Republicans, please tell me how you REALLY feel...

[Anonymous]

OP, I do not fault your logic, but you seem to be premising your post on the assumption that voters make logical choices. History proves otherwise.

We should all be nervously waiting for the Koch/Abelson $$ to drop in earnest on the pivotal states and see whether it really is possible to buy the presidency.

It most likely is possible to buy the congressional majority, imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Come on republicans. You are safe here. Completely anonymous. You will never be tied to your comments. Just let it all out...

Do you feel that Romney has a very slim chance, if any at all? ABSOLUTELY.

Are you disappointed that the House refused to cooperate with Obama over the last 2 years? Do you wish they realized that their constituents would like them more if they got stuff done - even with a dem president?

Does Obama realize he got nothing done for the economy but adding about 3 trillion to our debt - NOTHING - for his first 2 years when he had a majority of the house and senate and could have passed anything he wanted? Does he realize he added more to our debt than any president in U.S. history? Are YOU disappointed about that flagrant disregard and failure?

Are yo embarrassed for your party leaders when they get into these interviews and can't say anything other than talking points?

Are you embarassed that Obama doesn't even know what the Marine Corps is or Orion?


Were you disappointed it the speeches at the convention because they lacked substance? Your post is what lacks substance. And I was particularly moved by Condoleeza Rice.

Are you finding it difficult to come up with anything positive to say about Romney, so you bash Obama instead? Obama is the worst president in U.S. history - anyone is better. My boobookiki would do a better job.

Are you starting to realize that it really IS unrealistic to say that Obama should have bush's 8-year mess cleaned up in less than half the time? Bush's mess? Do you even know what caused the market to crash? (obviously, the answer is no) - on this point, you are very ignorant.

Are you a single issue voter? What is that issue? Do you really think republicans will do anything about it? I'm am like a 2-issue voter. I am socially liberal all the way but vote republican mostly on economic policy. I live paycheck to paycheck almost, so financial security for myself, my children, and America is very important to me.

do you wish your party would just reset, and start over with new people out in front once this election is over? Sort of. I wish that republiucans would abandon discussion of social issues. Then, I think a lot of people would vote conservative. Their social views can be polarizing. For instance, the priest's speech at the convention was inappropriate, as well as Santorums. They are hard core pro life.

Do you feel kind of guilty that you have to resort to Obama bashing because you realize he is a nice guy (even if you don't agree with him)? Here, you are wrong. Again, Obama is the worst president in U.S. history. We had a financial meltdown - the worst since the Great Depression, and he did nothing - absolutely nothing, but focus on creating a no health insurance tax penalty and spend $1 trillion on a so-called stimulus that cost like $100,000+ per taxpayer and nobody knows where the money went except to some campaign contributors and "green" stuff. We also had the worst ecological disaster in U.S. history, and he wouldn't even stop vacationing that bastard. Or do ANYTHING. then, 3 months later, he goes on TV and claims to have invented the idea of a cap with "his" team of scientists.

Do you make comments about Obama that you know are not true (or at least suspect so you don't fact check)? NO.

When you blame Obama for things such as high gas prices, do you sincerely think he caused the high gas prices, or do you actually know better but just say it hoping other people believe it? Obama should address gas prices. Again, true to form, he has done what he does best - NOTHING. PLAY GOLF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When america is turned into a bankrupt european non capitalist country I will be personally feel I did my best to vote against it. it's too late , the population dependent on the government exceeds those that are dependent on themselves. When I say population I am including government jobs , contractors , and those on social government services. The only way is to tax the successful people until everyone has equal social statuses. Eventually there is no spark or reward for innovation and we turn into a society satisfied with meaningless jobs that don't create anything that can be sold to generate revenue and taxes. We are screwed because people don't have the foresight to see this and only care about the short term. We will be greece.

I don't understand what you're saying here -- are you saying the only respectable way to earn a living is to be self employed? Goverment workers aren't dependent on themselves? Employees in the private sector are dependent on their employers, just like public sector employees. You have a problem with cops? Teachers? Firemen?

The goal of the private sector is to create profits which builds wealth, the government ones are expenses.

So? Some expenses are necessary to create growth (even if you agree, which I don't, that wealth creation should be the be-all, end-all of a nation). If you don't have cops, then insecurity will drive down profits. If you don't have people managing the ports, you can't take advantage of international trade. If you don't have teachers, you won't have an educated workforce. And when people are employed, by the private or public sector, they become consumers, which again leads to profits.

I do think wealth creation should be the primary goal of a nation. Wealth leads to better health. Wealth leads to more freedoms. Wealth leads to better education. In almost every possible metric the more wealth you have the better off you are. Other goals can be laudible..lets say better health...if the metric is to improve health thats fabulous, but if you improve wealth you improve health and you also improve the freedom that people have to decide what goals are important to them...for many it might be health...but to others it might include activities that have health risks but increase their enjoyment of life.

