How do people get so partisan?

[jay santos]

I see people so partisan and so close minded towards the opposite party, it boggles my mind.

My political views and the candidate that I think most represents them:

1. Economic climate that allows for American companies to be most competitive: Romney
2. Fiscally responsible: Clinton (based on the fact that her husband has been most fiscally responsible prez we've had in 30 years)
3. Anti-anti-immigration: probably Obama or Clinton?
4. Anti-war: Obama or Clinton?
5. Favor strong military but only for defense not for warhawking: Romney?
6. Concerned about environment but not to the point I want to cripple busineses for it: probably more Dem than Rep
7. Fix social security using creative measures even if it means some pain: Romney?
8. Better health care for kids and the poor but not a complete overhaul: ?? maybe more Rep than Dem
9. Christian values on abortion and gay marriage: Romney/Huckabee


No one party or candidate capsulizes my view perfectly, so I can't really be that aggressively against anyone. I doubt if my views are that uncommon, so how can people be so aggressive and negative towards anyone?

[MikeWaters]

I notice civil liberties isn't anywhere on your list

[Tex]

We vote on issues, but we elect people. No individual person encapsulates all my views perfectly, so I have to vote for the person who is most likely to do what I want. I have to compromise on some things that they might disagree with me on, in favor of getting those I DO agree with. Civics 101, right?

If the Democrat party can produce a pro-marriage, pro-life, pro-growth, pro-national-defense, pro-tax-cut candidate, expect me to give them a hard look. Heck, if I could get 3 out of the 6, I would give them a hard look.

They won't.

[Archaea]

I don't know how you can quantify Clinton as fiscally responsible. She's never been in a position to have that quality judged. Romney was successful in a Democratic state.

Ron Paul is the best candidate for civil liberties.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

We vote on issues, but we elect people. No individual person encapsulates all my views perfectly, so I have to vote for the person who is most likely to do what I want. I have to compromise on some things that they might disagree with me on, in favor of getting those I DO agree with. Civics 101, right?

If the Democrat party can produce a pro-marriage, pro-life, pro-growth, pro-national-defense, pro-tax-cut candidate, expect me to give them a hard look. Heck, if I could get 3 out of the 6, I would give them a hard look.

They won't.

Both of the remaining dems fit all 5 of your criteria. Your post is just another example of the results of mindless partisanship.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Both of the remaining dems fit all 5 of your criteria. Your post is just another example of the results of mindless partisanship.

No, both Hillary and Obama believe that tax hikes on incomes above 200K should be imposed. That's not the sort of person I could ever vote for.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, both Hillary and Obama believe that tax hikes on incomes above 200K should be imposed. That's not the sort of person I could ever vote for.

As far as I know, they just plan to let Bush's ludicrous wartime tax cuts for the wealthy expire. That acts as an effective hike, but is the only responsible way to handle it, imo. If a republican gets elected it'll be great to see them try to make good on promised tax cuts while the the nation continues to hemorrhage red ink.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

As far as I know, they just plan to let Bush's ludicrous wartime tax cuts for the wealthy expire. That acts as an effective hike, but is the only responsible way to handle it, imo. If a republican gets elected it'll be great to see them try to make good on promised tax cuts while the the nation continues to hemorrhage red ink.

You may have sophistication in science but not in economics. There can be layered tax cuts and elimination of stupid things like AMT or maintaining capital gains benefits, as well as industry specific tax incentives. The cuts were not unwise, it was the increased expenditures that were.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You may have sophistication in science but not in economics. There can be layered tax cuts and elimination of stupid things like AMT or maintaining capital gains benefits, as well as industry specific tax incentives. The cuts were not unwise, it was the increased expenditures that were.

So did revenue increase over what it would have been without the tax cuts?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, both Hillary and Obama believe that tax hikes on incomes above 200K should be imposed. That's not the sort of person I could ever vote for.

I am actually for keeping the current tax rates in effect except, once someone makes $1,000,000 and over we start taxing the hell out of them.

I would especially carve out a special rate for Entertainers, liability lawyers, athletes and corp. CEO's. They would pay the increased rate, plus a 20% surcharge. I have no problem with them being taxed at a cummulative rate of 70% on income over $3,000,000.