporations, and pass wholly unjustified tax cuts for the rich and for Corporations alike.
And no one ever asks, “how are we going to pay for this?”
The most absurd example of course was under G.W. Bush, where we went to war against two countries and, rather than raise taxes to pay for those wars, the GOP actually CUT taxes.
As WaPo reported:
"Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil says that when he tried to resist tax cuts, Vice President Cheney replied: 'Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.'
The results are predictable. Look at the chart below and tell me which party is more responsible when it comes to balancing budgets?
We are seeing this again. Trump passed $5 trillion in tax cuts, and although he slashed programs to pay for them, used that charade of “dynamic scoring” to predict robust growth etc., there were still $1.3 Trillion in unfunded tax cuts that the Administration and everyone else agreed were unavoidable.
No one said “boo.”
So my biggest problems with Republicans are not the jingoism, the racism, (because everyone knows that while not all Republicans are racists, all racists are Republicans), or the cynical use of religion and morality.
Nor will I condemn them specifically as Republicans for their unbridled, bloodthirsty bellicosity when it comes to waging perpetual war. This is, after all, a trait of both parties, and the “bi-partisan” kum-ba-ya spirit that we recently witnessed for John McCain, who never met a war he didn’t like nor a country he didn’t want to bomb, makes it painfully clear just how much both parties are addicted to war.
As I mentioned at the top of this post, I have many friends who are Republicans. They are not bigots, they are not religious zealots, they are not gun nuts. But they all have one thing in common, and that is that they all perform mental gymnastics so that they can brazenly and cynically maintain that running up huge deficits to pay for tax cuts for the rich, endless war, unnecessary corporate subsidies and mass incarceration are just fine, but spending money to actually help ordinary working people is something that we simply cannot afford.
I am repulsed by their arrogant and condescending manner when they claim that stopping people from dying for lack of healthcare or allowing people to make enough money to live and retire with dignity would be stupid, silly, naive and irredeemably reckless and would place a burden on future generations.
That level of bullshit is something I simply cannot abide.
Scott Powell, worked at NTT Data
Répondu il y a 5w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 426 et de vues de réponses 497.9k
I’m interpreting this question to be:
"Can a Democrat tell me objectively and unemotionally why they do not care for the Republican platform?”
Fact is I considered myself a Republican until 2004. Even now, many from my neighborhood are Republicans and much of my family votes Republican. In college I became a big fan of George Will. Out of college I worked for The Economist and became a classical Liberal and globalist but still generally supported the Republican party more than the Dems.
What happened in 2004? I moved from NYC to LA. Pataki, Giuliani and Bloomberg were NY Republicans. Leaving Manhattan I realized just how far to the right Republicans in the rest of the country had drifted. This wasn’t Bob Dole’s party anymore.
These are the positions that have given me pause since:
- In 2004 America was still in the middle of a debate about gay marriage. To me, it was self-evident: Constitutionally the government could not favor heterosexual marriage. The parallels to inter-racial marriage were obvious. But Republicans fought hard against gay marriage despite clearly being on the wrong side of history.
- Also by 2004, Evangelicals and the Republican Party made “Intelligent Design” and “Teach the controversy” a “thing” in education. This policy resulted in a pretty famous case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which the ID movement lost. The school district wound up with a $2 million legal fee, which the lawyers agreed to half. If there was a silver lining, it’s that the community ousted the board that had introduced ID in the first place, hopefully giving pause to any other board tempted to try the same.
- Bush’s tax cuts hurt the economy. Republicans’ ongoing insistence that tax cuts fix everything (while doing little to rein in spending) takes away my faith in their ability to manage the economy.
- I am less sympathetic to the Republican party’s identity politics than the Democrats’:
- “Red States” are “Real Americans” and the Blue States are not. Ted Cruz even derided “New York values” during the Republican presidential primary. This is the Republican Party’s “basket of deplorables” position.
- I have never heard anyone get in trouble for wishing anyone a Merry Christmas. I do not know anyone who can tell me about a time they were in trouble for it. And yet to listen to some in the Republican Party there is a war on Christmas.
- A former Catholic school kid, I’m an atheist. The Republicans’ exalting of religion, and particularly Christian fundamentalism, bugs me. That Romney had to give the Mormon equivalent of Kennedy’s Religion Speech1 bothers me. That so many prominent Republicans race- and religion-bated Obama bothers me. This town hall audience was shameful. Sanders never had to explain himself to Democrats even if he sometimes alluded to the significance that America might see its first Jewish president vs. first female president.