I don't think the original pp is saying that there should be no government jobs, but rather that those dependent on the government should not be the majority of the citizens.

[Anonymous]

OP, I don't know why you are asking but here goes...
I don't like either candidate. I think Obama is a joke, he has done nothing of any substance except sell books and give speeches. Even his speeches, as moving as they may be, lack substance. He just tells people what he thinks they want to hear and moves on.

Romney is no better. He has no concrete ideas, nothing about him excites the party. The only thing we can get behind is the fact that he's not Obama.

I really can't stand Congress either, they are a bunch of jackasses - no better than the Obama or Romney.

I think that no matter who wins the election, we the people are pretty much screwed. A VIABLE third candidate would be terrific, but we are, whether we like it or not, a 2 party system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When america is turned into a bankrupt european non capitalist country I will be personally feel I did my best to vote against it. it's too late , the population dependent on the government exceeds those that are dependent on themselves. When I say population I am including government jobs , contractors , and those on social government services. The only way is to tax the successful people until everyone has equal social statuses. Eventually there is no spark or reward for innovation and we turn into a society satisfied with meaningless jobs that don't create anything that can be sold to generate revenue and taxes. We are screwed because people don't have the foresight to see this and only care about the short term. We will be greece.

I don't understand what you're saying here -- are you saying the only respectable way to earn a living is to be self employed? Goverment workers aren't dependent on themselves? Employees in the private sector are dependent on their employers, just like public sector employees. You have a problem with cops? Teachers? Firemen?

The goal of the private sector is to create profits which builds wealth, the government ones are expenses.

So? Some expenses are necessary to create growth (even if you agree, which I don't, that wealth creation should be the be-all, end-all of a nation). If you don't have cops, then insecurity will drive down profits. If you don't have people managing the ports, you can't take advantage of international trade. If you don't have teachers, you won't have an educated workforce. And when people are employed, by the private or public sector, they become consumers, which again leads to profits.

I do think wealth creation should be the primary goal of a nation. Wealth leads to better health. Wealth leads to more freedoms. Wealth leads to better education. In almost every possible metric the more wealth you have the better off you are. Other goals can be laudible..lets say better health...if the metric is to improve health thats fabulous, but if you improve wealth you improve health and you also improve the freedom that people have to decide what goals are important to them...for many it might be health...but to others it might include activities that have health risks but increase their enjoyment of life.

I don't think the original pp is saying that there should be no government jobs, but rather that those dependent on the government should not be the majority of the citizens.

Wealth leads to freedom and better health for whom? For all citizens, or for those who possess the wealth? Because in a capitalistic structure, you're not exactly trying to spread the wealth around.

[Anonymous]

without any losers there are no winners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Obama was supposed to make those Muslim countries love USA and be nice to us, by power of his charm.

I thought Cheny and the American military invasion were supposed to be greeted as liberators in those Muslim countries. Given how well that worked, charm seems like a better option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When america is turned into a bankrupt european non capitalist country I will be personally feel I did my best to vote against it. it's too late , the population dependent on the government exceeds those that are dependent on themselves. When I say population I am including government jobs , contractors , and those on social government services. The only way is to tax the successful people until everyone has equal social statuses. Eventually there is no spark or reward for innovation and we turn into a society satisfied with meaningless jobs that don't create anything that can be sold to generate revenue and taxes. We are screwed because people don't have the foresight to see this and only care about the short term. We will be greece.

I don't understand what you're saying here -- are you saying the only respectable way to earn a living is to be self employed? Goverment workers aren't dependent on themselves? Employees in the private sector are dependent on their employers, just like public sector employees. You have a problem with cops? Teachers? Firemen?

The goal of the private sector is to create profits which builds wealth, the government ones are expenses.

So? Some expenses are necessary to create growth (even if you agree, which I don't, that wealth creation should be the be-all, end-all of a nation). If you don't have cops, then insecurity will drive down profits. If you don't have people managing the ports, you can't take advantage of international trade. If you don't have teachers, you won't have an educated workforce. And when people are employed, by the private or public sector, they become consumers, which again leads to profits.

I do think wealth creation should be the primary goal of a nation. Wealth leads to better health. Wealth leads to more freedoms. Wealth leads to better education. In almost every possible metric the more wealth you have the better off you are. Other goals can be laudible..lets say better health...if the metric is to improve health thats fabulous, but if you improve wealth you improve health and you also improve the freedom that people have to decide what goals are important to them...for many it might be health...but to others it might include activities that have health risks but increase their enjoyment of life.

I don't think the original pp is saying that there should be no government jobs, but rather that those dependent on the government should not be the majority of the citizens.

