Merged: FIXED. Why I don't vote for Republicans for Congress or the Senate.

[acbytesla]

There are many reasons why I will not vote for Republicans. In the past it was simply because they were against the middle class and the poor. The GOP has always been against programs like Medicare, Social Security and a minimum wage. They oppose education and support for scientific research

My reasoning has grown. Today it is now actively opposing Church State separation. It is also brazenly supporting deceit, misinformation and fascism.

But today I watched Congresswoman Katie Porter of California in this 5 minute video clearly demonstrate why I vote for Democrats over Republicans. This happened 5 months ago so maybe you have seen it. But I had never seen it.

Why do you vote the way you do?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Ryan O'Dine]

The video won't load for me, but I'm at the point where if I don't like the Dem or the Independent, I won't vote for that position. The Rep may be decent (and I've checked that box before), but getting any Rep into office now is giving more power to a party that's gone tragically and dangerously off the rails. Losing power is the only thing that's going to change them, and that starts with my vote.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

The video won't load for me, but I'm at the point where if I don't like the Dem or the Independent, I won't vote for that position. The Rep may be decent (and I've checked that box before), but getting any Rep into office now is giving more power to a party that's gone tragically and dangerously off the rails. Losing power is the only thing that's going to change them, and that starts with my vote.

Here is the link.

https://youtu.be/siFkEWcra10?si=_ORCB4VYpOCOT3oj

In it, Representative Porter questions a pharmacy owner about pricing policies of the products they sell. How easy it is for consumers to shop and compare prices on everything they sell. That is for everything but prescription medicines.

Then, she discusses the convoluted and contrived way that makes it impossible for consumers to be active factors in the market.

Republicans talk about free market economics but it is Republicans that support the rigging of the pharmaceutical markets to the detriment of American consumers.

Porter has introduced a bill that provides common sense reforms and not a single Republican support it.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Thank you. She's impressive, a bit of a Jon Stewart vibe. I followed a link to a gun hearing, and she stomped all over that one, too.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

The video won't load for me, but I'm at the point where if I don't like the Dem or the Independent, I won't vote for that position. The Rep may be decent (and I've checked that box before), but getting any Rep into office now is giving more power to a party that's gone tragically and dangerously off the rails. Losing power is the only thing that's going to change them, and that starts with my vote.

While I hear that, I happily voted for my Republican Representative for my district every time he ran (and won) even though I voted Dem for Governor and the Presidency. He was voted in the top ten in congress for being bipartisan, and was a vocal force against his party when necessary. The GOP needs more like him, now more than ever. A reasonable voice on the inside, instead of shouting from across the aisle, or from the sidelines.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

Thank you. She's impressive, a bit of a Jon Stewart vibe. I followed a link to a gun hearing, and she stomped all over that one, too.

she also has a really good one where she's talking to some bank ceo about poverty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLu...?v=2WLuuCM6Ej0

[Ryan O'Dine]

Originally Posted by Thermal

While I hear that, I happily voted for my Republican Representative for my district every time he ran (and won) even though I voted Dem for Governor and the Presidency. He was voted in the top ten in congress for being bipartisan, and was a vocal force against his party when necessary. The GOP needs more like him, now more than ever. A reasonable voice on the inside, instead of shouting from across the aisle, or from the sidelines.

I don't begrudge you that. Someone like that might even give me pause to reconsider. But I feel such people are exceedingly rare.

[acbytesla]

Posting again. Fixed the link

Sharing why I don't vote for Republicans for Congress or the Senate. BTW, I actually use to work for a Republican congressmen and a Republican mayor. (Late 70s, early 80s)

There are many reasons why I will not vote for Republicans in Congress. In the past it was simply because they were against the middle class and the poor. The GOP has always been against programs like Medicare, Social Security and a minimum wage. They oppose education and support for scientific research

My reasoning has grown. Today it is now actively opposing Church State separation. It is also brazenly supporting deceit, misinformation and fascism.

But today I watched Congresswoman Katie Porter of California in this 5 minute video.
It clearly demonstrates why I vote for Democrats over Republicans. This happened 5 months ago so maybe you have seen it. But I had never seen it. The linked is fixed. Please watch all the way through.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Why do you vote the way you do?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Thermal

While I hear that, I happily voted for my Republican Representative for my district every time he ran (and won) even though I voted Dem for Governor and the Presidency. He was voted in the top ten in congress for being bipartisan, and was a vocal force against his party when necessary. The GOP needs more like him, now more than ever. A reasonable voice on the inside, instead of shouting from across the aisle, or from the sidelines.

