Are all Republicans Idiots?

Thank you, farmerman.

What is this forum now? A Ph.D thesis forum? What do you mean by "well researched", and by what standards? Apparently this is a liberal forum and any conservative speech made here would be labelled "not well researched horseshit" based on my observation. Bottom line is there's truth in both left wing and right wing. You can always find counter argument / evidence regardless what I say. Otherwise, there would be no political debate, no party division and ultimately, no poverty in the world. A lot of things I shall say is based on generally accepted principles of economics, or even more basic, human nature. If you tell me human nature is not largely self-centered, then you need to read more about history.

I think the thread title is brilliantly answered by this latest attempt by a South Carolina Republican representative.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/19/14010830/south-carolina-porn-ban-bill-chumley-computers



they really want to get inside everyone's personal business - definitely not the party of small government - the Republicans are the party of let's get government into everyone's crotch

This is precisely I have problems with liberals. It appears free speech is very limited in this country for a conservative, especially in those liberal universities:
http://thetab.com/us/uc-berkeley/2016/04/13/conservative-berkeley-267
I personally am a graduate from one of those, and while left wing protests are praised, conservative speeches are often frowned upon and may even be disallowed by the school -- almost without reason, or worse, being immediately labelled as racist, Orwellian...etc.

Debra, you kept saying we play the victim, but we don't play victim more than the liberals. The liberals, not only making themselves look like victims, but also everyone else. Below is one example:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#33efce0a4766

Occupy wall street movement, where did they get that "we are the 99%?":

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/most-americans-arent-occupy-wall-streets-99-percent/246196/

Sometimes when you look at a historical event, you wonder who ultimately caused it? Is that wall street that is 100% at fault for the financial crisis, and that millions of people are thrown out of their homes? So did anyone hold a gun to the person who can't afford a home and asked him to buy a house? Or did that person wanted a big house he knows he can't afford and bought it anyway because he thought he can sell it for more later (home flipping)?

And there's Black Lives Matter? All lives matter, period. These people are engaging in self-discrimination and self-alienation. Here are some statistics for your own reading pleasure. I will not interpret those since that would be "politically incorrect". Understand that I don't believe it's a race thing and I don't discriminate against any race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

And here's another "promise" made by our liberal Obama Administration that failed miserably, at least for the middle class:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/obamacare-affordable/
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/12/19/435878.htm

Have liberals also asked why some people can't afford health insurance? I am not living luxuriously with my family. We get by, but yet we must support all those people who can't afford healthcare, why?

I quote something I found online which I completely agree:

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave. "

Ultimately, I disagree with liberals because:
1. They do make everyone feels like a victim -- exploited by large corporations, wage gap, gender gap, insufficient welfare ... etc. How is doing so any different from North Korea or any other commie nations that teaches its citizens that they are poor because of the "evil, rich, imperial west"? The only thing those less fortunate people are not told is that perhaps they should get their act together and get a good education so they can have a better life. Liberals are giving these unfortunate souls incentives to not work and be a leech of the society whereas the CORRECT thing to do is to incentivize them go to school, or at least send their children to school.

2. Liberals want equality in a literal sense. Again, goes back to equal pay...etc. A heart surgeon will make much more than a janitor, period, and that does not make him an "evil rich person". Everyone is born of different talent and it seems some liberals just don't accept this. You can encourage them to do something they have a talent for, and excel in that, but you can't make everyone a surgeon. Equality does not go hand in hand with reality or the forces of market. Again, many nations tried. Mao Ze Dong had a policy in China that forces everyone to take $45 home a month, regardless what you do. We share the goods we produce. It sounded like a perfect utopian society but did it work? Read your history please.

3. Quit blaming everything on racism. Stereotype is NOT always racism and a comment made that's a stereotype could just be the person's biased opinion and doesn't make him a racist:
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-stereotyping-racist
I can't even give a constructive criticism to my black employees because they'll tell me Asians hates blacks. So are they being racist by saying because I am Asian, I hate blacks?


Oh yeah, you can certainly say I'm ignorant simply no one would praise me here. However, this precisely goes back to what I said. I am a conservative among the many liberals here. It's no surprise everyone is predisposed to believe that I am "an ignorant republican" (ps, that's a stereotype, not a racist comment).