Wealth leads to freedom and better health for whom? For all citizens, or for those who possess the wealth? Because in a capitalistic structure, you're not exactly trying to spread the wealth around.

Wealthier countries have longer life expectancy. Wealthier countries have more economic freedoms. Wealthier countries have largely been the ones that develop health improvements that are then used throughout the world..the wealth creation that led to those improvements helped everyone rich and poor. How many health treatments have you had that were created from non-profits vs how many were created by companies trying to make money.

If your goal is wealth creation, then you want as many citizens as possible working towards that goal...so you aren't working towards keeping the poor down, but working towards all citizens creating wealth.

I read something one time that there have been studies that companies that are discriminatory have lower profits. There are lots and lots and lots of social goods that come from the goal of wealth creation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When america is turned into a bankrupt european non capitalist country I will be personally feel I did my best to vote against it. it's too late , the population dependent on the government exceeds those that are dependent on themselves. When I say population I am including government jobs , contractors , and those on social government services. The only way is to tax the successful people until everyone has equal social statuses. Eventually there is no spark or reward for innovation and we turn into a society satisfied with meaningless jobs that don't create anything that can be sold to generate revenue and taxes. We are screwed because people don't have the foresight to see this and only care about the short term. We will be greece.

I don't understand what you're saying here -- are you saying the only respectable way to earn a living is to be self employed? Goverment workers aren't dependent on themselves? Employees in the private sector are dependent on their employers, just like public sector employees. You have a problem with cops? Teachers? Firemen?

The goal of the private sector is to create profits which builds wealth, the government ones are expenses.

So? Some expenses are necessary to create growth (even if you agree, which I don't, that wealth creation should be the be-all, end-all of a nation). If you don't have cops, then insecurity will drive down profits. If you don't have people managing the ports, you can't take advantage of international trade. If you don't have teachers, you won't have an educated workforce. And when people are employed, by the private or public sector, they become consumers, which again leads to profits.

I do think wealth creation should be the primary goal of a nation. Wealth leads to better health. Wealth leads to more freedoms. Wealth leads to better education. In almost every possible metric the more wealth you have the better off you are. Other goals can be laudible..lets say better health...if the metric is to improve health thats fabulous, but if you improve wealth you improve health and you also improve the freedom that people have to decide what goals are important to them...for many it might be health...but to others it might include activities that have health risks but increase their enjoyment of life.

I don't think the original pp is saying that there should be no government jobs, but rather that those dependent on the government should not be the majority of the citizens.

Wealth leads to freedom and better health for whom? For all citizens, or for those who possess the wealth? Because in a capitalistic structure, you're not exactly trying to spread the wealth around.

Wealthier countries have longer life expectancy. Wealthier countries have more economic freedoms. Wealthier countries have largely been the ones that develop health improvements that are then used throughout the world..the wealth creation that led to those improvements helped everyone rich and poor. How many health treatments have you had that were created from non-profits vs how many were created by companies trying to make money.

If your goal is wealth creation, then you want as many citizens as possible working towards that goal...so you aren't working towards keeping the poor down, but working towards all citizens creating wealth.

I read something one time that there have been studies that companies that are discriminatory have lower profits. There are lots and lots and lots of social goods that come from the goal of wealth creation.

Again, who exactly in these wealthy countries are reaping the benefits? But this is all beside the point, frankly -- I said that wealth creation should not be the be-all, end-all of a notion's goals. Our choices are not (1) wealth creation or (2) welfare state. There's a balance that we can strive for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Obama was supposed to make those Muslim countries love USA and be nice to us, by power of his charm.

I thought Cheny and the American military invasion were supposed to be greeted as liberators in those Muslim countries. Given how well that worked, charm seems like a better option.

True, but Cheney is not running in an election. Obama's charm has settled the middle east about as much as military force has.

[Anonymous]

09:23 thank you for the most honest and candid answer so far.

09:11 Some of your answers seemed genuine, but for the most part, you did exactly what I was referring to. Instead of answering the specific questions, you twisted your answers so that you can just spew Obama hatred. Why is that?

I know I sound smug, but I sincerely do not feel that way. John Kerry is the candidate I was referring to in my original post. I was not excited about him at all. but i also didn't resort to lies and disrespectful statements about Bush. I wasn't excited about Gore either. I am a big fan of his, but felt Al gore should keep doing what Al Gore does best. Which is what he ended up doing and Inconvenient Truth came out.

My motivation is not to change anyone's views. I'm simply wondering what is really going through the minds of republicans. Again today, I get on FB. At this point, the posts are about 80% political. All of the Obama supporters posted something that states their enthusiasm for Obama - not their hatred for Romney. But every single post from a R/R supporter was anti-Obama. NONE of it was about R/R. Not one post. And all of the anti-Obama stuff was completely untrue, and can easily be debunked.

