Social Question

mazingerz88's avatar

Why are some Republicans such sore losers?

Asked by mazingerz88 (19689points) June 28th, 2012

Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court and now GOP operatives are calling it a “tax increase”!?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

89 Answers

Berserker's avatar

Ain’t got no clue mate, but I just wanted to say, that’s the funniest question title ever lmao.

mazingerz88's avatar

@Symbeline You’re one cozy and comfy Canuck over there, I know. Good for you.

woodcutter's avatar

because they are entitled brats….most of them.

Fly's avatar

To be fair, it was upheld in the Supreme Court because the Justices felt that it fell under Congress’ power to tax.

woodcutter's avatar

I think I just saw Grover Norquists’s head go flying past the moon. It was screaming “Goddamned Taxes!!!”

Blackberry's avatar

There’s only a few answers, it could be one or a combination: they’re greedy, they’re uninformed, or they’re sociopaths.

CWOTUS's avatar

Ah, what a funny question. It’s a good one, all right. Reminds me of a story…

Once, a long time ago, a proud sheikh learned that his daughter had fallen in love with a Westerner in the sheikh’s kingdom. Worse, the Westerner had spoken to her and even held her hand.

Enraged, the absolute master had the Westerner brought before him for punishment. Believing his family to have been dishonored he decided that the man should be put to death in a spectacular and cruel way, for all to see.

To that end, he had the man’s arms tied by his sides and he had the man buried to his neck in sand in the middle of an outdoor arena. After a day in the hot sun with no shade and no water, the man was burned and thirsty, but he showed no signs of dying quickly. The sheikh wanted him to die in a very gruesome manner, so he had handlers bring an angry bull to the arena. The arena was cleared of everyone but the man buried to his neck and the wildly excited bull. The bull snorted and pawed at the ground as it surveyed the arena.

When it spotted the man it let out a bellow and charged at him murderously.

Unwilling to give the sheikh the satisfaction he wanted, the man attempted to twist and bend his neck to avoid the bull’s lowered horn, and then to be missed by the stomping front hooves as the bull roared past. He quickly centered his head under the beast’s belly and opened his mouth wide. It was clear that he was attempting to snap at the bull’s testicles as he ran overhead.

Seeing this, the sheikh grew even more outraged. He screamed at the man, “Fight fair, damn you! Fight fair!”

bolwerk's avatar

shrug Power hunger and a low level of moral development. It’s a bad pathology.

Bill1939's avatar

Sore losers come from all political, religious and social walks of life. Who here has never been a sore loser at some time in their life?

mazingerz88's avatar

@Fly Yes, I guess? I haven’t read the dissent nor the ruling but it seemed Roberts gave his opinion that the penalty for not getting insurance is a “tax”. And it seemed the lawyer who argued for it at the Supreme Court used the same line of reasoning.

I just didn’t hear the Reps screaming Obamacare as a tax increase before. Now it’s the big rallying (bitter) cry. Or wailing?

Gov. Jindal of Lousiana just mentioned on Fox News that there are more people pushing carts in parks. Because of Obamacare? Jeez.

missingbite's avatar

Obama himself lied to the American people by saying the penalty was not a tax. Then he argued before the SC that it was legal because it was a tax and the SC upheld it as a tax. The Republicans are calling Obama out on his lie.

mazingerz88's avatar

@missingbite Neh nye ne ne nyeh, neh nye ne ne nyeh. Awww, how can a politician lie?! How? ( Lol. Sorry. I just couldn’t believe Roberts gave the Reps another reason to develop more political hemorrhoids. )

Qingu's avatar

Who gives a shit what it’s called.

If Obamacare works exactly as intended, nobody will pay the penalty tax in question, because everyone will buy insurance.

It’s a stupid, dishonest talking point.

ETpro's avatar

This ain’t your grandfather’s GOP, or even the one I originally registered for. It took time for it to finally take full effect, but the party’s mutation into something seething with rage and self-righteous belief in fairy tales began when the Goldwater Revolution failed. In the 1964 Presidential Election when Barry Goldwater failed so spectacularly to wrest control of the Republican Party, a group of billionaires, all libertarians and would be oligarchs began to put a long term strategy in place to have things their way. They enlisted the assistance of some of the leaders of some of the world’s largest multinational corporations, who then began to turn business organizations and lobbies such as the Chamber of Congress, the American Medical Association and the NRA into their allies.

