What Republicans Who Focus on the Economy Don't Get (voters, security, Taliban)

[Hueffenhardt]

There are many moderates in this country who might be willing to consider giving the Republicans a shot at trying to fix the economy, but the thing that stops them cold is the horrible reputation the Republicans have on social issues. They don't want to give Rebulicans control because they see what Republicans do and have desires to do to suppress women (subject them to invasive medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, fight against equal pay for equal work, return to the practice of allowing medical insurance companies to charge more for women), suppress gays (by denying them the opportunity to marry and have their marriages recognized), suppress minorities (by passing laws that make every Hispanic looking person a suspect of being here illegally), suppress the poor (by cutting safety nets), suppress the elderly (by ruining Social Security through privitization and undermining Medicare), suppress voters (by trying every way they can to suppress voter turn-out and make it more difficult for citizens to vote). And on top of all that, you want to pad the bank accounts of the rich.

That is just too much to handle. The costs are too high to give the Republicans the White House to see if they could do a better job than Obama on the economy.

If Republicans were just fiscally conservative, that would be one thing. But, the socially conservative oppressive positions make Republicans completely repulsive. They take away freedoms and take away opportunities for advancement, and you lose a lot of votes you might otherwise get because of that.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

There are many moderates in this country who might be willing to consider giving the Republicans a shot at trying to fix the economy, but the thing that stops them cold is the horrible reputation the Republicans have on social issues. They don't want to give Rebulicans control because they see what Republicans do and have desires to do to suppress women (subject them to invasive medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, fight against equal pay for equal work, return to the practice of allowing medical insurance companies to charge more for women), suppress gays (by denying them the opportunity to marry and have their marriages recognized), suppress minorities (by passing laws that make every Hispanic looking person a suspect of being here illegally), suppress the poor (by cutting safety nets), suppress the elderly (by ruining Social Security through privitization and undermining Medicare), suppress voters (by trying every way they can to suppress voter turn-out and make it more difficult for citizens to vote). And on top of all that, you want to pad the bank accounts of the rich.

That is just too much to handle. The costs are too high to give the Republicans the White House to see if they could do a better job than Obama on the economy.

If Republicans were just fiscally conservative, that would be one thing. But, the socially conservative oppressive positions make Republicans completely repulsive. They take away freedoms and take away opportunities for advancement, and you lose a lot of votes you might otherwise get because of that.

Noted.

[Ed from California]

The op, a far left partisan, talking about what moderates want. Uh huh.

[pghquest]

Many of the items listed by the OP, are being destroyed by Democrats..

HEY OP, Tell me how bankrupting a program, saves it? Tell me how spporting people and thereby forcing them to live in poverty (i.e. what Democrats do), helps them to prosper?

FAIL!!!

If Republicans were just fiscally conservative, that would be one thing. But, the socially conservative oppressive positions make Republicans completely repulsive.

So, if the party did a 180 on pretty much everything it has done in the last 30 or so years, they'd be attractive?

I agree though, it would be nice if the party that ran on small government, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility didn't spend all its time expanding government, trampling on people's freedoms, and running up the debt with massive unfunded wars and massive unfunded entitlements.

I'm not sure that you still have a viable party left if you get rid of the Taliban-esque social authoritarians, the war hawks, the Grover Norquist types, etc.

[Ed from California]

Says the leftist from Oregon.

[rikoshaprl]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

There are many moderates in this country who might be willing to consider giving the Republicans a shot at trying to fix the economy, but the thing that stops them cold is the horrible reputation the Republicans have on social issues. They don't want to give Rebulicans control because they see what Republicans do and have desires to do to suppress women (subject them to invasive medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds, fight against equal pay for equal work, return to the practice of allowing medical insurance companies to charge more for women), suppress gays (by denying them the opportunity to marry and have their marriages recognized), suppress minorities (by passing laws that make every Hispanic looking person a suspect of being here illegally), suppress the poor (by cutting safety nets), suppress the elderly (by ruining Social Security through privitization and undermining Medicare), suppress voters (by trying every way they can to suppress voter turn-out and make it more difficult for citizens to vote). And on top of all that, you want to pad the bank accounts of the rich.

That is just too much to handle. The costs are too high to give the Republicans the White House to see if they could do a better job than Obama on the economy.

If Republicans were just fiscally conservative, that would be one thing. But, the socially conservative oppressive positions make Republicans completely repulsive. They take away freedoms and take away opportunities for advancement, and you lose a lot of votes you might otherwise get because of that.

Obama just suppresses the economy and jobs, which suppresses all of the above groups you mentioned. BTW no one is taking away contraceptives, abortions, legal immigration, changing social security or medicare for anyone over 55, or stopping gay civil unions.

[Old Gringo]

Most Americans of voting age who possess an IQ greater than their shoe size understand the GOP economic "policy" is the same tax cuts/trickle-down/deregulation slop that resulted in the current Great Recession.

[Retired Marine 1967]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Most Americans of voting age who possess an IQ greater than their shoe size understand the GOP economic "policy" is the same tax cuts/trickle-down/deregulation slop that resulted in the current Great Recession.

nope,,

most with a good IQ understand that the recession came from liberal globalist policies

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Many of the items listed by the OP, are being destroyed by Democrats..

HEY OP, Tell me how bankrupting a program, saves it? Tell me how spporting people and thereby forcing them to live in poverty (i.e. what Democrats do), helps them to prosper?

FAIL!!!

Yea right. This theory presumes that making people starve will give them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty and providing a program that provides nutrition for children keeps children in poverty; providing Medicaid for the poor keeps them in poverty.

What pghquest and others who think like him don't want to acknowledge is that these programs were put in place because we had poverty. If social programs cause poverty why is it than when we only had claw-in-tooth capitalism there were lots of poor people?

But this outlines the differences in the Parties. The GOP uses whatever excuse, no matter how baseless, to justify cutting programs for Americans while cutting taxes for the rich.