Why I rarely vote for Republican candidates at the national level

[NJlonghorn]

NJlonghorn, I don't know that your point #3 is a valid representation of conservative thought. Islamic people are in the US today and I haven't heard anything that Republican politicians are trying to force them out. In fact, I have read that in the US there are more acts of discrimination against Jews by Muslims than there are of anybody against Muslims. I don't think the US in general is against Muslims or allowing them to follow there religion. However, I also don't think we want things happening in our country as described in the attached link, but we do notice how the Koran is being used to justify immoral actions. I think we as Americans are justified to oppose the actions and the justifications of some Muslims in public and even in the political sphere. I can't see how that is an unreasonable position.

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/02/08/good-news-female-muslim-prof-says-muslims-can-rape-rob-infidel-women-only-in-some-circumstances/

Monahorns,

The 3 points I laid out above are not meant to describe your position, or some overarching "conservative" position. They are meant to summarize Iatrogenic's post immediately preceding mine (which has been liked by Sangre, 6721, and Zork).

In case you don't know, Iatrogenic's reference to taqiyya is the key to his argument. Taqiyya is a doctrine saying that it is okay to hide your beliefs if necessary to avoid persecution. In other words, if someone points a gun to your head and orders you to renounce Allah, it is okay to renounce Allah. Most Muslims say that the doctrine can only be used defensively, but some radical Islam fringe groups have used the doctrine offensively. For example, the 9-11 terrorists drank in the bar before their flight, presumably to appear non-Muslim. The right wing uses this doctrine to suggest that peaceful Muslims are not really peaceful, but instead are living here pretending to be peaceful, waiting for their opportunity to unleash jihad.

I can't emphasize enough that I am not attributing this argument to everyone in the right wing. Your position, like that of Deez, theii, and 2000, is perfectly reasonable. In fact, I pretty much agree with you. That said, I think I have described Iatrogenic's post accurately, and so I think it justifies my overarching point that there is an undercurrent of extreme bias within the conservative base.

 

[zork]

Even if what you say is true you can ignore those of us who up-voted the post you dislike without issue. We bring in multiples of 1000 refugees from Syria it is likely someone is going to get raped or have their swimming pool shitted at minimum. Let them stay in the Middle East.

I am very, ok extremely, slightly Hungarian way, way, back in my lineage. https://www.google.com/#q=hungary+says+no+to+migrants

No room at the inn Americana. Send them to Gaza.

 

[Horn6721]

sorry I meant NJ
On point #1. Do you Islam IS inherently( good choice of word for this question) peaceful?
if so based on what?
point #2 Do you think taqiyaa is being used by any muslims to pretend to be 'peaceful and law abiding only to then murder?

point #3 Not sure what you mean by taking root as opposed to just peaceful practice of a religion. If you define taking root as many do then that would also include sharia law taking root. Since sharia goes against the protections afforded us from our Constitution, even the mildest form of sharia,. As MrD has oft times pointed out beware of slippery slopes.

 

[Monahorns]

NJl, as respectfully as I can, can you explain how two of your statements are contradictory. In your first paragraph you say

The 3 points I laid out above are not meant to describe your position, or some overarching "conservative" position. They are meant to summarize Iatrogenic's post immediately preceding mine

Which seems like you are saying that you aren't attributing your point #3 generally to conservatives. But then you say this.

That said, I think I have described Iatrogenic's post accurately, and so I think it justifies my overarching point that there is an undercurrent of extreme bias within the conservative base.

My belief, is that your point #3 is the narrative that progressives have created about conservatives, but that it does not represent the reality of opinion. I know Trump's statements and his political support so far further support that narrative. However, I would propose 2 thoughts against that view. First, Trump's politics are much closer overall to Bernie Sanders than they are to Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. They both espouse nationalisitc, socialistic type policies. Second, I am not sure where Trump's political support is coming from. He is a Republican candidate and he is probably getting some conservative base support but I have read that a considerable portion of his support comes from those who are more blue-collar Democrats. So while his views do seem to align with a group of people in the US, I don't think that group can be described correctly as "the conservative base".