This group, all millionaires and billionaires already, wanted more wealth and power—lots more. They wanted the world as their banana republic. They sung the praises of pure laissez faire capitalism with no government oversight or regulation, but in fact they were perfectly willing to bend government to the service of their acquiring more wealth. Bid rigging, crony capitalism, trust building, corporatism; all these were fair game. They were more driven by the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition than a principled libertarian world view.

To achieve their goals in the USA, they invested a few billion dollars in a 50 state network of far-right-wing think tanks and associated PR firms with innocuous and high-minded names as cover. This network now extends around the world. The think tanks and PR firms went to work on bumper sticker slogans and spin aimed at building a US and global public meme susceptible to their core messaging. They employed Big Lie propaganda. They used demonization to besmirch and hopefully destroy any and all standing in their way.

By the 1980s they were able to get Ronald Reagan elected, and operatives such as Lee Atwater and Newt Gingrich set the political tone for slash and burn warfare—take no prisoners—win at any cost. Party discipline was absolute. Everyone was required to speak from the same play-book of talking points.

The meme these far-right cheerleaders pushed has now sunk so deep into the thinking and beliefs of the American right that they truly believe that gutting Wall Street regulation and environmental controls, turning business lose to do anything including setting up trusts and price fixing, and letting all who aren’t well off starve is the only way to “save” America. It’s an amazing sales job, as most of the Republican base are working poor themselves, and they are routinely voting to have themselves raped and pillaged so a few billionaires like the Kochs’ (worth $50 billion) and the Waltons ($80 billion) can have a lot more money.

But believe, they do. They are so certain that their formula for national success is the only workable plan that their anger when thwarted is very real. They aren’t just acting out for the sake of the press.

wundayatta's avatar

Sore losers? I don’t really think so. They are partisans, and if the scotus decision had gone the other way, they would totally have been rubbing it in and jumping up and down in Congress to kill the ACA once and for all.

They still want to kill it, and they are still counting on the election to help that happen. They are spinning this as best they know how in order to influence the election and to try to get enough Republicans elected so they can create even more uninsured and create even more pain in this country than we had before.

Republicans are getting more and more rabid by the day. They have completely taken leave of their senses in a way that is even deeper than what we have already seen. I’ll give them this: they sure know how to act completely, totally, rabidly crazy in a way that makes even me look sane! Pretty darn scary.

woodcutter's avatar

Conservatives by their very nature are extremely competitive. That competitiveness transcends into every aspect of their lives. It’s bred into them. They get used to winning and become incensed when they suffer the occasional setback which manifests itself by inappropriate outbursts. It’s like when McEnroe fucks up and blows a vein and wigs out on the court. Successful people have their limits when it comes to things not going their way.
The concerning part is when they take things personal. Having control taken away is hard.

Qingu's avatar

Conservatives tend to be cultish people who see issues in apocalyptic terms (because this is how their cult leaders present such issues). Allowing gays to marry will destroy marriage and western civilization. Raising taxes kills jobs. Obamacare will usher in a socialist dystopia and destroy America.

So when an issue doesn’t go their way, they believe that they should act as if the apocalypse is imminent. (But don’t expect them to re-examine their views when the apocalypse inevitably doesn’t happen; that would require too much critical thinking and self-reflection.)

King_Pariah's avatar

If a brat throws a fit, does anyone care?

woodcutter's avatar

disclaimer: don’t even get me started on liberals.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter It’s a very different set of issues, but liberals have their issues too. It’s just that for all the caterwauling we hear about their hegemony, they are few and ineffective.

bolwerk's avatar

What are conservatives competitive with? Study after study has shown conservatives to be sub-par intellectually. They’re even publicly duped into voting against their own interests. They may “win” elections (though the only winners are the pols they elect and their oligarch buddies), but they don’t appear to do especially well socioeconomically and, in fact, appear to disproportionately depend on transfer payments from the federal government, at least at the state level.

SYS's avatar

Ignorance in one party does not justify the arrogance of another.

PurpleClouds's avatar

I believe to make a true statement the OP would have to change the word Republicans with the word people.

roundsquare's avatar

@missingbite The problem is that the word “tax” can mean different things. As far as I’m aware (and I haven’t read the full opinion, just the syllabus) it’s not that SCOTUS is saying it is is a tax. They are saying that if you were to design a tax that did exactly the same thing, then that would be okay. Since SCOTUS takes a “functional approach” to taxation power, this type of argument is valid. You can love or hate that argument, but it’s the way they’ve done it for a while.

