Why I vote democrat


Herb Sewell

Recommended Posts

I have been voting consistently Democrat for many years now. It is not so much that I admire the democrat part as I despise the republican party. If the republicans had their way we would be reduced to a pathetic theocracy. They stand for politicizing religion(particularly evangelicalism) which will ultimately destroy our country. As much as I despise the Democrat's fiscal policies I despise the Republican's social ones even more. It would be immoral to allow an even bigger threat like the republican party to come to power, this is why I don't abstain from voting. In a choice between one evil and another,even greater evil, it is always better to go with the lesser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ken Wilber called the democratic party an "unhealthy green" and the republican party a "healthy blue" in reference to his categories of human development. Green is hierarchically above blue and represents allowance for freedom of perspectives among people. Blue is based on having stable organizations (like Catholicism, which is considered structurally "blue").

I think his point was that democrats want to treat everyone equally, but they do so in a neurotic manner of trying to equalize income, benefits, etc. that end up cheating a lot people. Conversely, republicans actually want a solid state, an organization in which one participates and is patriotic towards.

But as MSK put it: cat shit, dog shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you vote party line, and don’t consider individual candidates? Leonard Peikoff would just love you, but wait, now he’s saying everyone vote Republican. Can’t keep up…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herb,

Would your policy prohibit you from voting for a Republican whose number one priority is repealing ObamaReidPelosiCare, or defunding the "Goddard Insitute for Space Studies" (a global warmist enclave within NASA)?

Or require you to vote for a Democrat whose number one priority is ObamaReidPelosiCare, or cap and trade?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herb,

Would your policy prohibit you from voting for a Republican whose number one priority is repealing ObamaReidPelosiCare, or defunding the "Goddard Insitute for Space Studies" (a global warmist enclave within NASA)?

Or require you to vote for a Democrat whose number one priority is ObamaReidPelosiCare, or cap and trade?

Robert Campbell

Yes,as much as I hate obamacare, I hate the idea of teaching kids creationist theories in school and dictating what goes in a womans womb toa greater degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Herb,"

What if the Republican candidate favors repealing Obamacare and cutting spending, and makes no brief on behalf of creationism?

You'll still vote for the Democrat?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Herb,"

What if the Republican candidate favors repealing Obamacare and cutting spending, and makes no brief on behalf of creationism?

You'll still vote for the Democrat?

Robert Campbell

"Robert"

Well, there are other civil rights issues I care about with a passion,would he leave those alone too? that's doubtful. IF and only IF he is lax on social issues would I consider voting republican, but sadly that's almost never the case. I care more about letting people make their own choices then some poor people getting money from the government.

Herb

Edited by Herb Sewell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,as much as I hate obamacare, I hate the idea of teaching kids creationist theories in school and dictating what goes in a womans womb toa greater degree.

We'll put aside the fact that voting republican or democrat is, almost always, picking one set of government controls over another. If you are an Objectivist who is sticking to these two parties for hope of getting a 'lesser evil,' then it's a matter of deciding which controls will be the least controlling.

Obamacare is, more or less, the intro to socialized medicine. As soon as medicine becomes a government issue, the difference between medical care (what you get from a doctor) and health care (what doctors do plus what we do) soon disappears. This allows government to regulate anything which affects your health. In other words: EVERYTHING.

I've had more than five (I'm not too social) fellow engineering students decide to go Ph.D instead of medical school. These are smart men and women who would be good doctors. Obamacare is destroying the motivation of smart students to work their asses off in medical school and become great doctors who can demand a shitload of money and a high standard of living later in life.

I'm shocked that you view Obamacare as a lesser evil than creationism in public schools and anti-abortion laws. How exactly do you support this position?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don’t agree with Herb's voting tactics, I do agree that creationism teaching religious conservatives are more dangerous than Obama care. It's one thing to stifle motivation and socialize medicine, it's another thing altogether to deny science outright, and leave things to god. There are many western countries that have socialized medicine, and while that Is not an optimal policy, there is still science and progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so worried about creationism, although to teach this as science is silly. I have no qualms about teaching it as a religious view about science within the context of discussing the different religions.

I'm far more worried about what kids have been learning--or not learning--about American History. Neither of Kat's kids (in their late teens), for instance, had ever heard of Daniel Boone when I asked them.

Daniel Boone, fer Krissssakes!!!

Kids are being indoctrinated, not taught. In that panorama, creationism is but one drop in a HUGE bucket. (Hell, many high school graduates can't even read and write with bare minimum competence. Now there's a real problem.)

It's funny. The fight always ends up being: Which form of rights-eroding control over others do you prefer?

  1. The liberal (progressive) form of rights-eroding control over others, or
  2. The conservative (traditionalist) form of rights-eroding control over others.

In the case of kids: Which form of indoctrination do you prefer?

  1. Liberals (progressives) indoctrinating young liberal (progressive) cattle who will grow up to elect more liberals (progressives), or
  2. Conservatives (traditionalists) indoctrinating young conservative (traditionalist) cattle who will grow up to elect more conservatives (traditionalists).

Actual knowledge is a mere detail and not really required...

I don't want any of this crap. What do you prefer spread all over your floor?

  1. Dog shit, or
  2. Cat shit.

Here's an idea. How about no shit?

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Agreed. But I'm not so sure that less government is going to remedy your concerns about poor education. I'd probably be less concerned about republicans in office if I didn’t think it would filter into the school systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of school systems. Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so worried about creationism, although to teach this as science is silly. I have no qualms about teaching it as a religious view about science within the context of discussing the different religions.

I'm far more worried about what kids have been learning--or not learning--about American History. Neither of Kat's kids (in their late teens), for instance, had ever heard of Daniel Boone when I asked them.

Daniel Boone, fer Krissssakes!!!

Kids are being indoctrinated, not taught. In that panorama, creationism is but one drop in a HUGE bucket. (Hell, many high school graduates can't even read and write with bare minimum competence. Now there's a real problem.)

It's funny. The fight always ends up being: Which form of rights-eroding control over others do you prefer?

  1. The liberal (progressive) form of rights-eroding control over others, or
  2. The conservative (traditionalist) form of rights-eroding control over others.

In the case of kids: Which form of indoctrination do you prefer?

  1. Liberals (progressives) indoctrinating young liberal (progressive) cattle who will grow up to elect more liberals (progressives), or
  2. Conservatives (traditionalists) indoctrinating young conservative (traditionalist) cattle who will grow up to elect more conservatives (traditionalists).

Actual knowledge is a mere detail and not really required...

I don't want any of this crap. What do you prefer spread all over your floor?

  1. Dog shit, or
  2. Cat shit.

Here's an idea. How about no shit?

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Very nice.

After reading 'Extremism', or the Art of Smearing from Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (which is a far better history lesson), I remembered what AP U.S. History was like three years ago. 'Isolationism' and 'McCarthyism' were presented exactly as the anti-concepts Rand showed them to be. There were also plenty of political details 'left out' of certain presidents' terms. FDR in particular. If I remember correctly, we were only taught the intention of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

And one word forms my political position: liberty. That implies no government, of course. Those who want government will get less liberty ultimately -- even if that's not what they intend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly,

I grew up part of my life in the Bible Belt. Then my family moved further north. I didn't detect the Southern education as inferior. On the contrary, I got really bored because I had to relearn things (from a "modern education" approach) that I had already been taught. It bored me silly and I saw no reason to wait so long.

I don't know about now in 2010, but I get the impression that your view of the Bible Belt comes from the caricatures of it in Hollywood comedies. That would make anyone "shutter to think."

You might want to think about opening those shutters a bit...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Agreed. But I'm not so sure that less government is going to remedy your concerns about poor education. I'd probably be less concerned about republicans in office if I didn't think it would filter into the school systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of school systems. Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly

But this is an excellent argument to remove government completely from education. It's like you've asked, in the Soviet Union as it was collapsing, "I'd probably be less concerned about Nationalists in office if I didn't think it would filter into the economic systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of the economic system. Can you imagine what production and distribution would be like , right now 1991, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of the economic system in areas like Central Asia or Siberia."

To be sure, yes, I probably won't like decisions made locally, but I'm much more afraid of centrally made decisions -- even when I agree with their content. Why? The form they take is a diktat from on high and the wider lesson they teach is "control the center and you control the whole system and need not worry about that frustrating thing known as individual choice."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a footnote to my last post, Bill Clinton was from the Bible Belt. Governor at one time of one of the Bible Belt states, in fact.

Call him what you want, but I don't think the Hollywood caricature of a Southern bigoted Bible-thumping yokel can ever be fit to him.

EDIT: Now for a groaner. I just now saw that Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas. I wonder how that fits in with Obama's Audacity of Hope?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly,

I grew up part of my life in the Bible Belt. Then my family moved further north. I didn't detect the Southern education as inferior. On the contrary, I got really bored because I had to relearn things (from a "modern education" approach) that I had already been taught. It bored me silly and I saw no reason to wait so long.

I don't know about now in 2010, but I get the impression that your view of the Bible Belt comes from the caricatures of it in Hollywood comedies. That would make anyone "shutter to think."

You might want to think about opening those shutters a bit...

:)

Michael

Michael,

I was referring to the current trend of religiousness that seems to be taking hold in republican enclaves, generally the south, and their distain for science, not to mention revisionist history, like removing references to Thomas Jefferson from history books. I don’t mean to give the impression that I think it's only the south, but as I mentioned, right now this seems to be the strongest area of support.

I have spent some time in the South, although I grew up in Detroit, so I may have some incorrect impressions, and perhaps my impression of bible belt has been somewhat misinformed by Hollywood, although I like to think I'm perhaps a little more sophisticated and I do read. I think I have a tendency to build up what I dislike into more a behemoth than the thing deserves. To be burned by my own shutter remark, oh the SHAME! But fair enough. :)

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Agreed. But I'm not so sure that less government is going to remedy your concerns about poor education. I'd probably be less concerned about republicans in office if I didn't think it would filter into the school systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of school systems. Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly

But this is an excellent argument to remove government completely from education. It's like you've asked, in the Soviet Union as it was collapsing, "I'd probably be less concerned about Nationalists in office if I didn't think it would filter into the economic systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of the economic system. Can you imagine what production and distribution would be like , right now 1991, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of the economic system in areas like Central Asia or Siberia."

To be sure, yes, I probably won't like decisions made locally, but I'm much more afraid of centrally made decisions -- even when I agree with their content. Why? The form they take is a diktat from on high and the wider lesson they teach is "control the center and you control the whole system and need not worry about that frustrating thing known as individual choice."

Dan,

I'm not sure that what I said and what you said about the Soviet Union are even in the same ballpark so I'm finding it a bit difficult to reply. The Soviet System was such a disaster from the start that it doesn’t easily compare to the problem we have with public education today. First of all the public education system functioned pretty well for many years and been around from the begin of the US and there has always been some federal or state involvement in education. I'm not that informed about the subject, to be honest but If the school systems were much better say in the 50's what accounts for the difference today : the Feds?

I tend to think that there should be some standards taught across the country. We have to have a common history if we hope to identify as Americans and exist in our own culture. The Idea that we could have radically different competing histories can’t lead anywhere good.

Edited by KellyC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Robert"

Robert Campbell is my real name.

"Herb Sewell" is not yours.

In the end, the naming issue is of little importance, as your purported arguments are inane and repetitive.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Agreed. But I'm not so sure that less government is going to remedy your concerns about poor education. I'd probably be less concerned about republicans in office if I didn't think it would filter into the school systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of school systems. Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly

But this is an excellent argument to remove government completely from education. It's like you've asked, in the Soviet Union as it was collapsing, "I'd probably be less concerned about Nationalists in office if I didn't think it would filter into the economic systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of the economic system. Can you imagine what production and distribution would be like , right now 1991, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of the economic system in areas like Central Asia or Siberia."

To be sure, yes, I probably won't like decisions made locally, but I'm much more afraid of centrally made decisions -- even when I agree with their content. Why? The form they take is a diktat from on high and the wider lesson they teach is "control the center and you control the whole system and need not worry about that frustrating thing known as individual choice."

Dan,

I'm not sure that what I said and what you said about the Soviet Union are even in the same ballpark so I'm finding it a bit difficult to reply. The Soviet System was such a disaster from the start that it doesn’t easily compare to the problem we have with public education today. First of all the public education system functioned pretty well for many years and been around from the begin of the US and there has always been some federal or state involvement in education. I'm not that informed about the subject, to be honest but If the school systems were much better say in the 50's what accounts for the difference today : the Feds?

My analogy is not so far off. Public education today is somewhat like Soviet central planning. Yes, not exactly the same -- analogies are not meant to be exactly the same.

As for public education in the US, it did not always exist -- at least not in every state. It's really only in the late 19th century, if my memory's correct, that the movement for public education picked up steam -- and then it was partly based on indoctrinating all those immigrants who weren't of English, Scottish, or German Protestant backgrounds.

I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did.

You're right, of course, about increasing federal involvement. And while I applaud attempts to roll back federal control, all of this just strikes me as re-arranging deck chairs while the ship sinks. For me the central problems with public education is that it's public and that it's mandatory. As long as those features remain in place, you'll have to worry about who controls the national government. This was my point in bringing up the analogy: the problem isn't so much federal mucking it up versus state mucking it up -- though, to be fair, I bet fifty states each plotting their own educational course is bound to have better results more times than one federal plan. At least, if there's some diversity among the states, one would expect some of them to get lucky, whereas one centralized authority is about as likely to get as likely 1/50th the time on average.

I tend to think that there should be some standards taught across the country.

I'm only for a voluntary standard. I see no value in forcing people to adhere to some educational mantra merely because there's a fad or because it makes us all one big community.

We have to have a common history if we hope to identify as Americans and exist in our own culture. The Idea that we could have radically different competing histories can’t lead anywhere good.

This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat of a theocracy in this country is non-existent. Whatever the homage paid to religion by many-- but by no means all -- Republicans, they are advocating policies that, however abhorrent, fall light years short of theocracy. And when they did have power, the policies Republicans advocated still fell light years short of theocracy. :Let's look at reality! The threat of Obama and his cohorts is today; it is upon us; we are hurtling toward fascism at a terrifying rate.

If Castro were running on the Democratic ticket, would any of you say you'd vote for him because some demented Republicans think they can establish a theocracy n America? If you would not, but plan on voting Democratic now, then look more closely at Obama and those who advise him.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Robert"

Robert Campbell is my real name.

"Herb Sewell" is not yours.

In the end, the naming issue is of little importance, as your purported arguments are inane and repetitive.

Robert Campbell

How are we so sure your actual name is indeed Robert? may I see your birth certificate?

Thats beside the point, you have offered nothing to the argument, all you have done is put of pointless rhetorical questions with no basis in reality

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat of a theocracy in this country is non-existent. Whatever the homage paid to religion by many-- but by no means all -- Republicans, they are advocating policies that, however abhorrent, fall light years short of theocracy. And when they did have power, the policies Republicans advocated still fell light years short of theocracy. :Let's look at reality! The threat of Obama and his cohorts is today; it is upon us; we are hurtling toward fascism at a terrifying rate.

If Castro were running on the Democratic ticket, would any of you say you'd vote for him because some demented Republicans think they can establish a theocracy n America? If you would not, but plan on voting Democratic now, then look more closely at Obama and those who advise him.

Barbara

The threat of theocracy IS now. Just look around you, in Texas they are already teaching revisionist history to our children. Religious extremism is everywhere and it is a threat to our freedom. The liberty to make your own choices is the most base of them all,with out that we are nothing.

If anything is leading us towards fascism its the republican party and their attempts to destroy choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

I understand that analogies are not meant to be exactly the same, however It just seemed like the scale was off for the analogy. It's like the difference between being shot by an bb gun or a shot gun, from the relatively tame United States to the overarching oppression of the Soviet Union.

"I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did."

I'm not trying to romanticize the period, I was just commenting on the quality of education over the last 50 years or so, and my , albeit uniformed, opinion on the matter was that the education system was turning out better educated children then as opposed to now. Perhaps you think this is incorrect?

"This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?"

So you think that it’s good to have radically different histories? Really. I expressed that I think it's a bad idea for Americans to be taught "radically" different versions of history, and from that you get that it's my way or the high way, and try to imply that "my way" (if you can even get "my way" from the few sentences' I posted) was close to the Soviet Model. Where did I mention that no on gets competing voices, or that everyone should accept my version?

Please forgive me for not using the quote feature, I'm still a little new to this,Is there a forum topic on it or could someone please walk me through it, If not I'll keep on trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,as much as I hate obamacare, I hate the idea of teaching kids creationist theories in school and dictating what goes in a womans womb toa greater degree.

My two cents: Students can learn about evolution and reject intelligent design on their own. I was taught in high school that communism was based on moral ideals, and it’s just too bad it hasn’t worked yet. I learned better, I think most people do. When I hear about how our young are being indoctrinated (by the right or the left), I say "oh brother!".

As for abortion, I believe that right is here to stay. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the backlash will be incredible. Other things equal I’m much more likely to support a pro-choice republican, but I won’t oppose a Rand Paul knowing that no pro-choice republican can currently get elected in his state.

Getting the government out of the healthcare industry will be a whole other ball of wax. Undoing entitlements and reducing state controls once they’re in place requires actual miracles.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please forgive me for not using the quote feature, I'm still a little new to this,Is there a forum topic on it or could someone please walk me through it, If not I'll keep on trying.

Click "Reply" on the right side of the bottom blue-gray bar below the person's text. Then look at the code in [ ] above and below the person's text that appears.

[ ] also appears to be the way to make bold letters , italics, underlines, etc. A [ ] begins the command, and a [/] will end the command. Select some text, bold it, and you'll see.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now