I created a new thread with a fixed link.

While I appreciate that there are some Republicans who are more bipartisan. But my question is what policies that the GOP supports that makes you choose to vote for Republicans?

But here is the video.

It works this time.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Ryan O'Dine]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

she also has a really good one where she's talking to some bank ceo about poverty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLu...?v=2WLuuCM6Ej0

Nice, thank you for that.

[Stacyhs]

I won't vote for a Republican at this point because a) I don't agree with the vast majority of what they're doing, b) I don't trust them to keep their stated campaign promises/values/beliefs once they are in office and realize they'll get primaried if they don't toe the MAGA line.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

I don't begrudge you that. Someone like that might even give me pause to reconsider. But I feel such people are exceedingly rare.

Agreed, and that's why I think the door should at least in theory stay open for such legislators. If Republicans are abandoned en masse, the Mad Dogs will gain perpetual control.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I created a new thread with a fixed link.

While I appreciate that there are some Republicans who are more bipartisan. But my question is what policies that the GOP supports that makes you choose to vote for Republicans?

Honestly, I've always voted the man, not the Party. A little while back I hesitantly voted for a Democratic Representative by the name of Jeff Van Drew (didnt actually like him but lesser evil and all). The bastard turncoated and switched parties to R after getting elected. Please forgive my cynicism, but **** them all at this point, with few exceptions.

{Eta: answering a little more directly- there is little about the current GOP that would inspire me to pull that R lever. But if Romney types started gaining ground. I'd be willing to listen. The GOP is pandering to its lowest base rn, and will do so as long as they have a major block of voting power that is stupid but shows up on Election Day. FWIW, I think the battle is to reach out to every conservative voter and convince them that fascism.is a bad thing, and that the GOP is undeniably leaning neo-fascist. If the Republican base wants something different, the leadership will mirror that}.

Quote:

But here is the video.

It works this time.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

OK, but my problem with the video is that the lady makes a lot of claims about profiting and double dipping, while at the same time claiming she has no idea what prices are, and if there are across the board savings or not. I can see any responsible lawmaker bring hesitant to jump on board with her proposed legislation, unless she presents some of them thar facts things instead of a bunch of innuendo and assumption.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If Republicans are abandoned en masse, the Mad Dogs will gain perpetual control.

Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore--it's too crowded.

[Venom]

I don't have a problem with many Republicans in my state legislature.

But the hive mind that often comes with being part of an organization just makes many of these otherwise decent people go along with the extremists, and I can't tolerate that.

I am not too concerned with my Republican governor. Sadly, it seems many R voters want to remove and replace him with a full-blown MAGAT the next election.

[Upchurch]

I’m “represented” by Josh “Haulin’ Ass” Hawley. Do I need another reason?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Venom

I don't have a problem with many Republicans in my state legislature.

But the hive mind that often comes with being part of an organization just makes many of these otherwise decent people go along with the extremists, and I can't tolerate that.

I am not too concerned with my Republican governor. Sadly, it seems many R voters want to remove and replace him with a full-blown MAGAT the next election.

You don't? What state is that? Are your Republican state legislators attempting to pass laws eliminating the healthcare rights of women? Are they passing anti-science bills? Are they gerrymandering or making it difficult for people to vote?

My reasoning for not voting for Good Republicans who I share political positions with is that they still vote with a voting block that does those things.

I have for years felt more in tune with Republicans who sought fewer environmental regulations on construction and believed in streamlining the bureaucracy. For example, there are far too many regulations on nuclear power.

But I cannot abide with everything else.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I’m “represented” by Josh “Haulin’ Ass” Hawley. Do I need another reason?

No, not really. But it seems to me, he did something half reasonable and bipartisan recently. I remember being shocked by it.

[Upchurch]

Also, Katie Porter is probably the best person in congress, right now. Everyone eventually falls from grace, but I will be especially devastated when it’s her turn.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore--it's too crowded.

While I of course get your point, one of the best meals I ever had was at a Michelin rated place that had exactly four spread out tables. Quiet, and you felt like your personal dining experience was highly valued. If it was packed elbow to elbow, the experience would have diminished considerably, so I'm fairly supportive of your comment at face value.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Thermal

OK, but my problem with the video is that the lady makes a lot of claims about profiting and double dipping, while at the same time claiming she has no idea what prices are, and if there are across the board savings or not. I can see any responsible lawmaker bring hesitant to jump on board with her proposed legislation, unless she presents some of them thar facts things instead of a bunch of innuendo and assumption.

Do you understand why your pharmacy charges a specific amount for prescription drugs? Do you think that there should be a dozen different prices you might be charged depending wholly on what insurance company you might have? Do you support the GOP position that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices on prescription medications?

Healthcare costs in the US are absurd because the system is rigged to generate profits not to achieve quality health care. And the biggest reason for this is the industry is protected by politicians, especially, but not limited to GOP politicians.

By the way, it's not innuendo. The Pharmaceutical companies are definitely doubledipping.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Do you understand why your pharmacy charges a specific amount for prescription drugs? Do you think that there should be a dozen different prices you might be charged depending wholly on what insurance company you might have? Do you support the GOP position that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices on prescription medications?

Healthcare costs in the US are absurd because the system is rigged to generate profits not to achieve quality health care. And the biggest reason for this is the industry is protected by politicians, especially, but not limited to GOP politicians.

The hilited is my point. When the Dems controlled things for years at a time, they did jack **** to fix the problem in a meaningful way, and we all know this is a stroke of the pen type problem. Cali recently showed us how it was done with insulin price gouging, iirc.

Quote:

By the way, it's not innuendo. The Pharmaceutical companies are definitely doubledipping.

I hear you, and I hear Senator Sanders. We have a shamefully bloated healthcare/pharmaceutical industry that needs an overhaul. My point was that whatever the merits of the argument are, that video and its grandstanding vague rhetoric was not convincing, and I wouldn't blame an R for not piling blindly on board.

[bruto]

It's an interesting video, and it confuses me a little. It appears that the congresswoman is saying that the information ought to be available, and is on the right track within the system that exists, but she also appears to be ignoring the enormous gray mammal in the room - that this issue would be quite different if health care were universal and not the complicated semi-private mess that her party is largely responsible for.

On the issue of Venom's Republican governor, I think it's important to remember that a governor is not a congressperson. While it's true enough, and worth noting, that most if not all R representatives vote the party line, and thus render their consciences impotent, this may be less so at the State level. Vermont, for example, has a R. governor who is not bad. And yes, the party is continually trying to kill him off and replace him with anti-rights, anti-this and anti-that right wingers, and disavowing him, but so far at least he has been able to withstand the pressure, and continues to support women's rights, gay rights, and so forth. I am sorry he has other opinions and policies with which I disagree, and I am also sorry that he cannot see his way to disavow the R. party, but I can to a certain degree respect his attempt to walk back the GOP drift to the radical right, and his attempt to function in a bipartisan system.

I generally agree with abcbytesla's initial point, though, and would not be inclined to vote for any Republican congressperson. In my own case this is a pretty easy rule to follow, since we have only one, whose opponent was much further to the right of center.

But in the federal government, where margins of majority are so slim, I would not vote for any "opposition" candidate as a rule, because whatever their personal convictions, and even their floor votes, their membership in one party makes a disproportionate difference in the way congress and the Senate are conducted, and the makeup of committees, and so forth. It's an unfortunate thing, but whatever your personal beliefs, there are other side effects to party membership. It didn't matter, for example, what some well meaning Republican congressman might believe or vote, if the Republican-led senate simply refuses to put a Supreme Court justice to the vote.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by bruto

It's an interesting video, and it confuses me a little. It appears that the congresswoman is saying that the information ought to be available, and is on the right track within the system that exists, but she also appears to be ignoring the enormous gray mammal in the room - that this issue would be quite different if health care were universal and not the complicated semi-private mess that her party is largely responsible for.

While this true. It is marginally better than the system before the changes made by the Democrats when they were in power. Porter wants to improve it and has support from an overwhelming number of Democrats and not a single Republican.