If a politician says “making you pay money for xyz to the government is not a tax” they mean something different. I would think that means this isn’t a way to get money for the government. Instead, its a way to create an incentive. Love or hate the incentive, but that’s not the quite the same thing. It’s not increasing taxes to pay for infrastructure or a war or entitlements, its trying to get people to do something and then covering the costs to society if they don’t. Maybe you call that a tax, but I think there is a distinction.

As for the original question…

Are democrats any better? I agree with @PurpleClouds except that I would change it to “politicians and most other people.”

wundayatta's avatar

@PurpleClouds What?!? And ruin the inflammatory nature of the question?

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Just drop sore from your question and you have your answer.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

I couldn’t agree more with @SYS and @PurpleClouds.

@Adirondackwannabe I beg your fucking pardon? Respect = lost

Qingu's avatar

It is absurd to suggest that stupidity and dishonesty are somehow evenly distributed among the human population.

“Sure, the Ku Klux Klan has a lot of ignorant racists, but so does every nonprofit organization!”

Oftentimes, a group tends to attract and mold certain kinds of individuals, who are characterized by certain kinds of traits—moreso than the broader population. That’s why groups of people exist.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate Ouch. Well, not all Republicans.

bolwerk's avatar

What is this “they’re all the same” crap? You have to make critical distinctions. Not everything can be a happy moral equivalency. Republikans are prima facie dumber and more vicious than others, including their already generally corrupt opponents, and it’s not ignorance or arrogance to admit it.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

I resent you deciding that I am “dumber and more vicious than others.” Have you actually spent time with me? Yes, it is arrogant of you to assume that I am, simply because I generally associate with a particular political party.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate I hope that wasn’t directed at me. I meant it in a humorous way. If you took offense at that I immensely sorry.

Qingu's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate, okay—why do you associate with a party that is characterized by dumb, dishonest, or outright sociopathic political positions?

It’s like someone in the Klan acting upset when they are assumed to be racist.

missingbite's avatar

The only name calling in this thread is from some liberals towards republicans and we are sociopathic? Now that is funny!

sociopath |ˈsōsēōˌpaTH| noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe If you’ll read the comment directly above mine, you will see the reference, and the person for whom my comment was intended.

@Qingu Because I am not a Democrat. I don’t agree with many of the ideals or the politics of the Democratic party. That doesn’t mean I’m 100% Republican though, either. I despise the right-wing extremists and their ideals.

From the behavior I see on this website, I could ask you why you choose to associate with a party who is renowned for its arrogance, dishonesty and outright sociopathic behavior. But I won’t ask you that, because I’m not that much of an arrogant bitch to assume that I know who you are simply because of who you identify with.

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Let’s back of the personal stuff, guys.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate Whoa, I missed that. I’m an independent. I’ll always respect your views 100 percent.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Really? Oh, I guess the whole “loser” thing is intended to show respect. My humble apologies.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

I’m sorry. I tend to be flippant at times. I really meant no disrespect to you.

woodcutter's avatar

Well, given the nature of the majority here ,coupled with current events and being an election year I would have to point out this whole question is ripe for the soreness it asks about. Is that about right?.

Qingu's avatar

@missingbite and @WillWorkForChocolate, here are the political positions of the Republican party, as I understand them.

• Laissez-faire economy with a religious-like faith in the market. The government should do little or nothing to take care of the poor. The poor should take care of themselves by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, or they should rely on charities. Rich people “deserve,” in a moral sense, 100% of their wealth, and taxes are a form of theft.

• Deep mistrust of the scientific community. Evolution and anthropogenic climate change, both accepted by almost 100% of scientists in their fields, are at best mistakes, at worst intentional deceptions.

• Completely counterfactual, ideological approach to problem-solving. We are in an economic crisis with 8% unemployment and 2% inflation; they think the Fed should worry only about inflation. It is Republican doctrine that tax cuts pay for themselves. It is Republican doctrine that spending cuts are stimulative because they increase business confidence. Neither of these things are remotely true, have been repeatedly proven false in recent years, and yet this is still central to their platform.

• Dominance hierarchy foreign policy where America is “exceptional” and does not have to obey international laws on such things as torture and indefinite detention. America should project power to be the top dog, rather than do things like negotiate with Russia to dismantle nuclear weapons. It is better to “defeat the enemy” than to worry about killing civilians. The proper approach to fighting terrorists is to invade countries with large military forces.

• No compunctions whatsoever about lying for political gain. Compare the Politifact records for Republicans and Democrats. Last year I tallied them up, and REpublicans lie 3 to 5 times as often as Democrats. I suspect the ratio is even higher now, with the election in full swing. Major Republican talking points, like “death panels” and “Obama is a socialist” are often just outright lies.

I could go on. So yes, I feel completely comfortable in calling such beliefs sociopathic, ignorant, and dishonest—because they clearly are.

And if you do not hold such beliefs, I am not sure why you choose to identify with the Republican party.

bolwerk's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate: I didn’t say a thing about you, in fact. But that the Republikan Party is attractive to politicians who sociopaths, thugs, and, uh, lower-effort thinkers isn’t very deniable. And that those politicians are selected, and are obligated to believe things that are demonstrably not true to win a primary, doesn’t reflect well on the primary voters. But that still doesn’t say anything about you.

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
mattbrowne's avatar

Because they are unable to challenge their assumptions. These Republican extremists appear almost as if they had been brainwashed. They are a serious threat to the future of the United States.

Response moderated
mazingerz88's avatar

Apparently, Glenn Beck called Roberts a coward and now sells t-shirts showing as such. Michael Savage implied that Roberts upheld Obamacare due to his epilepsy medication. Those who continue patronizing these guys are as guilty of their nastiness.

laurenkem's avatar

Wow, this has truly turned into a nasty topic. Why are some of you generalizing? All Republicans are stupid, brainwashed and backward-thinking? Really? Just because you don’t happen to agree with certain views does not mean the person viewing a situation that way is a moron or an idiot. There are just as many completely blind democratic people that insist that the Obama may as well be the Mesiah and that he has finally risen, for fuck’s sake.

The completely random personal insults to anyone that doesn’t necessarily agree with others on here is appalling. So much for freedom of thought or speech! “Yeah, you’ve got freedom of speech, now shut the fuck up and believe what I tell you!” Just disgusting.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@laurenkem Exactly. High five. And (((hugs))). Yes.

wundayatta's avatar

But ideas do tell you a lot about a person. If a person identifies as a party member, then I think it is fair to assume they share a majority of views of that party. It’s also fair to assume their character reflects those views.

I do not like Republican ideas. Frankly, I think they are unhumane. I don’t like Republicans, because I assume they wouldn’t identify as such without believing in those inhumane Republican ideas. I do not expect any Republican to like me. I expect them to think I’m an idiot. I don’t think there is much to be gained by us talking. We don’t have enough shared world view. I can’t possibly understand a Republican. To me, it’s a form of insanity. I don’t see why anyone would want to talk to someone who thinks they’re insane. Really, there’s no point.

In general, I’ve found that there is almost no issue I can discuss with a conservative where we will find any point of agreement. The best we can do is agree to disagree and go have a beer and talk about sports, or something that isn’t very serious. We will not agree about health care. We will not agree about child care. We will not agree about immigration or business or probably the arts.

Independents also baffle me. Is this ignorance? How can you not know where you stand on an issue?

And I don’t know if there is any point served by people talking to each other if their politics are so far apart. There’s no basis for discussion. We just see the world in incompatible ways. It’s almost as if a Republican is, by definition, a troll. Their comments will automatically make me see red, so they are a provocation. Except, technically, they are not supposed to be. Go figure.

CWOTUS's avatar

Just because I think you’re an idiot is no reason not to like you, @wundayatta. In any case, I haven’t identified as a Republican since ¾ through the last century, and then it was only because of the binary nature of American politics.

And amen to @laurenkem and @WillWorkForChocolate.

laurenkem's avatar

@wundayatta I think that independents are kind of middle of the road, so to speak. For instance, I may call myself a Republican. However, I wholeheartedly believe in abortion rights, gay marriage and a lot of other things that would not make me your “classic” republican. I don’t vote the straight ticket, in other words.

I always vote for the liar that I believe more than the other liar. I wouldn’t trust any of them to take care of my cats!

wundayatta's avatar

@CWOTUS Perhaps you are the exception that proves the rule. What rule? I have no idea. But I think of you as a sensible person, despite our disagreements. Some day I should figure that one out. Maybe it has to do with sailing?