 

[ProdigalHorn]

That said, my perception is that the undercurrent of religious bigotry in the far-right base is far from minimal. As one example, only 26% of those self-identifying as "conservative Republicans” believe it is important to avoid criticizing Islam as a whole, with 70% saying it is okay to speak bluntly even if that means being critical of Islam as a whole. If that isn’t an indicator of outright bigotry, it is at least a viewpoint that can spiral into outright bigotry if it isn’t nipped in the bud.

This is a very concerning statement to me. Are you also in favor of "nipping in the bud" anyone who wants to criticize Christianity as a whole? Or Atheism? Or any other belief system?

Any belief system should be open to criticism and questioning. I say that as a Christian who has heard more than his share of genuine and legitimate concerns about "Christian culture" in the world, along with some outright lies and exaggerations or simple statements of dislike.

There are some real issues with Islam in terms of its origin, its claims, its implementation in the vast majority of countries in which it exists as the dominant cultural force. To say that someone is bigoted for noticing that or expressing concern about it is to say that someone can't observe cause and effect, or can't evaluate a theological claim and say "I don't believe that this holds up to scrutiny."

There is a big difference between accepting and treating Muslims as a whole with dignity and respect, as opposed to compelling people to be quiet and not speak up when confronted with issues raised by the Muslim community in general. There is nothing bigoted or racist in being concerned that Islam as practiced in most third world nations is extremely dangerous - or at the very least causes a strong obstacle to integrating into a more modern society - when taken out of its context and dropped into a Western culture with Western values. And turning a blind eye to that doesn't serve either culture well.

That's not bigoted. That's just factual.

 

[Monahorns]

It is factual ProdigaHorn, but you are bigoted for saying that. But don't dare criticize those who call you a bigot. You might hurt their feelings and you will have less of a chance in persuading them to believe like yourself. Of course if you don't criticize your critics beliefs there is no chance they will change their minds.

 

[NJlonghorn]

NJl, as respectfully as I can, can you explain how two of your statements are contradictory. In your first paragraph you say

Which seems like you are saying that you aren't attributing your point #3 generally to conservatives. But then you say this.

I'll try my best to clarify how the two points reconcile. Not all members, or even most members, of the conservative base are biased in the ways I suggested. But the fraction of those who are is large enough to create an undercurrent of bias. Maybe there is a better word than "undercurrent", but what I mean by the term is a line of thought that runs counter to the primary line of thought, yet is significant enough to influence the aggregate viewpoint of the group.

Think about when you walk into the water at the beach -- even if the main current is heading in one direction, an undercurrent can run in a different direction. This creates forces that can be quite different from what one would assume based on a view of the surface.

First, Trump's politics are much closer overall to Bernie Sanders than they are to Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. They both espouse nationalisitc, socialistic type policies.

I'm not ready to lump Trump with Sanders, but I do agree that there is no way to reconcile Donald Trump's non-conservative politics with the support he gets from the conservative base. It is truly baffling.

Second, I am not sure where Trump's political support is coming from. He is a Republican candidate and he is probably getting some conservative base support but I have read that a considerable portion of his support comes from those who are more blue-collar Democrats.

There is some logic to this, but it doesn't seem to be all that true:

• PunditFact rated a claim that Trump polls as well amongst Democrats as Republicans "pants on fire". I don't trust their neutrality, but the analysis in this case seems pretty solid, and consistent with what I've read elsewhere.
• According to a recent Gallup poll, Trump's net favorability rating amongst Democrats is -70. I can't find the actual breakdown, but it would be in the range of 10-15% favorable and 80-85% unfavorable.
• In contrast, the same poll shows that Trump's net favorability amongst Republicans is +27. This is probably somewhere around 60% favorable and 33% unfavorable.

 

[hooklahoma]

OP, you are true hero. You and the glorious Democrats are the only thing standing in the way of anyone a shade darker than Carrot Top from being rounded up into concentration camps.

 

[iatrogenic]

There is nothing bigoted or racist in being concerned that Islam as practiced in most third world nations is extremely dangerous - or at the very least causes a strong obstacle to integrating into a more modern society - when taken out of its context and dropped into a Western culture with Western values. And turning a blind eye to that doesn't serve either culture well.

That's not bigoted. That's just factual.

- Well said.

NJL, I know we can pick the pepper out of the fly **** indefinitely, but let me ask you something: Let's assume that the majority of Muslims are truly peaceful people. Do you have any concerns about the "undercurrents" (a bit of an understatement) in the Islamic faith?

The argument you make that I just can't understand is that your "sensitivities" against the Republican party are heightened because of past atrocities committed against your religion, yet you rise in support of a "religion" (and I'm not convinced that is the right term) whose believers are committed to wiping out your religion (and homosexuality, women's rights, individual freedom, clean swimming pools, etc.). Either you are the next coming of the Messiah (no offense), or just another example of Darwinism.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The right wing uses this doctrine to suggest that peaceful Muslims are not really peaceful, but instead are living here pretending to be peaceful, waiting for their opportunity to unleash jihad.

I use this doctrine to suggest only that we have no way to know who in the Muslim community practices taqqiya and who doesn't. And it follows that we must assume they do until convinced otherwise.

 

[zork]

I hadn't considered whether it would be safe to allow my now 7 year old boy to go to a public pool at 10 and not get raped. Is it reasonable to want to limit the population that is lacking that level of common decency? Maybe not wanting to be the random non-Muslim who is at an event or restaurant when their pretty snowflakes act out against non-Muslims anywhere/anytime?

Why not just let them live in their own part of the world unless they have the means to support themselves and with proven skills that America needs? That is what the majority of the countries have as their rules for entry. Why not be proactive in not allowing the barbarians through the gates?

 

[Mr. Deez]

This thread seems to have descended into a pissing contest over the bad deeds of Muslims, which means the actual point has been lost. Sad.

 

[zork]

How is Merkel doing politically? Would she be more Hungarian next time?

Or we can just take this like a good Beta society: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/james-clapper-isis-syrian-refugees/

 

[UTChE96]

I have long believed the US is completely and utterly f'ked, and this thread has reinforced my opinion. Not because independents don't vote Republican, in fact I would be happy if none of them voted Republican if they did so for the right reason. There is one critical issue facing the US. Plenty of secondary issues but only one critical issue that can sink the country - the national debt. The debt now exceeds the GDP and the debt's growth rate outpaces the growth rate of the GDP even with historically low interest rates. It doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out that this is unsustainable. Every voter regardless of party affiliation should lose plenty of sleep over this, but unfortunately only a handful of voters even seem to understand it.

So feel free not to vote for Republicans until all your cash savings are essentially monopoly money. It won't make any difference in the long-term until enough voters give the right answer on why they don't vote Republican. And that right answer is certainly not because they don't ululate with delight when Obama visits a mosque.

 

[chango]

There is one critical issue facing the US. Plenty of secondary issues but only one critical issue that can sink the country - the national debt.

I agree with you, but would take it a step back. Campaign finance as it stands, prevents action on the debt, or any other substantial issue. Special interest groups across the spectrum don't want to see change - they continue to make too much money with the status quo.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm not ready to lump Trump with Sanders, but I do agree that there is no way to reconcile Donald Trump's non-conservative politics with the support he gets from the conservative base. It is truly baffling.

His support comes from the anti-PC crowd who cheer the lack of civility and could care less about the lack of knowledge depth on any particular issue. To some, simply saying "f*$& the opponent" is enough to get their vote.

I have long believed the US is completely and utterly f'ked, and this thread has reinforced my opinion. Not because independents don't vote Republican, in fact I would be happy if none of them voted Republican if they did so for the right reason. There is one critical issue facing the US. Plenty of secondary issues but only one critical issue that can sink the country - the national debt. The debt now exceeds the GDP and the debt's growth rate outpaces the growth rate of the GDP even with historically low interest rates. It doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out that this is unsustainable. Every voter regardless of party affiliation should lose plenty of sleep over this, but unfortunately only a handful of voters even seem to understand it.

So feel free not to vote for Republicans until all your cash savings are essentially monopoly money. It won't make any difference in the long-term until enough voters give the right answer on why they don't vote Republican. And that right answer is certainly not because they don't ululate with delight when Obama visit's a mosque.

So you'll be voting for Kasich in your state's primary?

 

[UTChE96]

So you'll be voting for Kasich in your state's primary?

Absolutely! He has been my candidate from day 1 for exactly this reason. Unfortunately it's an angry election year and he is not an angry candidate.

Will you be doing the same?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Absolutely! He has been my candidate from day 1 for exactly this reason. Unfortunately it's an angry election year and he is not an angry candidate.

Will you be doing the same?

Yes, I've stated that on multiple threads that if he makes it through the Republican primary (I'm a registered Independent) that I'd vote for Kasich. He's a social moderate and fiscal conservative based on his track record. Most of the other candidates are too extreme (Sanders, Cruz), idiots (Trump) or ethically challenged (Clinton). Kasich has been my choice also since day 1 although I was open to Rubio but that door is closing after last weeks "Marco Roboto" debate.

 

[Monahorns]

Aren't there special interest groups out there that want a balanced budget and lower overall government spend? One rhymes with Pea Tarty. But many can't force themselves to vote for THOSE kind of people because their too [fill in blank with any progressive smear you can think of].

 

[Monahorns]

I would vote for Kasich too if he is truly fiscally conservative. Honestly, I haven't found much information on him out there so he hasn't really been on my radar.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Aren't there special interest groups out there that want a balanced budget and lower overall government spend? One rhymes with Pea Tarty. But many can't force themselves to vote for THOSE kind of people because their too [fill in blank with any progressive smear you can think of].

The Tea Party which began with a focus of fiscal conservatism became polluted with social issues along the way. I don't like their methods but I agree in principle with the ideal of fiscal constraint. The fact that the conservatives keep putting social issues on par with fiscal conservatism has become a narrowing factor in the base, IMHO.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I would vote for Kasich too if he is truly fiscally conservative. Honestly, I haven't found much information on him out there so he hasn't really been on my radar.

Kasich was the architect of Gingrich's balance budget initiative in the mid-90's. He's a dealmaker which also seems to be a negative label in the current primary. I'd put him in the realist category.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I would vote for Kasich too if he is truly fiscally conservative. Honestly, I haven't found much information on him out there so he hasn't really been on my radar.

Remember how we balanced the budget in the '90s while cutting taxes? Kasich was the architect of those budgets when he was Chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Absolutely nobody in the United States from either party has more credibility on the budget issue than he does.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The Tea Party which began with a focus of fiscal conservatism became polluted with social issues along the way. I don't like their methods but I agree in principle with the ideal of fiscal constraint. The fact that the conservatives keep putting social issues on par with fiscal conservatism has become a narrowing factor in the base, IMHO.

They also became polluted with a knee jerk hostility to compromise and making deals regardless of political realities and the legislative process. Kasich got superb results, but he did have to make deals to bring the Clinton Administration and significant numbers of congressional Democrats to the table. TPers aren't impressed with his work.

 

[NJlonghorn]

This is a very concerning statement to me. Are you also in favor of "nipping in the bud" anyone who wants to criticize Christianity as a whole? Or Atheism? Or any other belief system?

I am not in favor of nipping any “criticism” in the bud. Whether or not I disagree with a particular criticism, I wouldn’t propose to do anything about it. But when politicians start courting votes and proposing policies based on wide-spread sentiment against a particular religious/ethnic/racial group, I become concerned.

Any belief system should be open to criticism and questioning. I say that as a Christian who has heard more than his share of genuine and legitimate concerns about "Christian culture" in the world, along with some outright lies and exaggerations or simple statements of dislike.

