Why do some Christians vote Democrat?

[mindlight]

Let's see...since 1950...we've had 36 years of republican administrations and 28 years of democratic administrations.

Social mobility 1950 to now...http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/16_02_02.pdf

Beller and Hout show that occupational mobility increased during the 1970s, compared with
the 1940s–1960s, but there is some evidence to suggest that by the 1980s and 1990s it had declined
to past levels. Existing data on income mobility show no clear trends over time, but increases
in economic inequality during the 1980s made mobility more consequential by making
economic differences between families persist for a longer time.

Hmm...social mobility decreased by the 1980s...who was in office from 1980 to 1988? Was it a Democrat? I believe the president's name was Reagan and his successor was Bush Sr.

Healthcare costs are "twice" other nations because they have "socialized medicine"...i.e. single payer. By removing financial gain from the equation, the costs can be held down.

Now that I've blown your theory...anything else?

But if the Democrats make no difference to the poor why would a Christian American vote for them. Given their views on abortion and gay marriage and their anti Christian foreign policy this makes no sense.

 

[mindlight]

Well if you know this then why do you boast, "I used to ride a bike and take a bus, why can't those poor people also ride a bike or take the bus???"

I thought that you are just completely without a clue as to what the USA is like but from the above you are at least remotely aware of the "car culture" we have here. So why do you propose the solution that worked for you in Europe, with your socialized public transportation that is heavily funded and prioritized compared to the USA where it is not prioritized and instead is given over to private companies in many cases? Why do you think that your European, socialist solution is going to work in the USA where we don't have the degree of socialism you enjoy there in Europe?

You again are demonstrating a "do as I say not as I do" attitude in discussing the poor and poverty. You enjoy living in a culture that helps the poor and helped you when you needed it but pontificate to Americans about American problems which you have no experience with.

It's not just Los Angeles. It's virtually anywhere. I live in the NYC metropolitan area, in NJ. For me to get to work I can take a bus but it is expensive because only a private bus company serves my area. I'm only 30 minutes outside the city but I must endure a 90+ minute commute each day by bus. And I'm not poor, yet it's still expensive. I pay over $320 a month for the bus commute and that's because I buy two 20-trip packages per month, at over $160 each. If I were poor, the round-trip per day would be $20, multiplied by 20 days per month it would be $400.

You talk about the bus like it's cheap. HA! give me a break!

As for riding a bike - what would I do with the bike when I get to work? What would I do in inclement weather (e.g. rainstorms, days when there is no room on the road due to 2+ foot snowdrifts, etc.)?? You think it's realistic to ride a bike in a suit and dress shoes to work? Not to mention it would take hours (in good weather).

Then you say one could move to the city or closer to it - but if one does that, the rents go up and offset the commuting costs you face from being farther from the city. And that's if you choose to live in an unsafe area. If you want a safer area or one with decent schools where your kid will be at least safe, it costs more.

The problem you are having, as most conservatives have, is that they are unable to fathom what it's like to be poor in the USA. Or, they are poor and are brainwashed into thinking that somehow social programs hurt them, but they learn quickly when they lose those safety nets and many of them change their tunes.

You're entitled to your opinion and expressing it here, of course. However, it's quickly becoming evident from what you say about American poverty that you're not familiar at all with the issues in the USA. Given that you have lived a life completely apart from American life, I suppose you wouldn't be able to understand, and that's OK, but it really doesn't give you much of a leg to pontificate on.

You are right i am not an American and not impressed with American infrastructure, public transportation or health provision. On these issues it makes no difference whether Republican or Democrat you are both a pathetic shower. Meanwhile i will regularly drive 500 miles to work at speeds that have been up to 150 miles an hour across bridges that do not fall down and roads that are not full of pot holes or take a fast train for the same journey at affordable prices.

You should listen to Europeans for the simple reason you guys do not know what you are doing in this area.

If it takes 3 hours to get across Los Angeles at stupid prices you guys need to go talk to the mayor of London about a proper tube system.

Given that public services and infrastructure clearly do not work in America regardless of party it comes down to the moral issues and the Democrats fail badly on these. So why would a Christian vote Democrat!!!

 

[SepiaAndDust]

You should listen to Europeans for the simple reason you guys do not know what you are doing in this area.

If it takes 3 hours to get across Los Angeles at stupid prices you guys need to go talk to the mayor of London about a proper tube system.

Oh GAWRSH, us stupid 'Mercuns don't know nuthin'.

But let me guess--you've never been to L.A., either.

Given that public services and infrastructure clearly do not work in America regardless of party it comes down to the moral issues and the Democrats fail badly on these. So why would a Christian vote Democrat!!!

You've been given the answers (not to mention the rebuttals that show your assumptions to be in error), yet you persist.

 

[mindlight]

Oh GAWRSH, us stupid 'Mercuns don't know nuthin'.

But let me guess--you've never been to L.A., either.

You've been given the answers (not to mention the rebuttals that show your assumptions to be in error), yet you persist.

What rebuttals?! There are no statistics that show Democrats have cut health costs, improved social mobility or improved equality of opportunity. Since they are no better on the one cause where their rhetoric sounds more Christian than the Republicans all the other issues drown their cause.Simply saying the Republicans are worse ,when both parties have a negative direction, is not a positive argument for the Democrats.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

What rebuttals?! There are no statistics that show Democrats have cut health costs, improved social mobility or improved equality of opportunity. Since they are no better on the one cause where their rhetoric sounds more Christian than the Republicans all the other issues drown their cause.Simply saying the Republicans are worse ,when both parties have a negative direction, is not a positive argument for the Democrats.

What you assume to be unChristian "views on abortion and gay marriage and their anti Christian foreign policy" are not seen as such by all Christians.

There's nothing unChristian about abortion or gay marriage. Lots of areas of foreign policy could be better, but that's always true, no matter who's in charge.

The simple answer to your question: Most Christians who vote Democrat do so because they feel that the Democratic platform is more in line with their ideals.


My question is why a non-American--and one who very clearly has no idea what America is really like--claims to be a Republican.

 

[smaneck]

But if the Democrats make no difference to the poor why would a Christian American vote for them.

It has made a difference. In most states the poor now have access to affordable health care. Just not in Mississippi.

 

[smaneck]

You are right i am not an American and not impressed with American infrastructure, public transportation or health provision. On these issues it makes no difference whether Republican or Democrat you are both a pathetic shower.

You do realize that the 'right' here would consider you a socialist for supporting such things?

Given that public services and infrastructure clearly do not work in America regardless of party it comes down to the moral issues and the Democrats fail badly on these. So why would a Christian vote Democrat!!!

First off, public services and infrastructure are moral issues and at least Dems try to get these things.

You have to understand that here the far right believes that government should be limited to the protection of property, except of course, when it comes to controlling your sex life.

 

[mindlight]

It has made a difference. In most states the poor now have access to affordable health care. Just not in Mississippi.

In the short term you might be right that a number of poorer people have been helped. But with the failure to challenge costs and reform the health culture these changes may not be sustainable in the long run.

 

[mindlight]

(staff edit)

Let the Republicans speak for themselves. Your take on abortion and gay marriage is not in tune with the historic mainstream of the church.

Also you misunderstand the Republican party. In the longer view there have often been Republicans who believed a strong state performing its limited functions properly. It was Eisehower that built the Interstate Highways and the Internet was developed under Nixon and Ford. Both projects had obvious defence benefits and have provided large scale financial rewards also.

On the issue of health care it is clear many Republicans distrust the government and resent being compelled to provide insurance that covers large elements of society that they want nothing to do with. I disagree with them on grounds of stewardship, personal freedom and stability . The current chaos is not working and erodes individual freedoms with its costs. But i agree that abortions should not be paid for by tax.

Regarding public transportation infrastructure i see the problems in the USA as a symptom of a failure of governance. It is government that should set the basic structures in place within which companies can compete to provide an adequate and cost efficient service.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You are right i am not an American and not impressed with American infrastructure, public transportation or health provision. On these issues it makes no difference whether Republican or Democrat you are both a pathetic shower. Meanwhile i will regularly drive 500 miles to work at speeds that have been up to 150 miles an hour across bridges that do not fall down and roads that are not full of pot holes or take a fast train for the same journey at affordable prices.

You clearly have not been to America and you clearly don't understand what transportation in America is like. You have no qualifications to speak on it and have no credibility.

You should listen to Europeans for the simple reason you guys do not know what you are doing in this area.

Most areas these days tend to go with the Republican attitude of dumping money into roads and neglecting public transportation. That's why our public transportation is so lacking in many areas of the nation.

In cities like NYC, which is under Democratic control, the public transportation is excellent. But you don't know that. Because here you are, a self-idenitifying "Republican" (which you can't be because you're not even American but I understand you are identifying that you relate to American Republicans) who is telling us that we should do what the Democrats already do (i.e. improve public transportation) and not what the Republicans want to do (which is to cut public transportation).

Do you understand how far off base you are by claiming to be a "Republican"? Or is it still not clear to you?

If it takes 3 hours to get across Los Angeles at stupid prices you guys need to go talk to the mayor of London about a proper tube system.

Does London deal with earthquakes like L.A. does??? Does London's tube system survive all the earthquakes they have in London? If not, then what good is talking to London? In any case, why wouldn't they just talk to NYC who has a far better subway system than London's tube?

Given that public services and infrastructure clearly do not work in America regardless of party it comes down to the moral issues and the Democrats fail badly on these. So why would a Christian vote Democrat!!!

What do you mean "regardless of party"??? Infrastructure, especially transportation, tends to be better in Democratic-governed areas than Republican ones. You don't seem to get that, but why would you, you don't know anything about our Country.

Let me educate you a little about the USA. It is a very big place. It is not exactly the same in all places. Different areas tend to lean to one type of political position or another. When you characterize the entire USA's transportation system one way or another, it reveals that you are gravely unfamiliar with the USA.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

On the issue of health care it is clear many Republicans distrust the government and resent being compelled to provide insurance that covers large elements of society that they want nothing to do with. I disagree with them on grounds of stewardship, personal freedom and stability . The current chaos is not working and erodes individual freedoms with its costs. But i agree that abortions should not be paid for by tax.

So you claim to be a Republican yet you disagree with the Republican platform on health care almost entirely. This, together with your disagreement with the Republican party on their social spending in the transportation sector makes anyone reading your posts wonder how you can claim to be a Republican. You pay lip service to being against government help for the needy yet you turn around and advocate for health and transportation reforms that are exactly what the Republican party considers to be government help for the needy. You continue to contradict your claim to be a Republican with every new view you present.

Regarding public transportation infrastructure i see the problems in the USA as a symptom of a failure of governance. It is government that should set the basic structures in place within which companies can compete to provide an adequate and cost efficient service.

So with your last statement you appear to be advocating for a competitive market in the transportation sector, i.e. private companies competing to provide services for public transportation. Yet earlier you advocated that the US should learn from Europe, Europe where the state owns the public transportation systems (or at least owns the "private" companies that provide public transportation, making them de facto state-owned and -run systems).

The government in most of the US already provides the framework for private companies to provide their services in lieu of a more comprehensively state-run system. (Which is why you recommended a more state-run, Euro-style system earlier.) So what are you saying that's any different here??? Again, you pay lip-service to the Republican position by saying essentially you're "for it" but then you turn around and recommend the exact solutions that Democrats push for.

I think you should re-examine your views in light of the Republican and Democratic parties of the US and make the appropriate changes to your icon, so as to stop confusing everyone here.

 

[Albion]

So you claim to be a Republican yet you disagree with the Republican platform on health care almost entirely. This, together with your disagreement with the Republican party on their social spending in the transportation sector makes anyone reading your posts wonder how you can claim to be a Republican.

You obviously think you've got something there to make a big deal out of, but hardly anyone who aligns with one or the other of the major parties agrees with everything in that party's platform--which is, BTW, only a transitory policy statement in force only until the next convention comes up with its own.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Let the Republicans speak for themselves. Your take on abortion and gay marriage is not in tune with the historic mainstream of the church.

You asked why some Christians vote Democrat. I gave you an answer. If you only want to know about Christians who hold historic mainstream views, then you should have specified.

Also you misunderstand the Republican party. In the longer view there have often been Republicans who believed a strong state performing its limited functions properly. It was Eisehower that built the Interstate Highways and the Internet was developed under Nixon and Ford. Both projects had obvious defence benefits and have provided large scale financial rewards also.

Since I haven't commented on any of the above, I have no idea what you're basing your assumptons on. I understand the Republican party just fine, thanks.

On the issue of health care it is clear many Republicans distrust the government and resent being compelled to provide insurance that covers large elements of society that they want nothing to do with. I disagree with them on grounds of stewardship, personal freedom and stability . The current chaos is not working and erodes individual freedoms with its costs. But i agree that abortions should not be paid for by tax.

As a non-citizen who has very few clues about what the US is actually like, your opinions don't really matter.

Regarding public transportation infrastructure i see the problems in the USA as a symptom of a failure of governance. It is government that should set the basic structures in place within which companies can compete to provide an adequate and cost efficient service.

Which government? We have several. Federal, State, District, County, City, School District... the list goes on and on. Again, you show your ignorance of both the American people and the US governments.

What if the citizens who actually live there don't want what some guy in Britain (that'd be you) has decided is best for them? Maybe they'd rather spend their tax dollars on earthquake-proofing buildings or on boosting the local economy or on more ambulances than spend it on your magic tubes.

Do we take the decision out of their hands? Cancel out their votes? Kick the officials they elected out of office?

Doesn't sound very American.

 

[NightHawkeye]

As a non-citizen who has very few clues about what the US is actually like, your opinions don't really matter.
...
What if the citizens who actually live there don't want what some guy in Britain (that'd be you) has decided is best for them? Maybe they'd rather spend their tax dollars on earthquake-proofing buildings or on boosting the local economy or on more ambulances than spend it on your magic tubes.

Do we take the decision out of their hands? Cancel out their votes? Kick the officials they elected out of office?

Doesn't sound very American.

Wait ... are you making the argument against amnesty and voting for illegals?

 

[mindlight]

You clearly have not been to America and you clearly don't understand what transportation in America is like. You have no qualifications to speak on it and have no credibility.

You seem to not know what my relationship to America is nor what my experience of it is. However this is irrelevant to the purpose of my OP which has to do with an incredulity about American Christians who vote Democrat. The OP has been very revealing in this respect and helped me to understand their motives which very often have to with poverty, although i have detected a strain of deep bitterness in the various attempts at assaulting my credibility.

Most areas these days tend to go with the Republican attitude of dumping money into roads and neglecting public transportation. That's why our public transportation is so lacking in many areas of the nation.

You are not really a car culture in the league of Germany. Nor can you drive a car at the speeds we do. The reports I have read indicate a significant underinvestment in many parts of the road network. Interestingly it was a Republican president Eisenhower who built the Interstates. Germany and indeed the UK appears to maintain a better balance between public and private transportation.

In cities like NYC, which is under Democratic control, the public transportation is excellent. But you don't know that. Because here you are, a self-idenitifying "Republican" (which you can't be because you're not even American but I understand you are identifying that you relate to American Republicans) who is telling us that we should do what the Democrats already do (i.e. improve public transportation) and not what the Republicans want to do (which is to cut public transportation).

The main attraction of the Republican party is that they are one of the few parties in the Western world in which a critical attitude is maintained towards the social liberalism of our times and especially on abortion, gay marriage and the use of effective military force. As i have said I side with Eisenhower on investment in roads and Nixon and Ford on technological investment, with Reagan on defeating the evil empire and with the Bushes on dealing with Islamic terrorists and assorted dictators.

Do you understand how far off base you are by claiming to be a "Republican"? Or is it still not clear to you?

It is the party I most assoviate with , i do not require you to understand that.

Does London deal with earthquakes like L.A. does??? Does London's tube system survive all the earthquakes they have in London? If not, then what good is talking to London? In any case, why wouldn't they just talk to NYC who has a far better subway system than London's tube?

Good point - earthquakes - will have to concede that point. a solution would have to be above ground. Many German cities run trams and overground railways. But one way or another it is clear that what Los Angeles has now is not working.

What do you mean "regardless of party"??? Infrastructure, especially transportation, tends to be better in Democratic-governed areas than Republican ones. You don't seem to get that, but why would you, you don't know anything about our Country.

Yet the Interstate is a Republican invention.

Let me educate you a little about the USA. It is a very big place. It is not exactly the same in all places. Different areas tend to lean to one type of political position or another. When you characterize the entire USA's transportation system one way or another, it reveals that you are gravely unfamiliar with the USA.

Yes of course quality is geographically variable. This lack of central control and planning is one of the reasons for the chaos and overall quality deficit. Eisenhowers reasons for building the Interstate Highway system were firstly military but the nationwide benefits are also clear.

 

[mindlight]

So you claim to be a Republican yet you disagree with the Republican platform on health care almost entirely. This, together with your disagreement with the Republican party on their social spending in the transportation sector makes anyone reading your posts wonder how you can claim to be a Republican. You pay lip service to being against government help for the needy yet you turn around and advocate for health and transportation reforms that are exactly what the Republican party considers to be government help for the needy. You continue to contradict your claim to be a Republican with every new view you present.

Yes it is not a priority issue for me but From my European perspective both parties are very poor on this issue. Comprehensive cover is a basic feature of the Western world. It is only a matter of discussion in the USA cause of the high costs of your system which neither party seem prepared to confront in a coherent manner.

So with your last statement you appear to be advocating for a competitive market in the transportation sector, i.e. private companies competing to provide services for public transportation. Yet earlier you advocated that the US should learn from Europe, Europe where the state owns the public transportation systems (or at least owns the "private" companies that provide public transportation, making them de facto state-owned and -run systems).

No since privatisation they are mainly privately run within a state regulated framework. German car companies rule the world but few people drive to work in the big cities. There is a balance here and it works.

The government in most of the US already provides the framework for private companies to provide their services in lieu of a more comprehensively state-run system. (Which is why you recommended a more state-run, Euro-style system earlier.) So what are you saying that's any different here??? Again, you pay lip-service to the Republican position by saying essentially you're "for it" but then you turn around and recommend the exact solutions that Democrats push for.

I think you should re-examine your views in light of the Republican and Democratic parties of the US and make the appropriate changes to your icon, so as to stop confusing everyone here.

I would be interested to learn more about thd relationship of Federal and state governance relating to transportation policy. Clearly Los Angeles has money just like New York but the one system has a good rep and the other not.

 

[smaneck]

Yes it is not a priority issue for me but From my European perspective both parties are very poor on this issue. Comprehensive cover is a basic feature of the Western world. It is only a matter of discussion in the USA cause of the high costs of your system which neither party seem prepared to confront in a coherent manner.

The solution to high costs is a single payer system, but ObamaCare was just the best we could get.

No since privatisation they are mainly privately run within a state regulated framework. German car companies rule the world but few people drive to work in the big cities. There is a balance here and it works.

Well, now it makes sense why you couldn't understand why the poor needed a car. In England, cars are optional!

I would be interested to learn more about thd relationship of Federal and state governance relating to transportation policy. Clearly Los Angeles has money just like New York but the one system has a good rep and the other not.

Contrary to what someone suggested a tube would work fine in LA. Most of San Francisco's system is underground it fared much better during the last big earthquake than did the bridges and interstates. We don't lack the means, we lack the will.

 

[smaneck]

Yet the Interstate is a Republican invention.

Yet they won't pay to maintain it.

Truth is the Republican Party has changed since the "I like Ike" days Eisenhower was suspicious of the military-industrial complex whereas Republicans today worry only about big government. Eisenhower supported minimum wage increases, modern Republicans would like to get rid of it entirely. It was a Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice that helped end segregation in America. It was a Republican who wrote the Fair Housing Act. But it is hard to imagine Republicans doing such things today.

 

[mindlight]

Can anyone list or explain to me Christian reasons to support the Democrat party that outweighs the following list of reasons not to. I appear to be ignorant of the reasons why my Christian brothers and sisters in America often do this.

Please be careful not to suggest that Democrats who say they are Christian are not really as that would be regarded as flaming by the moderators of this forum. Keep to the issues and please be honest when your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny rather than resorting to personal attacks.

IMHO:- Reasons not to support the Democrats would include:

1) More solid support for abortion than the Republicans or though not so much amongst poorer Democrats
Republicans More Unified Than Democrats on Abortion

2) Greater level of support for gay marriage laws and the prosecution of Christians who cannot in good conscience support these laws.
Civil Rights

3) A foreign policy that has helped facilitate the massacre of Christians in the Middle east and the rise of ISIS and done little to nothing to provide actual help to Christians being killed or persecuted in this region. A policy that has promoted Muslim candidates in various African elections e.g. Nigeria and Upper Volta.
State Department Purges Religious Freedom Section from Its Human Rights Reports | CNS News
As Middle East Christians suffer, advocates slam Obama's failure to support religious freedom | WashingtonExaminer.com


4) Poor stewardship of the American economy to the detriment of poor Americans: e.g. health care cost inflation, greater levels of economic inequality and lower levels of social mobility etc.

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

Thirteen Economic Facts about Social Mobility and the Role of Education | Brookings Institution

But Trump!!!

 

[tulc]

But Trump!!!

wow..May 6, 2015. This was an old one!
tulc(is just sayn')