@laurenkem What’s your thinking on marijuana legalization?

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

I’m not speaking for @laurenkem, but she and I seem to have a lot in common. I identify with the Republican party, yet I am all for gay marriage and don’t want to see abortion made illegal. And I think marijuana should be legalized. Not what you’d expect from yer average republikin backwuds bible-thumpin hick, eh?

laurenkem's avatar

@wundayatta I’m all for legalizing marijuana. I think that the financial burden inflicted on the American people in order to “fight drugs” is wrong. Now, having said that, would it be better if the joints were packaged up and taxed like cigarettes? I honestly have no idea. But pot being illegal is ludicrous, given all the truly harmful (not just to bodies but to minds and souls) drugs being circulated in the U.S.

@WillWorkForChocolate I think we fall somewhere in the middle of the road, my friend. And I truly resent being called those names by others. I call NO ONE names – why is it okay to do it to me because my opinion is different than theirs?

laurenkem's avatar

Exhibit 1: Republikans are prima facie dumber and more vicious than others, including their already generally corrupt opponents, and it’s not ignorance or arrogance to admit it.

Exhibit 2: okay—why do you associate with a party that is characterized by dumb, dishonest, or outright sociopathic political positions?

Exhibit 3: Study after study has shown conservatives to be sub-par intellectually.

And that’s just in this thread! Enough with the hatred and generalizing, please?

Qingu's avatar

@laurenkem, I find it telling that you mentioned “freedom of speech.” You were responding to my post. Please tell me where I ever said that Republicans should not have the right to express their ideas.

Like many conservatives, you seem to confuse criticism with denying freedom of speech. I have a theory that this is actually just projection, since conservatives often do want to prohibit speech that they criticize.

And I also think it’s telling that, instead of responding to my criticism or defending the ideas which I’ve criticized, all you’ve done is play the thin skin card. Oh dear, a liberal thinks Republican ideas are horrible and says so? Get the salts, quick, I’m going to faint!

laurenkem's avatar

Oh, give me a small break, please, @Qingu . I did not respond personally to your post. I never mentioned you whatsoever.

You have your opinion, and I have mine. Here’s the difference: I respect yours.

Qingu's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate, why on earth do you identify with the Republican party? You support abortion rights—that alone makes you anathema in the eyes of the party leaders.

What is it about the rest of the Republican party platform that you find so appealing? Their economic doctrine—which is, as I’ve pointed out, complete bullshit?

Qingu's avatar

@laurenkem, actually you quoted me, in the post right before your last one. Then you said I was “hateful” and “generalizing.”

Do you disagree that the stupid and dishonest ideas I’ve pointed out are central to the Republican party?

laurenkem's avatar

@Qingu Yes, I do. Are there general beliefs among the republicant party? Sure! Yet there are also plenty of general beliefs within the democratice party! Many republicans do not necessarily believe all of the republican beliefs, just as many democrats lean toward being more conservative. The point is, everyone has their own beliefs and ideas and just because they do not coincide with yours does not make them wrong.

I never said that I disagreed with some of your thoughts – I just think that you need to realize that not all people believe exactly what you believe simply because you say they should.

What’re you thoughts on God, or the hereafter (or lack thereof), or whatever the fuck you wanna name it? Shall we debate that as well? I would think that is strictly a matter of opinion.

You know what they say about opinions – “They’re like ass holes – everybody’s got one, and they all stink”.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@Qingu Perhaps it’s because I firmly believe that if we let the Democratic party’s ideals stand 100% and we let the Democratic party be in charge of everything, America would collapse. Balance is healthy, and any person who says otherwise is the real dummy.

laurenkem's avatar

@Qingu Finally! We agree on one thing! I, too, believe that it needs to be a healthy balance. If there is a sole entity in charge of our country, what are we left with? Someone (or some people) need to be in charge of checks and balances so that we do not get too out of whack in either direction.

But once again, that’s just IMO, and it was my birthday today and I’m a little tipsy from all the fun that has ensued.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@laurenkem Psssssst, that was me! More rum for the birthday girl? :D

wundayatta's avatar

Balance for balance’ sake. That’s such deep analysis.

So the democrat is standing on a board sticking out over the cliff. The dem is standing right at the edge of the cliff. But someone goes and stands on the board over the edge of the cliff in order to provide balance, simply because the Republican position is somewhere far over the cliff.

This is not a reasonable nor principled position. Balance for the sake of balance is meaningless.

Of course, there is a good reason why people do this. We were evolved to position ourselves relative to groups of people. This is because group affiliation is key. It is how we survived, traditionally. It was more important to belong to a group than for the group to be efficient. Survival depended on having help more than on what kind of help you had.

So people see the Rs and Ds and if they want to feel good, they place themselves in the middle so they can make friends with everybody. That way, depending on who is closest, they always have a group they can join with.

Unfortunately, this leaves out the quality of policy proposals. Oddly, perhaps policy proposals aren’t as important as some of us think they are. That is, we survive despite implementing bad policy. People are hurt compared to what could have been, but no one ever knows what could have been. We only know what is. What could have been is a piss poor argument, unfortunately.

This means that logic and data don’t carry much weight. What matters is affiliation. So if you are going to try to change people’s affiliation, you need to make them feel more comfortable with you—not try to argue with them. Most of us here don’t do that. I suspect that’s because most of us don’t care to change the affiliation of others. We just want to argue and be right… or feel right… or feel righteous. I mean, I don’t think I’m the only one who likes to score argument points more than I want to try to bring someone over to my side.

There are certain people here that, not only do I not want to win them over, I actually want them to go as far from me as possible. I have come to not like them. Anti-affiliation. Of course, part of this, I am sure, is because I feel like they hate me. So I don’t have any compunctions about returning the favor.

However, I think that is what happens when we have these kinds of debates. We can make whatever logical point we want, but those arguments don’t really matter, because what is going on is actually happening below the level of consciousness and logic. We are sorting ourselves out by who belongs in what group.

Yet we think we are arguing about issues. That makes it confusing because we aren’t understanding each other fairly if we are arguing about issues. But if you understand this as sorting out groups, then I think you can see the process differently, and it makes more sense.

We’ve now got @laurenkem and @WillWorkForChocolate and @CWOTUS in a group that they might self-identify as independent, but I would call libertarian. Which means they are friends sometimes but not others. That is indeed confusing.

I find that my instinct is to want them to be friends all the time or none of the time. I don’t like them being in the middle. I don’t trust that. Does anyone else have that feeling?

Aethelwine's avatar

I don’t judge a person by their political affiliation. I judge them by how they treat others @wundayatta. That’s how I decide if I want to be friends with someone. @laurenkem @WillWorkForChocolate & @CWOTUS seem to be respectful, decent people I’d like to meet irl. I can’t say the same for some who have answered this question. It has nothing to do with political affiliation. It has everything to do with respect for others.

bolwerk's avatar

@jonsblond doesn’t judge Mengele by his party affiliation. Only his medical practice! No connection between the two, afterall!

’‘Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? \ That’s not my department,’’ says Wernher von Braun

Aethelwine's avatar

@bolwerk Does your smartassery make you feel better about yourself? Hope that gets you far in life.

bolwerk's avatar

@jonsblond: Does sophistry make you feel better about yourself? ‘Cause I wasn’t even talking about myself. You can’t separate affiliation from ideology, unless the affiliation is mandatory. That the Republikan Party is attractive to sociopaths and people with other assorted character (and, often enough, mental) deficiencies isn’t something a critical thinker should overlook.

wundayatta's avatar

I don’t believe we are always the best people to explain our own activity. We know what we think, to a degree, but we are unaware of our subconscious thinking, and that could well be more influential. The article I read about people changing their views based on affiliation hypothesizes that affiliation is more important to us, so we change our views because of it, although we do all kinds of tricks to make it seem as if our changing opinions are based on reason.

So I understand people who believe they are making logical decisions, but I don’t believe that is necessarily the best explanation for what is going on. I think cognitive dissonance works in powerful ways, so that people go through all kinds of agonizing in order to make a position taken now seem logical, even though it is very different that one they took a year or two ago. Why would people do that? Seems more likely that it is because their reference group changed than because the logic changed.

The big example of this is the Affordable Care Act, of course. Several years back Romney was a champion of most of the provisions in it. Now, of course, he’s not. Why? Have his values really turned around 100 percent? Or is it political, and his reference group now believes something else?

I know I shouldn’t leave this hanging out there as a question, because I know people will answer is according to the beliefs of their reference group.

bkcunningham's avatar

I think the best way to describe it, @wundayatta, is to say people’s views evolve. You know, like Obama and his views on gay marriage.

wundayatta's avatar

@bkcunningham However, in describing it that way, you do not offer a theory for why people’s views evolve. We know people’s views evolve, but is it because of logic and data and analysis or is it because they want to be like other people in their group, or is it because of reading tea leaves or what?

Obama’s views changed perhaps because his reference group changed. Enough people were now in favor of gay marriage that he had to change in order to feel comfortable with the group. He needs to be seen as a member of the group and this was one way of doing it.

I think that this example is a good one and that our president may be doing this affiliational change of opinion. Actually, I think he probably was in favor of gay marriage before, but was waiting for the poll numbers to give him cover.

Qingu's avatar

@laurenkem, let’s review. I described the central platform issues of the Republican party:

• Anti-abortion
• Laissez-faire economy
• Extremely aggressive foreign policy.

You then said you don’t agree with these issues.

Then you bellyached about how people have different opinions and are sometimes mean about it.

I am still waiting for you to explain why you choose to identify yourself as a Republican if you disagree with the central platform issues of the Republican party.

Qingu's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate, why do you think the Democratic party’s platform, if enacted 100%, would be bad for America?

The Democratic platform is already centrist. Obama’s health care plan, for example, was enacted in Massachussets by a Republican governor, Mitt Romney. The plan was originally dreamed up by the arch-conservative Heritage foundation.

You haven’t explained what issues you agree with, what policies you think would be best to follow. All you’ve done is this:

“Democrats are on one side, and Republicans are on the other. Since a Democrat is president, I’ll support Republicans, because I believe in balance.

Do you understand how utterly vapid and ignorant this sounds?

bolwerk's avatar

@Qingu: isn’t that platform stuff kind of missing the point? Those things may be dumb, but at least the first two aren’t sociopathic. There is just something deeper wrong with the Republikan Party than dumb policy.

Qingu's avatar

I would characterize the Republican party’s ambivalence towards the poor as borderline sociopathic. The idea that the market has doled out to the poor their just rewards (or lack thereof), that poor people choose not to succeed because they could just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is, at best, just stupid, and at worst deeply disturbed.

bkcunningham's avatar

Is putting the letter ‘k’ in Republican like putting a ‘k’ in Canada?

bolwerk's avatar

@bkcunningham: That’s KKKanada, land of Herr Harper.

ETpro's avatar

@Qingu Say it isn’t true. You mean to tell me that everyone in America can’t be part of the 1% if they just get with the program and exert themselves a bit more?

Nullo's avatar

Boy, am I glad I missed this one. Fortunately, all the things I would have said have already been said.

@Qingu Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go and meet Republican everymen and record how horrible they are. I want a report on my desk by next Thursday.

Qingu's avatar

@Nullo, look no further than the four conservatives here on Fluther for examples of my characterizations.

bolwerk's avatar

Who is the Republikan everyman now anyway? One of Mitt’s pals at the country club, or this guy?

Nullo's avatar

@Qingu I am non-partisan. I hope that doesn’t throw your figures off.
@bolwerk Locate a large collection of people and ask them their political alignment. Sooner or later you’ll find some.

bolwerk's avatar

@Nullo: If I have to wait until sooner or later, I rather doubt I would have stumbled upon an everyman.

Nullo's avatar

@bolwerk So you’d rather reach for stereotypes. Classy.
Note that I specified an everyman who is Republican. There are everymen in both categories, and they tend to live around other people who may or may not match their alignment. Now please stop being difficult.

bolwerk's avatar

@Nullo: you were the one stereotyping (“everyman”). Not to mention oversimplifying (“both categories”). There are things besides Republikans and Democrats. And, sure, there are certainly other shades of Republikans than rednecks and plutocrats, though they all tend to be either stupid and/or malevolent. But at least the GOP has something to hold itself together, amirite?

wundayatta's avatar

What the hell is an “everyman?” Methinks it is a stereotype. Also, methinks it don’t exist. We know who we know. For the rest, we have polls.

If you want to introduce an everyman, feel free, but anyone who wants to do that has the obligation to find them and defend their choice. Good luck with that.

kritiper's avatar

A man died and went to heaven. St. Peter was showing him around to all of the different heavens that he might enjoy, when they came to a very large, tall, formidable wall.
“What is this?”, the man asked St. Peter.
“Shhhhhhh.” St Peter replied. “That is Republican heaven. They think they’re the only ones up here.”

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther