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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Signed, another white liberal woman who doesn't hate all Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Signed, another white liberal woman who doesn't hate all Republicans.

racist

[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.

Bullshit. Liberals constantly blamed everything and anything they could on Bush. And still do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bullshit. Liberals constantly blamed everything and anything they could on Bush. And still do.

Uh, apparently you are unable to read. She referred to herself, not all liberals.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bullshit. Liberals constantly blamed everything and anything they could on Bush. And still do.

Uh, apparently you are unable to read. She referred to herself, not all liberals.

She also said she didn't resort to lies. Blaming Bush for something for which he is responsible is not lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You are my soulmate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Some of your answers were great - honest and very enlightening. Exactly waht I was hoping to get from someone. It isn't that I don't want you to mention Obama's name. I just didn't feel that you addressed the actual question in some cases. Such as this one:

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.

What am I wrong about? If you aren't an Obama basher (although you appear to be), then just say so. If you are but don't feel bad about it, just say so. Are you saying that I'm wrong about him being a nice guy? His likability rating is quite high. I haven't heard anyone deny that he's a good, decent man. Even those who loathe him as president. Politics aside, what has he done that makes you think he's not a good guy? Listen, I think George Bush is a good man, and Romney too. I don't agree with them on much at all, but they love their families, they both seem to have a very witty, funny side and I wouldn't mind having a beer or two with either of them. When my kids hear their friends say that they hate Obama, they come to me and ask if I hate Bush, and I tell them all of that. I also instill in them that they should always respect the Presidency, no matter who is in office, and they should never say anything about a president that might not even be true. It's disrespectful.

In the above answer that you gave (along with some of your others), you said many many things that simply aren't true. I could provide you with links to factcheck.org and snopes.com, but we have done soooo much of that on other threads and I'm tired of repeating myself.

[Anonymous]

OP here. This PP ^ helped me remember a very important question I wanted to ask, but didn't

Where do you get your news? Do you consider these sources to be unbiased?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This PP ^ helped me remember a very important question I wanted to ask, but didn't

Where do you get your news? Do you consider these sources to be unbiased?

I get my news from Washington Post, Drudge, WTOP, Politico, and lots of blogs with Instapundit being the primary one that I read every day. I used to read the New York Times until they started charging to read it online.

I don't consider any news source to be unbiased.

[Anonymous]

Also, your statement that Obama is a nice guy so he shouldn't be attacked...or we should feel bad about attacking him seems off base to me.

He may very well be an extremely nice guy, that doesn't mean he has been a good president or should be re-elected as president. The vast majority of the attacks on Obama are things like his weak response to foreign policy, his health care plan, his handling of the economy. These are attacking the job he is doing as president.

Romney by most accounts is a nice guy too.

They are campaigning for president...not for the role of guy invited to the neighborhood bbq. And should be both praised and criticized for how they will do as president, not how swell of a fellow they are.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bullshit. Liberals constantly blamed everything and anything they could on Bush. And still do.

Uh, apparently you are unable to read. She referred to herself, not all liberals.

She also said she didn't resort to lies. Blaming Bush for something for which he is responsible is not lying.

OP here. Thank you Jeff and PP.

I certainly blame the Bush administration for some things, such as a misguided war in Iraq and neglect of the war in Afghanistan. I blame Romney for his own failure to thank the troops in his speech. There is no gray area there. On issues such as the deficit, there is nothing but gray area. It doesn't matter so much who is president when the deficit is high or low. Although if you care to research it, you might be surprised. It stands to reason that some Reagan and Bush Sr policy might have helped Clinton balance the budget. And that some Clinton policy played a roll in Bush's inability to maintain the balanced budget. I really don't know on either of these. Just an example of that gray area. Is it unreasonable to assume that for a president who walks in during 2 wars, a financial meltdown, recession, etc. that it might be an impossible task to balance the budget? This is why I won't blame Bush for something like the deficit or high gas prices. There are so many factors that contribute to these issues. It makes people look incredibly ignorant when they blame Obama for high gas prices. How much power do they think one man can have? How and why would he be responsible for this? Does he wake up in a pissy mood and hit the "add $.10/per gallon" button?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, your statement that Obama is a nice guy so he shouldn't be attacked...or we should feel bad about attacking him seems off base to me.

He may very well be an extremely nice guy, that doesn't mean he has been a good president or should be re-elected as president. The vast majority of the attacks on Obama are things like his weak response to foreign policy, his health care plan, his handling of the economy. These are attacking the job he is doing as president.

Romney by most accounts is a nice guy too.

They are campaigning for president...not for the role of guy invited to the neighborhood bbq. And should be both praised and criticized for how they will do as president, not how swell of a fellow they are.

OP here. Not sure if you are the PP I was responding to or not. Of course you should be able to attack him on policy if you don't agree with it. That's my point though! I am not really seeing any of that. I am seeing vague and hateful rhetoric saying that Obamacare sucks, he hasn't helped the economy, etc., but with no specifics that hold up. For example, the PP (you?) just made a bunch of false statements and then called him a bastard. This is what I see and hear all the time.

So, I'm wondering if you consider the possibility that it's not true, and feel bad about the disrespectful and childish name-calling.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bullshit. Liberals constantly blamed everything and anything they could on Bush. And still do.

Uh, apparently you are unable to read. She referred to herself, not all liberals.

She also said she didn't resort to lies. Blaming Bush for something for which he is responsible is not lying.

Really? You're telling me that no one ever says ANYTHING disrespectful about Bush? Even if we're just talking about the PP who said "but i also didn't resort to lies and disrespectful statements about Bush" I still call bullshit.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bullshit. Liberals constantly blamed everything and anything they could on Bush. And still do.

Uh, apparently you are unable to read. She referred to herself, not all liberals.

She also said she didn't resort to lies. Blaming Bush for something for which he is responsible is not lying.

Really? You're telling me that no one ever says ANYTHING disrespectful about Bush? Even if we're just talking about the PP who said "but i also didn't resort to lies and disrespectful statements about Bush" I still call bullshit.

I have no idea whether the poster has said anything disrespectful about Bush. But, read the quote to which I responded. It only addressed blaming Bush and said nothing about being disrespectful. Liberals, including me, do blame Bush for a lot. Bush has a lot for which to be blamed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

No, this isn't a safe place to have a frank discussion about politics.


You keep saying this and I really have a hard time understanding your point. Are you afraid that that if you are pro-Romney someone is going to hunt you down and beat you? Are you afraid of being stoned or deported to a Siberian work camp? Come on, the worse that is going to happen is that someone is going to counter your post with an opposing viewpoint.


Obviously I don't mean physically unsafe. And I don't think that when the op referred to a safe place they meant safe as compared to being put in a work camp. What I meant was that it's not a place where you can have a reasonable political conversation without being called hateful names. it doesn't have to be physical to still be hostile

Also this is in theory anonymous board, but when you call out republican posts you often seem to imply something about their previous posts. I can't remember saying it wasn't a safe place for discussion before, although I don't deny that I might have. But you never seem to indicate that you have gone through the posts of people who agree with you.

+1. As a conservative I think long and hard about what I post on this board.