I think a common problem with the modern day liberals is that they haven't lived in another country long enough to understand that sometimes the so called "change" and "progress" aren't always good. The so called "backward force" by liberals has a negative connotation, but if some "change" isn't good, then why not revert it back? Do you call communism a progressive policy and that China's ultimate reversion into capitalism "backward"? After all, communism is the ultimate equality? Well you should tell this to the billions of Chinese people that are having a much better standard of living today. However, I can tell you there are a handful of people in China do wish the days of Mao are back because they are being "left out". These are usually the poorest people who didn't have what it takes to put themselves through school after universities reopened. They blamed their laziness on some other factors except themselves.

It'll be interesting to hear what liberals have to say about this.....

Discrimination is wrong, but having regulations to prohibit it does not resolve the problem of discrimination. I agree that no one should be discriminated based on their gender, color, religion or sexual orientation. However, if I were a homosexual person and I walked into a bakery, not knowing the owner is a homophobe, I could potentially end up worse than if he had told me so. If laws prevents him from not serving me that cake, and he in fact, does serve me that wedding cake and it's of sub-par quality, do I win at all? Sure I could complain and do all sorts of things to ultimately win but am I happy about that? Not at all. I'd rather he refuse to serve me and I'll take my business somewhere that aren't homophobic. Eventually, this guy who's homophobic will go out of business because words spread and people will stop going to his shop. Market has a way to make those people adapt or perish.

Discrimination could be resolved by having laws, but only on the surface. Closet racists will be there and it's even more scary because I could walk in somewhere I don't want to be unknowingly. It's through education that we should change these people's mentality and after a few generations, racism will just go away.

Well said.

I'm taking a break from baking and other tasks to get ready for Christmas, so I don't wish to address every issue you believe to be quintessentially liberal. I do want to address the equal pay matter, equal pay doesn't mean a rocket scientist will make the same as a cashier....it means a female rocket scientist and a male rocket scientist with the same responsibility and skill level will have comparable wages.

I still have a few packages to wrap, and my grand daughter is fond of the holiday cookies I make, so thats what I'll be doing. But by all means, carry on with the ill will if that makes you happy.

I hope everyone has a wonderful Christmas and Hanukkah or is lucky enough to enjoy some time off.

Thank you and I hope you had a great holiday. Yes, I agree that a female rocket scientist and a mail rocket scientist should have equal pay. However, the liberals have been twisting this to say that they are not equal. Certainly, I cannot speak for rocket scientists, because I am not one. However, I can CERTAINLY with 1000% certainty to say that the three companies I've worked for (two of which are fortune 100) in the past DOES NOT discriminate, either by race or gender. A female investment banker, executive, or portfolio manager makes just as much as their male counterpart. In fact, I have a co-worker sitting three desks away from me does things that is much less technical than I am and she is getting paid at the same rate as I am (and no I don't have a problem with that because she does work very hard).

Some may argue that perhaps some statistics show that women make less. However, one interpretation of a phenomenon doesn't mean it is the only one. Liberals tends to use that as evidence for gender discrimination, but another way to interpret that is women may not choose jobs that are overly stressful. It is true that you don't find a lot of female investment banker due to the insane working hours (often 100+ hours a week). Similarly, women tend to not choose a career in quant trading perhaps also due to the tremendous stress. However, the ones that do choose these careers are making a lot of money. I have several classmates that were placed with elite companies like McKinsey, Goldman, Bain and ...etc and they are all making more than what I am making. I have another friend whom rose to the position of CFO at the age of 28 when I was still an analyst. Perhaps 10-15 years ago, women are under represented in IT, not because of discrimination but because of career choices again. Today it's different. My girl cousin was hired out of her Ivy league school directly by a dot.com company and her first bonus last year was $730k. Many company wanted to hire her, including Google and Apple. Our company employs 250,00 workers worldwide, and we have a job grade system. If you are hired with a specific education, experience, and job title, you CANNOT be paid significantly more or less than those who has the same job title as you. So I really don't see where the discrimination is.

As far as other equal pay topics are concerned, I think it should be left to supply and demand. I do not agree that those people who are arguing for $15 and hour will be any better off if they do get $15 an hour. Someone is gonna lose that $$, so if McDonalds all of a sudden has to pay $15 to all his employees that normally gets the current federal or state minimum, it will shrink their profit, assuming they do not raise the price of a burger. Shrinking profit means less earnings per share which equal to less wealth for the shareholders.

Ultimately, I think liberals all have the impression that raising the pay for the poor some how only affects the rich, but that is not correct. Anyone can be a shareholder of McDonalds, including a 80 year old granny that's ready to retire (as a part of a mutual fund which she may own). It is true that McDonald's executives are the major shareholders, but in taking away wealth from them, the liberals would also be taking away wealth from the middle class and everyone else who is a participant of the market.

Raising the price of their product would have similar effect, i.e. those who buy McDonald's product will pay a higher price. Including those who would be making $15 an hour. Let's extend this to supermarket clerks and janitors as well, then you can reasonably see that prices of all goods will increase on average. In essence, forcing a minimum wage that is not a market equilibrium is robbing the money from one class of people (not necessarily the super rich) and give it to another class. I would guess the class that hurt the most would again, be the middle class. The reason why I said some liberals are hypocrites is precisely for this reason. I don't believe all well educated liberals are unaware of economics and the possible side effect of raising the minimum wage. So if someone like Hilary knows that this may not work in reality, why does she still preach it? Isn't that hypocritical? You know that this isn't going to help these people then why say it? What WILL help those people isn't by spoon feeding them what they want, but to encourage them to get a good education and get a better job, but she won't say that because it'll make her lose votes. We all know that the truth is sometimes, very unpleasant to the ears ("God, I gotta go back to school again!? I hate school" is what I often hear).

Perhaps you can implement other laws like pay caps for executives...etc, but then you are moving away from democracy. Indeed if you want to achieve true efficiency at the expense of freedom, you probably need a quasi dictatorship like China, who can randomly forbid short selling, control currency outflow, or just simply tell you what you must do.

No it's not true at all. Some yes but there are also democrats who are just as dumb.

For every hillbilly redneck racist mother trucker there seems to be a "social justice warrior" or "Black Lives Matter " who are equally as foul and ignorant.

Actually, in today's US, I would argue that left leaning groups are causing MORE violence, bigotry, hate and ignorance than the right.

Look at how the right acted when Obama won his elections, compared to how the left reacted (and is still reacting) to Trump. Look at where the rioting is coming from.

When talking to some lefties about politics the basic argument seems to be "Trump and anyone who supports Trump are racists", with no clue why ANY ONE would want Trump in office unless they were actively engaged in the KKK.

Now, I am NOT saying all lefties are dumb, I am saying that it is REALLY dumb to think EVERY Republican is.

There's a huge difference; Trump is a textbook racial bigot, liar and scammer.
You should already know that as fact.
He also incites violence.

What IS the difference? Their political views? How hypocritical!

Take a look at riots, fights, scalping, etc that was done in the name of Trump. Then take a look at what was done from the left.

There isn't even a comparison. Not even close. Call Trump what you will but the left should take a GOOD look in the mirror before trying to call republicans dumb, or racist, or bigots, or intolerant, or violent, hateful, etc, etc.

You don't get it. Trump is a racial bigot who didn't rent to blacks, and also paid for a full page ad in the NYT to execute five innocent black kids.
You must be a bigot too!
One thing about bigots, they don't understand the ignorance of it.

LOL! You must be one too because you hate the same guy as these people!

ttps://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/national/torture-attack-illinois-teen-not-racially-motivated-cops-article-1.2935818?client=ms-android-att-us

Does that make you a white guy scalper?

Maybe the left doesn't have to deal with ignorance by association rule created by the left, because their democrats and they always have the right opinion.

Is that how you think?

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/06/cnn-republican-political-commentator-trump-bigot-he-racist-he-misogynist/213575

Now it's all about "context" cicero. Politifact says so!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

Like the majority of Americans, I have lost trust in Hillary.
Rather than diverting to other politicians, I was talking about Trump.

I know! That's your argument for a LOT of stuff. It is null. The question posted is "Are all Republicans idiots?" Your response, like your response to a lot of posts, is that Trump is a pathological lying, racist, bigot, misogynist guy. How does that make ALL Republicans idiots? Do you see the problem here?

So what do you propose we do?