Originally Posted by bruto

On the issue of Venom's Republican governor, I think it's important to remember that a governor is not a congressperson. While it's true enough, and worth noting, that most if not all R representatives vote the party line, and thus render their consciences impotent, this may be less so at the State level. Vermont, for example, has a R. governor who is not bad. And yes, the party is continually trying to kill him off and replace him with anti-rights, anti-this and anti-that right wingers, and disavowing him, but so far at least he has been able to withstand the pressure, and continues to support women's rights, gay rights, and so forth. I am sorry he has other opinions and policies with which I disagree, and I am also sorry that he cannot see his way to disavow the R. party, but I can to a certain degree respect his attempt to walk back the GOP drift to the radical right, and his attempt to function in a bipartisan system.

I generally agree with abcbytesla's initial point, though, and would not be inclined to vote for any Republican congressperson. In my own case this is a pretty easy rule to follow, since we have only one, whose opponent was much further to the right of center.

But in the federal government, where margins of majority are so slim, I would not vote for any "opposition" candidate as a rule, because whatever their personal convictions, and even their floor votes, their membership in one party makes a disproportionate difference in the way congress and the Senate are conducted, and the makeup of committees, and so forth. It's an unfortunate thing, but whatever your personal beliefs, there are other side effects to party membership. It didn't matter, for example, what some well meaning Republican congressman might believe or vote, if the Republican-led senate simply refuses to put a Supreme Court justice to the vote.

Exactly.

[bruto]

My one quibble with the above is that, if memory serves, many of the regrettable changes made by the Democrats when in power, if what you're referring to is the Affordable Care Act, were in response to Republican demands insincerely raised as obstacles to their approval, and which they then voted against anyway. We can, of course, partly blame the Democrats for trusting the Republicans not to renege on the compromise.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The hilited is my point. When the Dems controlled things for years at a time, they did jack **** to fix the problem in a meaningful way, and we all know this is a stroke of the pen type problem. Cali recently showed us how it was done with insulin price gouging, iirc.



I hear you, and I hear Senator Sanders. We have a shamefully bloated healthcare/pharmaceutical industry that needs an overhaul. My point was that whatever the merits of the argument are, that video and its grandstanding vague rhetoric was not convincing, and I wouldn't blame an R for not piling blindly on board.

What grandstanding? Porter didn't spend her precious committee time saying "look at me." No, she showed with easy to understand questions what some of the problems are. In addition, Porter has put out in detail what the issues are in a report to congress. She also drafted legislation to address those issues.

What else would you have her do?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by bruto

My one quibble with the above is that, if memory serves, many of the regrettable changes made by the Democrats when in power, if what you're referring to is the Affordable Care Act, were in response to Republican demands insincerely raised as obstacles to their approval, and which they then voted against anyway. We can, of course, partly blame the Democrats for trusting the Republicans not to renege on the compromise.

And it's more than that. The ACA was a big change. No one thought it was a perfect law. What's wrong with additional legislation to improve it?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

What grandstanding? Porter didn't spend her precious committee time saying "look at me."

The hell she didn't. She was questioning a pharmacy owner, and her final bullet point was to talk about her legislative deal that she complained about not being able to get Republicans on board with. That's a pure "look at me" because it had precisely squat to do with the pharmacy owner being questioned.

Quote:

No, she showed with easy to understand questions what some of the problems are. In addition, Porter has put out in detail what the issues are in a report to congress. She also drafted legislation to address those issues.

Serious qiestion: was a word of that news to you, or to anyone non-comotose in the past couple generations? Has my man Senator Sanders spent a great deal of time in front of his colleagues saying much more and in greater depth and detail?

I get that the testimony given at such hearings is 90% scripted platforming and showboating, but I've heard enough rhetoric to last a lifetime. Talk is cheap and plentiful. Get it done.

Quote:

What else would you have her do?

Honestly? Virtually anything else. Preferably something productive. I don't think it needs to be redundantly shown that not much comes from questioning a pharmacy owner about matters you both already know the questions and answers that are on tap.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The hell she didn't. She was questioning a pharmacy owner, and her final bullet point was to talk about her legislative deal that she complained about not being able to get Republicans on board with. That's a pure "look at me" because it had precisely squat to do with the pharmacy owner being questioned.

Serious qiestion: was a word of that news to you, or to anyone non-comotose in the past couple generations? Has my man Senator Sanders spent a great deal of time in front of his colleagues saying much more and in greater depth and detail?

I get that the testimony given at such hearings is 90% scripted platforming and showboating, but I've heard enough rhetoric to last a lifetime. Talk is cheap and plentiful. Get it done.

Honestly? Virtually anything else. Preferably something productive. I don't think it needs to be redundantly shown that not much comes from questioning a pharmacy owner about matters you both already know the questions and answers that are on tap.

I see it differently. Public support is essential. Getting attention of the problems is key. And to suggest that Bernie Sanders didn't and doesn't similarly perform in committees is simply not true. Yes, decisions in Congress takes place through private sessions and not during public hearings. But good governing is also performance.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I see it differently. Public support is essential. Getting attention of the problems is key.

Agreed, but I don't think commitee testimony is reaching the public in even marginally efficient ways.

Quote:

And to suggest that Bernie Sanders didn't and doesn't similarly perform in committees is simply not true.

Fortunately, I suggest no such thing. I pointed out that Representative Porter is singing an old song, and Sanders has a couple generations head start on her. Repeating old news in committee hearings is treading water, that I viscerally dislike.

Quote:

Yes, decisions in Congress takes place through private sessions and not during public hearings. But good governing is also performance.

Sure, most of politicking is posturing. Do you think it's our responsibility as constituents to let them know that it's enough ******* posturing already? Talking a lot and accomplishing nothing is not far from doing nothing at all.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Agreed, but I don't think commitee testimony is reaching the public in even marginally efficient ways.

interesting as many of Porter's questioning sessions in Committee hearings not only result in being covered on many news outlets and have gone viral in YouTube videos

Originally Posted by Thermal

Sure, most of politicking is posturing. Do you think it's our responsibility as constituents to let them know that it's enough ******* posturing already? Talking a lot and accomplishing nothing is not far from doing nothing at all.

I disagree. It's not. Some of it may be performative however.

What I see from her is exposition. Not posturing. And you're only seeing a five minute questioning session. Not her entire day in Congress.

Posturing is what this Oklahoma turd did. Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Brainster]

Congress or the Senate? Does that mean you have voted GOP recently for President or Governor?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Congress or the Senate? Does that mean you have voted GOP recently for President or Governor?

Congress is made up of the House and the Senate. But I fully understand the confusion since members of the House are referred to as Congressmen etc.

I have voted once for a Republican for the House of Representatives and once for Governor in my state. They were definitely not anything like Republicans I see in Congress today.

I have never voted for a Republican for President. That said, I never minded Eisenhower, Bush Sr, Ford, Romney, McCain or Dole all that much. Republican Presidents in my life that I absolutely hated was Reagan, George W and Trump. Not necessarily in that order.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Posting again. Fixed the link

Sharing why I don't vote for Republicans for Congress or the Senate. BTW, I actually use to work for a Republican congressmen and a Republican mayor. (Late 70s, early 80s)

There are many reasons why I will not vote for Republicans in Congress. In the past it was simply because they were against the middle class and the poor. The GOP has always been against programs like Medicare, Social Security and a minimum wage. They oppose education and support for scientific research

My reasoning has grown. Today it is now actively opposing Church State separation. It is also brazenly supporting deceit, misinformation and fascism.

But today I watched Congresswoman Katie Porter of California in this 5 minute video.
It clearly demonstrates why I vote for Democrats over Republicans. This happened 5 months ago so maybe you have seen it. But I had never seen it. The linked is fixed. Please watch all the way through.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Why do you vote the way you do?

To have an efficient market you have to have transparency in pricing.


Katie Porter is rare. Someone who doesn't yell at people and rant at them but gets the information she needs intelligently.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Thermal

While I of course get your point, one of the best meals I ever had was at a Michelin rated place that had exactly four spread out tables. Quiet, and you felt like your personal dining experience was highly valued. If it was packed elbow to elbow, the experience would have diminished considerably, so I'm fairly supportive of your comment at face value.

For someone who gets my point, you're working very hard to miss it.

[ahhell]

Seems like an unnecessary post, pretty sure everyone here could list a dozen reasons.

I would vote for a clearly anti-Maga Candidate though. Just to reward a republican for not being crazy. I live in CO, an open primary state, so I can vote in either the Dem primary or the Rep primary. Since 2016 I've been voting in the Rep primary for the least Trumpy choice. So far, they've all lost.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Agreed, and that's why I think the door should at least in theory stay open for such legislators.

The door has always been open. Democratic leadership and the media are begging to have a not guano crazy Republican.

Quote:

If Republicans are abandoned en masse, the Mad Dogs will gain perpetual control.

Horses. Barn doors.

Quote:

Honestly, I've always voted the man, not the Party.

Sadly, you can't do that anymore. The GQP demands all members be in lock step.

Quote:

A little while back I hesitantly voted for a Democratic Representative by the name of Jeff Van Drew (didnt actually like him but lesser evil and all). The bastard turncoated and switched parties to R after getting elected. Please forgive my cynicism, but **** them all at this point, with few exceptions.

Hey, nothing says "working across the aisle" like switching sides.

Quote:

{Eta: answering a little more directly- there is little about the current GOP that would inspire me to pull that R lever. But if Romney types started gaining ground. I'd be willing to listen. The GOP is pandering to its lowest base rn, and will do so as long as they have a major block of voting power that is stupid but shows up on Election Day. FWIW, I think the battle is to reach out to every conservative voter and convince them that fascism.is a bad thing, and that the GOP is undeniably leaning neo-fascist. If the Republican base wants something different, the leadership will mirror that}.

Except this is where the Republicans have been leading their base for 50 years. People mistakenly believe the GOP is reflecting the will of their voters, but it is very much the opposite.

Quote:

OK, but my problem with the video is that the lady makes a lot of claims about profiting and double dipping, while at the same time claiming she has no idea what prices are, and if there are across the board savings or not. I can see any responsible lawmaker bring hesitant to jump on board with her proposed legislation, unless she presents some of them thar facts things instead of a bunch of innuendo and assumption.

If only there was someone in the room who could have clarified or refuted what she was saying. Oh, well.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Seems like an unnecessary post, pretty sure everyone here could list a dozen reasons.

I would vote for a clearly anti-Maga Candidate though. Just to reward a republican for not being crazy. I live in CO, an open primary state, so I can vote in either the Dem primary or the Rep primary. Since 2016 I've been voting in the Rep primary for the least Trumpy choice. So far, they've all lost.

IMV, the reasons are most important. I like to see if people can articulate why they support their voting choices. Are they informed or do they just think they are? It has always seemed to me that most people do a poor job of explaining it.

I very much appreciate when committed Republicans telling me why and it is something I can relate to. Why my neighbor loves Trump makes absolutely no sense. The guy doesn't have a pot to piss in. Lives on a fixed income and still is a MAGA Republican.

[ahhell]

I know a MAGA architect. His reasons are all deep state crap, seems to think all the legal cases are politically motivated, it doesn't help that the NY cases are mostly political prosecutions. I can't convince of the others, for reasons. Mostly Biden crime family....what about all the other guys that had classified docs...ect. Doesn't matter that pretty much everyone else gave the classified material back when they found it rather than denial and obfuscation.

[Thermal]

Probably been said a thousand times on these fora, but I think there are two types of Republicans: the actual corporate minded power players and whatever rabble base they can stir up. The former don't care about God or guns or whatever; they care about money. So they enlist who they can to make a showing on Election Day. Back when Bommer yuppies were everywhere, it was the Contract With America. Then came the outsider Good Ol Boy you could have a beer with. Now it's Q Tips and assorted hicks that have gained credibility. The rabble base is persuaded to vote against their own self interests in the name of conservative social views. We need to get people to smarten up and see who they are voting for and what they actually do. Easy, right?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Probably been said a thousand times on these fora, but I think there are two types of Republicans: the actual corporate minded power players and whatever rabble base they can stir up. The former don't care about God or guns or whatever; they care about money. So they enlist who they can to make a showing on Election Day. Back when Bommer yuppies were everywhere, it was the Contract With America. Then came the outsider Good Ol Boy you could have a beer with. Now it's Q Tips and assorted hicks that have gained credibility. The rabble base is persuaded to vote against their own self interests in the name of conservative social views. We need to get people to smarten up and see who they are voting for and what they actually do. Easy, right?

Sure, but as long as those power brokers are in a minority that can win only by empowering the crazies (or think they are), they are also substantially responsible for the empowerment of their craziness. I am not in favor of actually imprisoning people for relatively nebulous ideological and associational sins, but I'm quite ready not to vote for them. Even relatively sane old-line Republicans must take some responsibility for the monster if they cannot let go. A small handful of them have demonstrated principle by abandoning the party that forsook them, but too few are willing to accept the risk. Among the very few I'm happy to say two are from the two states I've lived in most of my life. Jim Jeffords in Vermont, and Lowell Weicker in Connecticut.