why people are Dems or repubs

Status
Not open for further replies.
" As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3"
"Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home."

"That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become"

I believe all of those.
 
"As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right. The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well. "

i also by that too. But I'm sure someone will come on here screaming about elitism.
 
Actually the article focuses on ideology, not necessarily party affiliations.
 
Yes and its backed by at least three studies from different institutions around the country over Years of time and well documented.

This is how I have always viewed the differances.

I was raised in a spilt household and the Dem was my father who was NO sweetheart.

Ny MOM was the R and was much more communicative of her beliefs andfeelings.
My father almost never spoke to me about ANYTHING.

I feel I came to my political beliefs on my own unlike many people.
I have 7 bros and sis's and they vary in their beliefs.

This study is basiscally how I felt about the world and Why I became a Democrat.
 
What I've always found amusing is that many conservatives see the traits associated with conservativism in these studies as intrinsically negative. The studies themselves don't classify the personality traits as either negative or positive. They're simply traits.

Liberals, by and large, don't seem to object to being called messy, comfortable with ambiguity and craving stimulation. A lot of conservatives, on the other hand, seem to dislike the idea that they're a bit more rigid, prone to neatness and are uncomfortable with introspection.

Gosh, I wonder why? ;)
 
Well even on this board, I find conservatives to be a lot more rigid on their beliefs. Look how its taken them to admit this admin is a complete failure despite the evidence. you can find that on our two sites even.
 
hmm, anyone remember the other study posted on the old board about whiney children growing up to be republicans ? It all fits together.
 
Another thought I have on why people are either Demos or repugs.
Does the growth in population promote the democratic party and supress the Republican one. Think about the areas that are primarially demoncratic and those that are primarially Rebutliken.
Do higher population densities promote the demoncratic parties agenda more than the republiken one ?
 
LadyT said:
Well even on this board, I find conservatives to be a lot more rigid on their beliefs. Look how its taken them to admit this admin is a complete failure despite the evidence. you can find that on our two sites even.
Click to expand...

Find a liberal who will admit to Social Security and medicare needing an overhaul.., or the American Public School System in dire straights for the past 40 years, or a fetus may become conscious before birth ....

I admit this administration is an abomination in terms of Conservative ideology and the war ... Im rather disgusted and have been forced to reevaluate my own beliefs ... and finally ... wonder where the hell I politically reside! But lets not kid ourselves, there are those who reside to the left that are just as rigid in ther own beliefs as those on the right. As you said.. take a look at these two sites ... the debates ... round and round they go..where they stop nobody knows ....
 
uscitizen said:
Another thought I have on why people are either Demos or repugs.
Does the growth in population promote the democratic party and supress the Republican one. Think about the areas that are primarially demoncratic and those that are primarially Rebutliken.
Do higher population densities promote the demoncratic parties agenda more than the republiken one ?
Click to expand...

I don't think party labels, or population density matter in the long run.

Progressivism and/or liberalism is the natural order of evolution in the western world. At least since the days of the Rennassaince.

Its only a matter of time before we have universal health care, gay rights, address global warming. At best, in the long run, the conservatives fight a rear-guard action to delay progress. Which isn't always a bad thing, since sometimes progress that is too rapid is disruptive to society.
 
I am a Republican because, aside form the social conservatives, I agree mostly with the Republican party's idea's of limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense, a shift towards what the founders intended, and once the country is Conservative enough, considering they share very similar philosophies, I'd probably vote Libertarian.



I loath the dims, because as a veteran, I find it absolutely despicable/deplorable/dishonest/disgusting... the way the dims have played politics with the war, they have not served America, they have served themselves.
 
WRL said:
I am a Republican because, aside form the social conservatives, I agree mostly with the Republican party's idea's of limited government,
Click to expand...

The Republicans in the last 7 years, while controlling the legislative and executive branches, turned the government into the largest economic entity the world has ever seen, spending $3,000,000,000,000 per day MORE than when Clinton was in office. They're NOT for limited Government. Strike 1.

fiscal responsibility,
Click to expand...

See above. Strike 2.

strong defense
Click to expand...

Starting wars for no good reason does not equate to strong defense. We're weaker now because we're spread so thin than we were prior to 9-11. Strike 3.

a shift towards what the founders intended
Click to expand...

