Our Platform for Outlining Colorado’s Future

Poor people are usually democrats, because they think they will get more money from the government if they support democrats. Rich people tend to be republicans, because they think they will keep more money if they support other republicans. It has nothing to do with what system people thinks works best, or what type of government works best. It usually has all to do with self interest or greed. Obama openly promised that he would raise taxes on the very rich and give more to the “middle class”. On video tape he said he would "spread the wealth around". Self interest is a bad motivation, because if everyone only acted on self interest, bad things would happen. We need people to act out of what they think will be best for their grandchildren. Republicans would say that Rich people don't want to keep more of their money, they think that this is the cart before the horse. Republicans will say that people who are self reliant, and don't want anything from the government, ...

This is republicans disagreeing with Obama because he is a Democrat, even when he is doing conservative things. This is democrats defending Obama, even if they would have attacked Bush for doing the same thing. The cause is political laziness and the result is issue crossover.  Issue crossover is when you agree with Obama on one thing, and so you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on other issues. This is only natural, but it can lead to bad policy.  It is like giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt on his policy towards invading his neighbors, because you like his progressive environmental policy (OK you idiots; I am not comparing Hitler to Obama. I am using a good logical debating technique of proving a point with an extreme case).  This means that democrats and republicans need to work with each other when they agree, because the other side has to be right some of the time, no matter how bad they are. And this also requires democrats and republicans to oppose people from thei...

When I say that someone is motivated by liberal guilt towards the environment, I mean it as a bad thing. I'm talking about the guilt that knows we have been bad to the environment in the past, and assumes that everything that we do to alter the environment is going to harm it. It assumes it is impossible for mankind to help the environment, even if evidence contrary to their guilt, suggest that an action might increase biodiversity, or the quantity of animal or plant life.

This is typified by people who attack people from the other party for doing something, but defend someone from their own party for doing the same thing. It often comes down to making excuses for people that you agree with 90% of the time. It is OK to not agree with everything someone has said or done, but still support them. But at some point you are a total idiot if you make a big deal supporting something, but then opposing it when the other party comes into office. To the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, than it is fine to only support republicans, and appose democrats. However if you make arguments against a an action when it is the other guys in the white house, but support the president's right to take that action when they are in power, than this type of motivation will not lead to good policies. It is the double standard, hypocrisy, or changing standards that have you defend the person when he or she is from the other party. There...

Liberal guilt: Race: People should not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society.  Guilt is good. People that ignore their conscience are monsters. Politics is not always about fighting for the best policy. Sometimes people look at political office as a form of approval, and voting for someone or appointing someone is a way to right a past wrong. Cynical people might appoint someone who check's all the right boxes, and they use liberal guilt as a way of daring their opponents to oppose their appointee. In a perfect world, I think all these side issues would be brushed away. Politics would be more focused on good policy, instead of personalities. Minority groups would represent more than just their percentage of the population, as olive branches to their communities, and international bragging rights, but people would not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society. America...

For the interest of this blog, this includes people who oppose Obama because of his race. This can be people who do it consciously, hard core racist, and subconscious. Also, in terms of advancing the best policy from a color-blind policy argument standpoint, it is also less confusing when side issues such as race come into the picture. For instance you might tell people to vote independent of race and background, encouraging even minorities to to support people based on their policy not their race. However, it might not be as big of a deal with minorities because by definition minorities are less likely to monopolize policy in a republic, unless everyone thinks of themselves as a minority, and each minority group is not interested in the general advancement, but only their minority group's advancement. See Racism and Liberal guilt as motivations on each side. Racism is alive and ugly. It is often silent, and even unconscious. It would lead to people opposing Obama even when they mi...

If they are a democrat, defending a fellow democrat. Or if they share other characteristics with Obama (race, career, home town, home state, religion, background, etc) they would identify with these (to the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, this is acceptable, but to the degree that it is a mindless rooting for the home team, party affiliation is a motivation that will not help us make better decisions.