I'm curious to see if anyone will really answer my questions, or if there will be more like 09:11 that just use it as another forum to bash Obama.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a Republican, so my response does not really satisfy OP's request, but here is my assessment of what a reasonable Republican might think.

There is a clear distinction between a Keynesian, stimulus-based approach to the economy and a supply-side, cut spending and taxes approach. I personally think Obama is trying to split the difference, but I think the Republicans see him as an extreme Keynesian So even if they don't thoroughly like or trust Romney, they see him as a much better choice.

On foreign policy, I think they are much more comfortable with swagger than nuance, and Romney has been playing to that. Unfortunately, he may have caused real damage by overdoing it in the Libyan and Egyptian embassy attacks. So I don't know how that will play out now.

On social issues, I think pro-lifers have real reason to support Romney, no matter what his past stands were. In the likely replacement of a liberal Justice, he will no doubt choose one who is likely to overturn Roe v Wade, and I count that overturn as the most predictable consequence of his election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:09:23 thank you for the most honest and candid answer so far.

09:11 Some of your answers seemed genuine, but for the most part, you did exactly what I was referring to. Instead of answering the specific questions, you twisted your answers so that you can just spew Obama hatred. Why is that?

I know I sound smug, but I sincerely do not feel that way. John Kerry is the candidate I was referring to in my original post. I was not excited about him at all. but i also didn't resort to lies and disrespectful statements about Bush. I wasn't excited about Gore either. I am a big fan of his, but felt Al gore should keep doing what Al Gore does best. Which is what he ended up doing and Inconvenient Truth came out.

My motivation is not to change anyone's views. I'm simply wondering what is really going through the minds of republicans. Again today, I get on FB. At this point, the posts are about 80% political. All of the Obama supporters posted something that states their enthusiasm for Obama - not their hatred for Romney. But every single post from a R/R supporter was anti-Obama. NONE of it was about R/R. Not one post. And all of the anti-Obama stuff was completely untrue, and can easily be debunked.

I'm curious to see if anyone will really answer my questions, or if there will be more like 09:11 that just use it as another forum to bash Obama.

Almost every question you asked pertained specifically to Obama - re-read your questions. Almost all of them:

1) Directly bash republicans or Romney, by name (thus, you are a hypocrite LOON).
2) Explicitly involve "OBAMA." Just glance and you will see his name in almost every question. Thus, obviously, certain responses will pertain to Obama. (duh - again, LOON)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:09:23 thank you for the most honest and candid answer so far.

09:11 Some of your answers seemed genuine, but for the most part, you did exactly what I was referring to. Instead of answering the specific questions, you twisted your answers so that you can just spew Obama hatred. Why is that?

I know I sound smug, but I sincerely do not feel that way. John Kerry is the candidate I was referring to in my original post. I was not excited about him at all. but i also didn't resort to lies and disrespectful statements about Bush. I wasn't excited about Gore either. I am a big fan of his, but felt Al gore should keep doing what Al Gore does best. Which is what he ended up doing and Inconvenient Truth came out.

My motivation is not to change anyone's views. I'm simply wondering what is really going through the minds of republicans. Again today, I get on FB. At this point, the posts are about 80% political. All of the Obama supporters posted something that states their enthusiasm for Obama - not their hatred for Romney. But every single post from a R/R supporter was anti-Obama. NONE of it was about R/R. Not one post. And all of the anti-Obama stuff was completely untrue, and can easily be debunked.

I'm curious to see if anyone will really answer my questions, or if there will be more like 09:11 that just use it as another forum to bash Obama.

I don't think you're going to get any good answers, nor do I think you sound smug. From all the polls I've read, and barring any shenanigans (voter suppression, etc) from the republicans I think Obama actually will win in November, too. There are good people who vote repub. Their reasons aren't very good and usually comes from a place of ignorance (i.e., "we live paycheck to paycheck, so I'm going to vote for fiscal responsibility and Romney!" when it's been proven over and over that without some more substance, r/r's financial suggestions are just voodoo), but they've got to be feeling stung. If they're at all moderate but like voting the way their parents did, for example, where are they going to go? Romney was not even remotely the best option - how loud are people going to be in defense of someone they only kind of sort of a little bit like?

There's a sea change coming and even for people who don't like to admit that white privilege exists, it's pretty apparent that that's not going to be the rule going forward. It's got to be frightening to rely on a framework you can't admit the existence of that will cease to exist in twenty years' time. I say this as a very liberal white woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's a sea change coming and even for people who don't like to admit that white privilege exists, it's pretty apparent that that's not going to be the rule going forward. It's got to be frightening to rely on a framework you can't admit the existence of that will cease to exist in twenty years' time. I say this as a very liberal white woman.

Another LOON (nevermind your post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread)