Why do Conservative Christians vote Republican?

South Bound · May 2, 2016

MorkandMindy said:
She is against all government regulations, so basically she is more than happy for all the jobs to leave the country

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of economics.

Government regulations do not prevent jobs from leaving the country. They are, in reality, a very large reason jobs do leave the country.

And she lives in the middle of Utah so won't even be able to grow enough food.

Why not?

MorkandMindy · May 2, 2016

She is against all government regulations, so basically she is more than happy for all the jobs to leave the country

Maybe I should have explained that, but when I do people get bored and without anything to disagree with the thread just dies.

Unfettered the company owners will move any production facility where it will cost least, so profit is maximised. I've seen companies move the complete production facility to China leaving just the owner in England doing the sales and specifying the product and making a lot of money. A good chunk of the money is then flowing overseas and the English workforce is a thing of the past. There is unemployment and loss of the nation's wealth but the individual owner does better than ever.

People don't feel threatened as company after company does this but how can any workforce compete against 75 cents an hour labor in China? First production goes then it becomes obvious that we don't need the production engineers and zillions of others here either and our middle class becomes over staffed and therefore fights for fewer and fewer jobs and accepts lower and lower pay.

A totally free market will leave a country with high labor costs and phenomenal medical costs with an ever decreasing level of employment. Some jobs are protected by rules, postal workers and military contractors seem exempt at present from free competition but when it hits they will be working harder for less just like the rest of us.

I'm not totally against a free market, though I'm not sure any country runs one, Britain might be the closest, but I do see the advantages in allowing lower priced and generally better medical care to operate within this country. The problem is the rich and powerful decide which regulations we will live under and pick and choose the ones that benefit themselves.

com7fy8 · May 2, 2016

I have voted Republican because they seem to hold more to what I find to be Biblical morals.

But if a candidate is Republican and it is clear he or she is not humble, I might also not be able to vote for that person, even if this means I abstain.

Gracchus · May 3, 2016

MorkandMindy said:
I'm more than a bit worried that that large right amygdala-produced emotions can undermine any possible logic.

Conservatives can reason, and they can use logic, but they adjust the premises of their arguments to justify their sometimes destructive emotional reactions. In such cases, they tend to rationalize instead of reason. A little selective amnesia, a bit of memory modification, and voila! I didn't do that despicable or stupid thing and besides it was the right course of action. Alas, liberals do that too, when they leave the path of empathy and understanding. It is a human thing.
I was going to point out that such was pertinent to the closure of the apologetics forum to non-Christians, but then I considered that the mods might construe it as blasphemy. :sorry:

ChristsSoldier115 · May 3, 2016

grandvizier1006 said:
That's pretty much exactly it. Except in America pretty much no politician believes in compromise. It's just a battle between two ideas until one side completely overpowers the other.

Compromise is seen as a weakness in american politics. if you compromise you're weak. Might be an american cultural thing also.

The Cadet · May 3, 2016

ChristsSoldier115 said:
Compromise is seen as a weakness in american politics. if you compromise you're weak. Might be an american cultural thing also.

There was a period where this was the case in German politics. The resulting political mess led to the new German constitution enshrining cooperation as not just a good thing but a responsibility, and legally anchored as such to prevent a government from not working if one or two fractions decide, "We just want to make governing impossible". The reason this ended up as an actual legal doctrine? C'mon. It's Germany. Take a wild guess.

dogs4thewin · May 3, 2016

com7fy8 said:
I have voted Republican because they seem to hold more to what I find to be Biblical morals.

But if a candidate is Republican and it is clear he or she is not humble, I might also not be able to vote for that person, even if this means I abstain.

I personally do not support not voting. I usually vote Republican; although I may vote third party this time.

The Cadet · May 3, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
I may vote third party this time.

dogs4thewin said:
I personally do not support not voting.

There's a contradiction here, see if someone can spot it.

dogs4thewin · May 3, 2016

The Cadet said:
There's a contradiction here, see if someone can spot it.

How so?

The Cadet · May 3, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
How so?

Voting third party in the USA (or really any first-past-the-post voting system, although the USA really is the noteworthy example here) is functionally pointless. You're voting for a party that almost certainly cannot win, and which meanwhile is leeching votes from the mainstream party closest to its own ideology.

...Not that I don't recommend you, or any other Republican going and voting third party. Please, by all means, the less conservatives we have voting for Trump or Cruz the better.

dogs4thewin · May 3, 2016

The Cadet said:
Voting third party in the USA (or really any first-past-the-post voting system, although the USA really is the noteworthy example here) is functionally pointless. You're voting for a party that almost certainly cannot win, and which meanwhile is leeching votes from the mainstream party closest to its own ideology.

...Not that I don't recommend you, or any other Republican going and voting third party. Please, by all means, the less conservatives we have voting for Trump or Cruz the better.

I would vote for Cruz, but my issue is if you ( general) choose not to vote and can you have no right to complain. I have not decided whether I will vote for Trump or third party.

MorkandMindy · May 3, 2016

Well Gracchus I think you've just explained everything.

I was thinking last week how the 'Americans are stupid' claim pretty much universally held to be true, including inside the US, was pretty facile. There are stupid people in every country and I think you've just explained it - large right amygdala.

If people are pretty much the same then the difference is due to differences in the way the countries work.

The US has a huge gap between the rich and the poor and therefore there is a lot of jealousy of the rich. Yes Americans keep lowering the taxes from the millionaires and up, even as many of the very wealthy express a desire to pay more taxes because the country is heading for bankruptcy, but the 'no hopers' continue to vote Republican because they refuse to accept the almost certainty that they will never be rich.

Weird. So if there was a revolution, it would be the poor out in the streets demanding nothing for themselves but just that the rich pay less tax, and that they be allowed to keep their guns as that is the only defense against the government, who they believe was democratically elected.

MorkandMindy · May 3, 2016

My evidence for the jealousy is the way G W Bush had to make up for having two Ivy League degrees by misprounciating things and deliberately saying stupid things. Nobody will vote for a President they are jealous of, they would far rather pick a dummy.

But of course they won't get one, just someone pretending. It sure looked like he did a dumb thing invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but it wasn't dumb, just selfish.

dogs4thewin · May 3, 2016

MorkandMindy said:
Well Gracchus I think you've just explained everything.

I was thinking last week how the 'Americans are stupid' claim pretty much universally held to be true, including inside the US, was pretty facile. There are stupid people in every country and I think you've just explained it - large right amygdala.

If people are pretty much the same then the difference is due to differences in the way the countries work.

The US has a huge gap between the rich and the poor and therefore there is a lot of jealousy of the rich. Yes Americans keep lowering the taxes from the millionaires and up, even as many of the very wealthy express a desire to pay more taxes because the country is heading for bankruptcy, but the 'no hopers' continue to vote Republican because they refuse to accept the almost certainty that they will never be rich.

Weird. So if there was a revolution, it would be the poor out in the streets demanding nothing for themselves but just that the rich pay less tax, and that they be allowed to keep their guns as that is the only defense against the government, who they believe was democratically elected.

Well, if the rich truly want to pay more taxes why not just give more money. There are plenty of rich and middle upper class people who take deductions that can not both be the case. If they wanted to pay more taxes why would they take deductions and if they TRULY wanted to do more to help why would it need to be in the form of taxes?

MorkandMindy · May 3, 2016

Because a few millionaires paying bigger taxes would not produce enough benefit, they would be better off keeping the money themselves in case things got really bad and they needed to live in another country. The analysis is about marginal benefit.

A few of the very rich, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet did pledge half of their wealth, but rather than give it to the government to waste on another aircraft carrier, they picked worthwhile causes and focused the money on those
.

dogs4thewin · May 3, 2016

MorkandMindy said:
Because a few millionaires paying bigger taxes would not produce enough benefit, they would be better off keeping the money themselves in case things got really bad and they needed to live in another country. The analysis is about marginal benefit.

A few of the very rich, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet did pledge half of their wealth, but rather than give it to the government to waste on another aircraft carrier, they picked worthwhile causes and focused the money on those
.

Well that (giving to charities) makes more sense. I actually support them more than the government any day.

MrSpikey · May 3, 2016

Sketcher said:
Thank you for demonstrating the positives of capitalism. Without that, we would have a lot more "absolute poverty."

It isn't capitalism that requires the provision of basic domestic utilities - that would be government.

Gracchus · May 4, 2016

MorkandMindy said:
My evidence for the jealousy is the way G W Bush had to make up for having two Ivy League degrees by misprounciating things and deliberately saying stupid things. Nobody will vote for a President they are jealous of, they would far rather pick a dummy.

College athletes get degrees even if they are functionally illiterate. I'm pretty sure someone as rich as Bush could find someone to provide test answers.

But of course they won't get one, just someone pretending.

The American people got someone who would do as he was told. Obedience to the bosses, and name recognition, are the main qualifications for nomination, and financial support.

It sure looked like he did a dumb thing invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but it wasn't dumb, just selfish.

He was only following orders. He really is dumber than dirt.

:wave:

KCfromNC · May 4, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
I would vote for Cruz, but my issue is if you ( general) choose not to vote and can you have no right to complain. I have not decided whether I will vote for Trump or third party.

I never understood this. Does someone who decides not to vote because they don't like either major party candidate have more or less right to complain than someone who decides to vote for a third party candidate which cannot win because they don't like either major party candidate? Seems the net effect is the same - the candidate from the party that voter generally supports loses one potential vote.

Gracchus · May 4, 2016

KCfromNC said:
I never understood this. Does someone who decides not to vote because they don't like either major party candidate have more or less right to complain than someone who decides to vote for a third party candidate which cannot win because they don't like either major party candidate? Seems the net effect is the same - the candidate from the party that voter generally supports loses one potential vote.

Let me put it simply: Who chooses the lesser of two evils, chooses evil. It's not a real choice. All you need do to elect a pig is to run it against a skunk. If you hold your nose and vote the pig you pick up the stench and make it your own, and pretend you didn't.

:wave:

Why do Conservative Christians vote Republican?

I stand with Israel.

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Mabaho na Kuya

SO COOL

dog lover

SO COOL

dog lover

SO COOL

dog lover

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

Attachments

dog lover

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads