Poll: Are preppers democrats or republicans

[nwdrifter]

just wondering, so take the poll only if you are a prepper

Read More

 

[The Heretic]

Libertarian

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

They for the most part lean conservative..
That being said, I wouldnt venture to call them "republicans".. As of right now most republicans are no better than the evil bastards across the isle.

Id say most preppers would be defined as:
Libertarians
Conservatives
Constitutionalists
And lastly, Patriots.

Sure, "some" libs I know prep.. But the VAST majority dont, they mock others who do thinking there will never be a need for spare supplies.. Same goes with their mentality of firearms.. They'll mock, refuse and banish it until they truly need it.. But by then its too late.

Thats what kills me about the left, they are the biggest hypocrites.. They'll bash something until they need it or its convenient for them.. Then they act like they never opposed it. Pure BS.

 

[Just Jim]

Guess I am an "other", I am a conservative. Not registered as a Repub and I always vote in elections for those who follow the constitution the closest. I won't put my name with any political party. Plus as old as I am getting I don't prep much but lived a life of being prepared.

 

[IronMonster]

The Red team is not much different than the blue team. The Ideology of the red team is far better, however they dont come close to following there own ideology.

Libertarian is what I would call myself, or a TRUE conservative since Republicans for the most part are anything but.

 

[etrain16]

I don't know what exactly qualifies as a 'prepper'. I don't have a mountain retreat, or a bunker, or 2 years of MRE's stored away, with caches of weapons around the state. I don't worry much about major SHTF or WROL situations, but I do keep reasonable precautions for things like the 'big one', where we'll be cut off from utilities, and maybe even each other for a period of time. So, does that qualify as a 'prepper'? As far as that's concerned, I'm a conservative, I currently identify myself as Libertarian, mainly because I just can't be identified with the Republican party, they don't represent what I am in many ways. I'm a conservative, I believe in the Constitution, liberty, freedom, small government, lower taxes and all those good things

 

[Classic]

They sure as H_LL aren't Demoncraps because that party knows that when feces hits he oscillating cooling device these guns that they are trying to ban will be used TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!
I chose GOP because I was limited to one choice. Can I say anyone BUT Demoncraps?

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Minimalist Prepper here. Voted "OTHER" but Libertarian is closest to my political ideal and have Voted Republican since moving to Oregon.
My feeling is that a lot of hard core Preppers don't Vote thinking the end is too near to bother with that nonsense and that would include this poll.

Too bad too because if they Voted perhaps these asinine gun Bills wouldn't be happening now.

 

[Brutus57]

Constitutionalist would describe me I guess. The republican leadership is not doing what some of them were elected to do. I wish they were playing possum till an R wins in 2016 but I think that is just that...wishful thinking. They don't back the tea party which is much like the republicans of Lincoln's era which bothers me because I think the Tea party folks are mostly just middle America. Not a tea parties I just think that Party gets hammered for no good reason by both parties.

Brutus Out

 

[sig40shooter]

Both the parties annoy me... Constitutionalist, I like that. I just try and be as self sustainable as possible. Regardless of which party screws us over I hope to be at least somewhat prepared.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Clarification to nwdrifter. My post sounded like I thought your poll was nonsense. I actually think it's a good topic that I've personally pondered myself.
I really believe most mid range to hard core Preppers have kind of "dropped out" politically. They do keep abreast of News and Politics but don't Vote or Contact Reps etc.
Each new anti-gun Law passed and News of unrest here and abroad only alienates them further from participating politically.
They aren't too bothered with new gun restrictions for instance because they are "Prepped" and it won't be long till SHTF and Govt. as we know it won't exist.
I'm sure a lot of serious preppers just prep as an insurance policy as well and don't think the end is just around the corner.

Anyway good topic, I'm interested to hear what others think.

 

[IronMonster]

 

[erudne]

This is not the question that should be asked, or answered

 

[Phrank]

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[MikeE]

I know lots of left of center people who home garden with a high degree of skill, who are deeply involved in home crafts, who run small businesses in the building, gardening, auto repair, and many other trades. Are experimenting in alternative energy systems. Many of these people have created cooperatives, both urban and rural.
They are very concerned that deteriorating ecological conditions will lead to collapses of natural systems like soil, hydrology, forests and wildlife, with exposure to toxics, extreme weather conditions, etc. They would be considered preppers in every sense except that they are (mostly) unarmed. They have little trust in the Democratic Party.

 

[rick benjamin]

Before preppers,

before survivalist,

there were Boy Scouts

 

[mjbskwim]

yes

 

[pnwSooner]

Against many of the comments above I am a democrat. I don't find any party to balance out all of my personal beliefs so as many people I generally chose what I feel is the lesser of the evil. That being said I think I've only voted for one Republican my entire life. But I know I'm the odd one out and thats ok, just know that there are some gun toting libs out there

 

[Riot]

I lean to the right on immigration, unions and guns...everything else I'm pretty much down the middle (i.e. government leave us the frack alone) or side with the left.

 

[erudne]

Biologists have long noted that species will tend to evolve behaviors which best aid them to effectively exploit their environment. Among these behavioral life history traits are reproductive strategies. Reproductive strategies are, as the name implies, the strategies individuals will use to reproduce. Here we will focus upon the two strategies demonstrated in r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Biology.



The science behind r/K Selection theory was hashed out decades ago. It emerged as biologists pondered why some species reproduced slowly using monogamy and high-investment parenting, while other species reproduced explosively, using promiscuity and single parenting. At the time this science was developed, the researchers were wholly unaware of its relevance to our modern ideological battles in the world of politics. The terms r and K came from variables in equations which described how populations would change over time. r represented the maximal reproductive rate of an individual, while K represented the carrying capacity of an environment.

r/K selection theory describes two environmental extremes, and the strategies a population will produce to exploit each extreme. As a result of these strategies, each of these two environments will produce a very particular psychology in the individuals exposed to them.

The first environment an organism may face is the presence of freely available resources, which is referred to as an r-selective environment. This most often occurs when a predator keeps a population consistently lower than the carrying capacity of its environment. Just as rabbits do not strip their grassy fields bare due to the predation they endure, the r-strategy is designed to exploit an environment where resources are freely available, everywhere.

In r-selection, those individuals who waste time fighting for food will be out-reproduced by pacifists, who simply focus upon eating, and reproducing. Fighting also entails risks of injury or death – risks which are pointless given the free availability of resources everywhere. Hence this environment will favor a tendency towards conflict avoidance, and tend to cull the aggressive and competitive. It will also evolve tendencies towards mating as early as possible, as often as possible, with as many mates as possible, while investing as little effort as possible rearing offspring. Here, there are unlimited resources just waiting to be utilized, and even the most unfit can acquire them. As a result, it is more advantageous to produce as many offspring as possible, as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness, so as to out-reproduce those who either waste time producing quality offspring or waste time competing with each other.

Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

Here in the r-strategy, we see the origins of the Liberal's tendencies towards conflict avoidance, from oppositions to free-market capitalism, to pacifism, to demands that all citizens disarm so as to avoid any chance of conflict and competition. Even the newer tendencies to support the "everyone gets a trophy" movement are outgrowths of this competition-averse urge, and desire for free resource availability. Similarly, Liberals are supportive of promiscuity, supportive of efforts to expose children to ever earlier sexual education, and, as the debate over Murphy Brown showed, Liberals are supportive of low-investment, single parenting. Finally, as John Jost has shown, Liberals show diminished loyalty to in-group, similar to how r-selected organisms do not fully understand the reason for even perceiving an in-group in nature.

In the other environment, a population exists at the carrying capacity of its environment. Since there is not enough food to go around, and someone must die from starvation, this will evolve a specific psychology within such a species.

Termed a K-type psychology, or K-Selected Reproductive Strategy, this psychology will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one's offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Although total numbers of offspring will be diminished with this high-investment rearing strategy, the offspring's success in competition is what is most important in a K-selective environment. Here, wasting time producing numerous offspring that are not as fit as possible will doom one to Darwinian failure. As time goes on, and K-selection continues, forming into competitive groups will often emerge as a strategy to acquire resources. This will add add loyalty to in-group to the suite of K-type psychological characteristics. This is why when we look at K-selected species in nature, we see packs of wolves, herds of elephants, prides of lions, and pods of dolphins, and each individual is loyal to their group and its competitive success. Since the only way to survive will be to acquire one's resources by out-competing peers, this invariably produces tremendously fast rates of evolutionary advancement. For this reason, K-selected organisms are usually more evolutionarily advanced than their r-selected counterparts, and will exhibit more complex adaptations, from increased intelligence and sentience, to increased physical capabilities, to loyalty and prosociality, in species where group competition occurs.

Clearly, this mirrors the Conservative's embrace of competitions, such as war, capitalism, and even the bearing of arms in self-defense against criminals. It also mirrors the Conservatives tendency to favor family values, such as abstinence until monogamy and two-parent parenting. It even explains why Conservatives feel driven to see their nation succeed as greatly as possible, regardless of the effects this has upon other nations or just members of their out-group.

To my eye, it is inherently clear that this r/K divergence is the origin of our political divide. Indeed, while policy proposals from Conservatives are predicated upon the premise that resources are inherently limited, and individuals should have to work and demonstrate merit to acquire them, Liberals advocate on behalf of policy proposals which seem to be predicated upon an assumption that there are always more than sufficient resources to let everyone live lives of equal leisure. To a Liberal, any scarcity must clearly arise due to some individual's personal greed and evil altering a natural state of perpetual plenty.

Here, we see how these two deeply imbued psychologies generate grossly different perceptual frameworks within those who are imbued with them. Just as a Liberal will never grasp why a Conservative will look down upon frequent promiscuity and single parenting, the Conservative will never grasp why the Liberal will be so firmly opposed to free market Capitalism, or the right to self defense when threatened. Each sees an inherently different world, and is programmed to desire an inherently different environment.

In nature, since it is the individuals who best exemplify this r-selected psychological standard who will reproduce under conditions of resource abundance, their offspring will carry these traits. As time goes on, the population will gradually develop ever more extreme presentations of these traits. As we show, there is copious evidence that a genetic allele, which diminishes dopamine signaling, is associated with every facet of the r-strategy's psychology, as well as a predisposition towards political Liberalism.

In addition, the r-strategy may have evolved to be engendered within individuals by environmental stimuli as well, through a desensitization to the neurotransmitter dopamine. This effect arises from its copious release in such an environment down-regulating receptor expression and consequently reducing receptor densities in nervous tissue. We also maintain that a lack of adversity in the environment will fail to develop a drive or ability to confront adversity, through a failure to develop a brain structure called the amygdala. In summary, an organism placed in an environment devoid of adversity, and filled with pleasure, may find itself more demanding of pleasure and less tolerant of adversity, than an organism which is enured to a less hospitable environment.

Within r/K selection theory, all populations will contain some differing degrees of r and K selected psychologies. As an environment shifts to one extreme or the other, a population will adopt a more r or K-selected psychology, but this will only last as long as the environmental conditions which produced the shift continue. Under conditions of reduced mortality, and copious resource availability, both r and K-selected psychologies will be present. This will continue until such time as resources become limited, and a competitive, K-selected pressure takes hold, or predation begins to cull both sides evenly, and the K-selected individuals, being slower reproducers are relatively culled back.

Interestingly, r/K Theory not only explains a means by which our political ideologies are adaptive to a specific environment. Many have noted an increasingly masculine quality to the women in our culture, as well as a corresponding effeminate nature to our men. Rush Limbaugh will often refer to them as the Feminazis, and the Castrati. In nature, a K-selected model of rearing involves a feminine mother, who nurtures offspring and guides them away from danger, combined with a more masculine male who will aggressively confront dangers, so as to protect his family.

However, when a population becomes increasingly r-selected, the nature of the sexual dimorphism and these sex-specific rearing behaviors will change. As you see a more r-strategy emerge, females of the species will need to become increasingly aggressive and masculine, since due to paternal abandonment, they must provision and protect their offspring alone. Since r-selected males are solely concerned with mating (before abandoning their mate), and fleeing from conflict, they become more diminutive, and more cowardly. The end result is the r-strategy has, inherent within it, a model of aggressive, manly females who raise children alone, and diminutive, effete males who are solely concerned with superficial, mate-attracting flash, and conflict avoidance.