The founders we against entangling alliances, they were against wars of choice, they most certainly wouldn't have approved of warrantless wiretapping of its citizens, nor would they approve of disregarding the Geneva Convention, nor would they approve of the expension in government the Republicans have spear headed.... Strike 4.

and once the country is Conservative enough, considering they share very similar philosophies, I'd probably vote Libertarian.
Click to expand...

You'll be long dead Larry, before the Republicans look anything like what you describe above.
 
Beefy said:
The Republicans in the last 7 years, while controlling the legislative and executive branches, turned the government into the largest economic entity the world has ever seen, spending $3,000,000,000,000 per day MORE than when Clinton was in office. They're NOT for limited Government. Strike 1.



See above. Strike 2.



Starting wars for no good reason does not equate to strong defense. We're weaker now because we're spread so thin than we were prior to 9-11. Strike 3.



The founders we against entangling alliances, they were against wars of choice, they most certainly wouldn't have approved of warrantless wiretapping of its citizens, nor would they approve of disregarding the Geneva Convention, nor would they approve of the expension in government the Republicans have spear headed.... Strike 4.



You'll be long dead Larry, before the Republicans look anything like what you describe above.
Click to expand...
At Strike three YERRRRRR OUT!
 
Beefy said:
The Republicans in the last 7 years, while controlling the legislative and executive branches, turned the government into the largest economic entity the world has ever seen, spending $3,000,000,000,000 per day MORE than when Clinton was in office. They're NOT for limited Government. Strike 1.

I'm not going to give them a pass on spending, but you compare this to Clinton, did Clinton lose a major city to natural disaster?
Did he have to recover from a recession?
Did he have to deal with attacks on the homeland?
Did he have to prosecute two separate wars in a boarder war on terror


Did Clinton have to do anything other than V Chip?


See above. Strike 2.

The only one to author a balanced budget was the Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich, the only ones wanting a balanced budget amendment are Republicans, The one's today fighting the dims in the trenches as they try to pass out welfare to people making 80,000 a year, Republicans. Are they perfect? No. Do they sway in the right direction? Yes



Starting wars for no good reason does not equate to strong defense. We're weaker now because we're spread so thin than we were prior to 9-11. Strike 3.

We are not weaker, we are a battle hardened force whose put to practical use many technological advances, and perfected many tactics through experience. Our troops today are some of the most battle hardened, best equipped force in the world. And get some long term perspective.

The founders we against entangling alliances, they were against wars of choice, they most certainly wouldn't have approved of warrantless wiretapping of its citizens, nor would they approve of disregarding the Geneva Convention, nor would they approve of the expension in government the Republicans have spear headed.... Strike 4.

So against them they pleaded with the French for help, right... Like the war of independence, they surely would recognize the need to spy on the enemy as they try and make covert connections in our nation, the Geneva Conventions is a specific set of conditions to a specific set of people, you want to expand just who is included, whatever, that's for a new thread.

You'll be long dead Larry, before the Republicans look anything like what you describe above.
Click to expand...

Probably, but I am at least doing my part to sway the process towards where it should be, by being a realist, the Republican party is the best hope to achieve these goals, there is no magic third party, and people of this mindset overwhelmingly vote Republican, Republicans are not all right, you root the less Conservative ones out, and you're on the right path.
 
Clinton's last budget was 1.9 trillion, roughly $6,700 for every living human in the country.

W's latest is $2,9 trillion - roughly $9,500 for every human in the country.

This in 7 years? And I'm sure I don't need to remind you they they don't even put the war spending in the federal budget, so outlays are even higher than that.

There is absolutely zero excuse for that Larry. I know it hurts to hold these maniacs responsible, but the fiscal problems in this country have become a calamity, a serious crisis, and you have to blame the Republicans. Katrina, 9-11, recession, $1 trillion per year? No fucking way. And that's this year alone. Every W budget has far exceeded the last.

Our dollar is weaker, our military is spread too thin, we're running out of money, and the rest of the world, a world that was behind us 99% 6 years ago, is not not behind us at all.

You know as well as I do that if the party in control for the last 7 years was the Democrats, and they did everything exactly like the Republicans have, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top