- Blue Lives Matter vs. Black Lives Matter. The National Review’s David French does a great job summarizing the nuance of the issue: “Most cops are good, et too many bad cops go free.” The Blue Lives Movement denies two problems that the Black Lives Movement might exaggerate but hasn’t invented out of thin air. French notes: “Shootings of unarmed men dominate headlines, but they (thankfully) represent a small slice of the whole pie. The high was 9 percent in 2015. Since then the percentage has decreased to 5 percent in 2016, 7 percent in 2017, and 5 percent (so far) in 2018.” And maybe the attention BLM has brought to the issue has contributed to the improvement. Republican politicians are more likely to put down the BLM movement.
- Historically Republicans supported environmental conservation: Teddy Roosevelt initiated the National Parks Service and Nixon launched the EPA. The current Republican party would be happy to dissolve both “because Washington.” I actually find this shocking for people who believe in Genesis: presumably God wants us to make sure the Earth is in good shape.
- The “War On Drugs” has not been successful. And the US has a shockingly high incarceration rate. Democrats are more willing to revisit these issues than Republicans (which isn’t to say we should have criminals wandering the streets either).
- We do need to fix our immigration laws. But chanting “build the wall,” promising “Mexico will pay for it,” and denying entry to people from Muslim-majority nations isn’t immigration reform.
- I supported the war in Afghanistan; I did not support Iraq. I now think both wars were a mistake. The Bush administration was dishonest about the case for war, the execution of the war, and the cost of the war: 6,300 killed, 45,000 wounded, and $ Billions 2.4. These wars are the longest-running wars in American history and there is no end in sight.
- The NFL and Colin Kaepernick. The First Amendment protects your conscience. Even the military recognizes conscientious objectors. And yet so many in the party of personal liberty insist that the man stand, hand over heart, or else. No matter what Kaerpnick says, his detractors insist he’s disrespecting the military, the country, etc. One of their spokesmen is President Bone Spurs. It’s this simple: you can’t insist that the anthem has meaning and also compel someone else to honor it how you want them to, as if they are actors performing in a play. That is what totalitarian regimes require, not free countries.
- “Religious freedom” laws. Watch Mike Pence explain Indiana’s:
Notes de bas de page
Christopher Anderson, Former conservative, former libertarian, now label-less
Mise à jour il y a 5w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 141 et de vues de réponses 220.9k
“Can a Democrat tell me objectively and unemotionally why they do not care for Republicans?”
We’ve been doing that for years, but the GOP and its supporters have an aptitude for sticking their fingers in their ears no matter how “objective” and “unemotional” the criticism is.
Oh well. Let’s try again.
For many of us Democrats, the issue isn’t that we don’t care for Republicans personally. It’s that we don’t care for their bad policies.
I am speaking for many Democrats when I say that I have friends and coworkers in real life who are registered Republicans. With a few exceptions, they’re generally decent people. We get along fine and agree to disagree about political issues. Our relationship is friendly and professional, like the relationship between these two gentlemen:
On the other hand, there are people within the GOP’s rank and file for whom we care very little. Like these people:
These sorts of Republicans are increasingly becoming the face of the GOP. They deserve all of the mockery and ridicule they have received.
But there are still Republicans who are decent people on a personal level. The same cannot be said of the policies they support.
Democrats unequivocally do not care for Republican policies. And that’s because those policies have been repeatedly shown to be misinformed and ineffective at best, and outright destructive at worst. The evidence doesn’t support them.
This is true across a wide range of issues:
- Soins de santé
- Protection de l'environnement
- Proper regulation of the corporate sector
- Énergie renouvelable
- Changement climatique
- Croissance de l'emploi
- (Need I go on?)
The point is — for many Democrats, our “not caring” for Republicans isn’t personal. It’s about policy. We view Republican policies as being designed exclusively to enrich the GOP’s wealthy donors at the expense of everyone else, and that is harmful to our country. And that’s putting it kindly.
Since we love our country, we have to oppose such policies. You may be a decent person yourself — or you may be a stupid and bigoted jackass. Either way, I care very little for the policies you support.
Al Nelson, 40 years a Democrat, now Independent
Répondu il y a 6w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 5.6k et de vues de réponses 8.9m
Can a Democrat tell me objectively and unemotionally why they do not care for Republicans?
TL;DR answer - Égalité.
Our nation was founded on Enlightenment and Liberalism. Liberalism was created to stand against royal overreach and excess, at the expense of the governed. It reframed the rights of the regular person in society. Liberalism espoused Liberty and Fraternity; AKA Freedom and Equality.
The 2 US political parties were once one. The Democratic Republicans. They were all Liberals.
Then came the schism.
Liberalism divided into Modern and Classical liberalism. Each took one of their two ideals for their primary ideal.
Modern (Social) liberals decided equality, under the law and in opportunity was more important than unfettered liberty. They saw that applying a leveling force to society produced greater utility to the whole society, and all participants, than it cost. That high tides lift all boats.
Classical liberals held that full liberty, especially property ownership and economic liberty, free from all but minimal taxation and regulation was superior to equality. They said a natural hierarchy of status, wealth and achievement was inevitable and a direct product of a person’s individual efforts, so they should not be impeded for the sake of the group. Don’t tread on me.
The one party divided along those lines, creating the Democratic party in favor of equality and the Republican party in favor of liberty. Actual political positions on issues and especially secondary policies waxed and waned and even traded places over the years. Eventually we ended up where we began on the two main ideals, but now with more baggage.
The Republican fondness for the ideal of economic liberty is, if anything, greater now than before. They have been influenced by the uniquely American arm of anarcho-capitalistic, Libertarianism and the hyper-free market ideology of neoliberalism. They seek to reduce regulations and taxes where they may.
The Democrats are similarly invested in equality, having pushed for civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, immigrant’s rights and other ‘people causes’, as their main thrust. They see our investment in infrastructure, safety nets and public education as very important.
You asked why I do not care for Republicans. Here are my top 3 reasons:
3. Republicans have become economic fundamentalists, viewing their policies on the matter as unquestionable, unimpeachable and as primal as the laws of nature. Meanwhile, they are just wrong. They have a 70 year track record of poor economic results. The data disproves their claims and their financial follies have hurt us all again and again.
2. Somewhere along the way, political opponent began to mean something else. Republicans used talk radio and Fox to be openly antagonistic to Democrats. It grew and grew into ever more extreme strawman and ad hominem fallacy ridiculousness. We were loudly hated by the right, abused and subjected to childish name calling because we were different from them. This transitions directly into my #1 reason for opposing Republicans.
1 Hatred of people, or pride, for who and how they were born, not what they have accomplished, said, done or created. Institutional Inequality at best, bigotry and false pride on average and toxic racism at the worst. Modern Republican policies are mostly a simple inversion of Democratic policies - you want to save the environment, we’ll destroy it; dark. - but, the even darker side is an inversion of settled matters of equality. Republican seek to remake people as unequal under the law, by how they were born. If they were born brown or gay or female or elsewhere, they are lessened. Their votes are discounted, their voices, their education, health and worth is reduced by the very equally faulty humans across the aisle. It is a normalization of hate and I will not abide it.
Lynn Muskat, I appreciate democracy, freedom, and effective government
Mise à jour il y a 1w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 1.5k et de vues de réponses 540.4k
Q: Can a Democrat tell me objectively and unemotionally why they do not care for Republicans?
No, I can’t.
Ses ne pas the Republicans, as personnes, that I do not care for.
I simply être en désaccord with Republicans on many major political, social, economic, environmental, racial, and foreign policy issues.
Now, let’s get something sorted out right up front.
America is an oligarchy
Regardless of our individual politics (Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other) we should all be très concerned about this. It took humanity 1800 years to rid itself of aristocratic rule, and if we are not careful, it’s going to re-emerge (albeit in a slightly different, more modern, form where it is corporations, instead of nobility that run things).
A typical elected representative currently spends about half of his/her time doing nothing but raising money, so it’s not surprising that those who contribute the most money also have the greatest influence and leverage.
These days, the biggest contributions come from corporations (that are usually controlled by the top 1%), so technically that would make the US a “corporatocracy” not, strictly speaking, an oligarchy. but the net effect is still the same—the government is ne pas working for the 95% of us who are just average citizens.
Bien que tous les deux Republican and Democrats are clearly playing primarily on the side of their respective big money donors, the Republicans seem to be beaucoup better at supporting stuff that favors their benefactors. I just love that soulless far-away look in Senator Mitch McConnell’s eyes while he is nicely explaining why nobody needs government-backed health insurance, and why tax cuts for the wealthy are such a nous chose.
Democrats tend to get a higher percentage of their campaign contributions from smaller donors, so (perhaps) this tends to slightly mitigate the influence of the wealthy. It’s hard to say, however, because they just seem so inept at getting anything done. One can’t help but suspect that much of this “ineptitude” is, again, largely the result of the influence exerted by the big money donors.
The ACA, by the way, was a great example of this “influence” at work. What a complete mess!
What Democrats devrait have done was to implement single-payer Medicare-for-all. But they didn’t.
Why? Mainly because the health insurance companies, medical industry, and pharmaceutical companies stood to lose billions in revenue. So, they “reached across the aisle” and came up with a hopelessly convoluted system that was pretty much garantie to drive prices up and eventually fail under its own bureaucratic weight and inefficiency.
Now having said this, who que l'on peut repealing the Affordable Care Act help?
Does it help those who can’t get health insurance because of some pre-existing condition? Nope. It leaves them without the means to get needed healthcare because insurers can just say that they don’t want to write insurance. And, without insurance, most people can’t afford to pay for medical bills out of pocket. Instead, these people go bankrupt, and lose everything (great for the banks that are holding the mortgages).
For Republicans like Paul Ryan, that’s just “freedom” in action. (And, oh, by the way, we just ended putting the big health insurance carriers, big medical, and big pharma, back in the driver’s seat —with the bonus of énorme premium and pricing increases that were “caused by the ACA”).
So, now we know who n'a pas get hurt by the repeal of the ACA, don’t we?
Okay, so let’s consider the politics of the very wealthy and big corporations
The wealthy don’t avoir besoin health insurance. They can afford to pay any medical costs out of pocket. So, why should they be forced to pay for health insurance that they don’t want or need? “Freedom” thus translates (by Republicans) into aucune mandatory national health insurance participation or coverage (and no insurance for those with pre-existing conditions).
The USA has the le plus élevé per-capita healthcare costs in the entire world! Delivering ineffective heath care actually generates L'augmentation profits, so why fix it?
Who cares if people are dying because they don’t have access to preventive medical care or toutes health care until it’s too late. Screw them! This is free-market capitalism and, by God, profits are being made!
The wealthy don’t avoir besoin good public schools or public colleges and universities. They can afford to pay for leur kids to go to the best private schools and universities, so why should they be burdened with taxes used to provide education subsidies for those who might need them? Again, the Republicans gratuitously step in and assert that the federal government has no role to play in public education and insist that it is exclusively the purview of the state governments—conveniently ignoring the fact that many states are already unable to properly support their education resources.
As a result, most public college and universities are heavily favoring admissions for foreign students who peuvent afford to pay full, out-of-state, tuition rates. American kids then have to meet nearly impossible academic standards in order to get in to better schools; and, after admission, American kids face the prospect of having to borrow money at steep interest rates in order to make ends meet. Clearly, this, is okay because it allows the children of the elite to be better positioned to maintain their roles as the leaders.
Our tax laws are a complete mess. The tax code is documented in volumes of arcane and impossibly complex texts, but it is also specifically conçu to provide very nice loopholes for those who have the financial means to exploit them.
It’s no accident that the tax laws benefit the most wealthy.
Yes, the tax rates on ordinary income sont higher for the wealthy, but the dirty little secret is that the wealthy don’t make their money in the form of ordinary income. That’s for the peasants in the middle and lower classes.
The wealthy make leur money in the form of, rental income, capital gains, or “pass-through” income that is taxed at a lower rate and can be offset by things like depreciation or investment-related expenses.
Contrary to what is often publicly stated, the réal driver for Republican policies is ne pas that “smaller government is better”, it’s that the wealthy don’t really avoir besoin anything from government except a strong military, a robust infrastructure, law enforcement, prisons, and a treasury to print money.
Not surprisingly (with Fox News on their side), Republicans have managed to convince a shit-ton of gullible middle and lower-class Americans to buy into this “small government” horseshit when the truth is that Republicans are willing to spend money like crazy on stuff that the wealthy favor, give the wealthy tax cuts, and then stick the suckers in the middle class with paying the bills.
Grand marketing. That, and the fact that many Americans like to think that they are just “temporarily embarrassed” millionaires when, in fact they are struggling.
“Yep, you just wait ‘till the Republicans make America great again. “Those tax cuts for corporation executives are going to re-energize the economy!” They’re gonna kick those job-stealing Mexicans out of the country, and I’ll be able to get my job back in the auto plant putting lug nuts on wheels for $35 an hour!”
This is just sad. The biggest tax cuts go to the top 1%, and the middle-class wage earners get strapped paying off the deficit that results from the cuts. Nobody is getting their jobs back either. Robots, made in Japan or South Korea, are now doing the work.
Freedom? What freedom? We’re tout strapped, living from paycheck to paycheck, because we can’t make enough money to pay off our debts.
It’s a modern-day version of feudalism, where we’re all just working to pay most of our after-tax earnings to the landlords and lenders.
Let it suffice that I don’t buy the Republican idea of “trickle-down” economicsen toutes of its various forms and manifestations.
The concept is to cut taxes for the wealthy. This is supposedly going to magically creates jobs because the wealthy folks will (of course) take their tax savings and invest it in new businesses.
C'est aussi complete nonsense!
In truth, nothing trickles down. Rich people don’t spend enough on consumer goods to make the economy flourish, and they don’t invest unless they can make a ton of money with little or no associated risk. This is why leur money is in hedge funds, apartment buildings, or commercial real estate.
In truth, rich people are ne pas the entrepreneurs. Rich people only jump in après the business is successful and they can end up owning the business and controlling the poor bastard that actually took on the start-up risks and made it successful.
Bottom-up economics is what vraiment œuvres.
What generates a healthy and robust economy is profits, and what generates profits is sales, and what generates sales is hundreds of millions of middle class buyers with disposable income. (Not the very few with gigantic bank accounts.)
Conversely, what kills an economy is if people are only able to pay for necessitie