I agree that Christianity, as with all things, should be open to criticism. But if anti-Christianity sentiment grows to such a furor that people start talking about banning Christians from immigrating to the US, or treating all Christians under suspicion of being an abortion-clinic bomber, I would be alarmed. I don't think that is going to happen.

The argument you make that I just can't understand is that your "sensitivities" against the Republican party are heightened because of past atrocities committed against your religion, yet you rise in support of a "religion" (and I'm not convinced that is the right term) whose believers are committed to wiping out your religion (and homosexuality, women's rights, individual freedom, clean swimming pools, etc.).

Let's assume that the majority of Muslims are truly peaceful people. Do you have any concerns about the "undercurrents" (a bit of an understatement) in the Islamic faith?

Absolutely. The radical elements of the Muslim religion are a huge, global problem. You can put me on record as being in the “no thanks” camp for terrorism, murder, rape, pool-poop, etc. As I have said in this thread and elsewhere, I support reasonable policies to confront these problems. Modern Germany is Exhibit A for what happens when you don’t do enough.

That said, I also have major concerns about an overreaction. When decisions are driven by frothy emotion instead of reasoned analysis, the result can be persecution that sweeps in a wider range of people than the core issue could conceivably justify. I think that the mood of the conservative right has made a sharp turn in the direction of overreaction.

Radical Islam is our enemy. Islam as a whole is not. Any politician who fails to carefully distinguish between the two is, imho, dangerous.

Either you are the next coming of the Messiah (no offense), or just another example of Darwinism.

Don’t you mean the first and only coming off the Messiah?

I use this doctrine to suggest only that we have no way to know who in the Muslim community practices taqqiya and who doesn't. And it follows that we must assume they do until convinced otherwise.

I just don’t buy into the “guilty until proven innocent” mindset. I have a colleague who is Muslim. I guess it is theoretically possible that one day she’ll walk up behind me and bury a knife in my back. But I have much higher-probability things to spend my time worrying about. That just isn’t high on my list.

 

[Horn6721]

NJ
"As I have said in this thread and elsewhere, I support reasonable policies to confront these problems."

Anyone would support reasonable policies that could identify the islamists. So far no one including the Director of the FBI and even Clapper yesterday can admit there is a way to even know who these muslims really are. And Clapper also pointed out to Congress yesterday they have gotten really expert at forging identities.
Was it a reasonable policy that allowed the murdering muslim fiance easy entrance by asking her if she was a terrorist?
did you read how many fellow employees of the other murdering muslim in the San Bernardino attack said he seemed a peaceful moderate muslim that they would never have suspected of being radical, well until he was.
Of course not all muslims are out to kill us but to borrow words you used to denigrate some conservatives who BTW are not trying to kill you or force you to change your religion
to borrow your words " But the fraction of those who are is large enough to create" concern for non muslims safety.

So what is a reasonable policy?

 

[zork]

It isn't frothy. It is do something, anything, different than the Iran or Cuba type of non-negotiation wrt immigration. Nothing is being done except to encourage by turning off any legal protections(standing down border patrols, etc) that weren't working anyway.

People understand if they aren't here yet then they can't kill, rape, or yes poop in your/our general direction. Nothing sensible is being done or being proposed to reduce the chances of it happening here that I am aware, so why not have a full stop till reasonableness can prevail.

 

[iatrogenic]

I just don’t buy into the “guilty until proven innocent” mindset. I have a colleague who is Muslim. I guess it is theoretically possible that one day she’ll walk up behind me and bury a knife in my back. But I have much higher-probability things to spend my time worrying about. That just isn’t high on my list.

I don't think you should go without ridicule if this happens, therefore, in advance ( in case you can't post afterward), please know: I Told You So!

 

[I35]

That said, I also have major concerns about an overreaction.

The problem is many times common sense is mistaken as overreaction. But I'd take overreaction when it comes to our safety as well.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The problem is many times common sense is mistaken as overreaction. But I'd take overreaction when it comes to our safety as well.

Or it simply is overreaction if you look at where Islamic terrorism statistically ranks when considering the plethora of risks to your personal safety.