|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
This is a little amusing, but also a somewhat important sign
|
On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there.
i'ts been quite well documented that most people are, at least in some reasonable sense, idiots. especially on political issues.
I don't have any highly condensed links on the topic. the book in my sig covers some of the evidence for such, but it's a long book and rather dense at times, but it includes extensive citations to the scholarly research on the topic.
|
On March 03 2017 04:31 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 03:43 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2017 03:41 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 03 2017 02:33 Danglars wrote:
Skepticism at WaPo. No fucking shit they are overplaying their hand. This is #fakenews in action for all of the reasons that I detailed last night. And the insidious effect of it is obvious for all to see. People are reading the first 2-3 paragraphs of that shitty WashPo article and presuming that there's a huge problem without really digging into the rest of the article where the shortcomings of the narrative become brutally apparent. And don't for a moment think that the timing of this article wasn't deliberate. This #fakenews narrative was launched precisely to derail Trump's momentum from his speech on Tuesday. 1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence. 2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign. 3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia. 4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence. Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. The amusing part is that the snarkiness is badly misplaced. I'm the one who delved into the facts. Not Kwark. As usual, he can't even relay the facts accurately and completely. Humorous angle on "Russian intelligence" instead of ambassador. Senators routinely have foreign ambassadors coming through their offices, both as senior members on panels and just as senators. Ask any Senate staffer, the one I happened to read called it a constant flow. And people think Sessions should be an exception given Russian hacking. He probably should've disclosed and definitely shouldn't have volunteered no meetings (Franken) even if the context was campaign staff and the 2016 election. Calling it Russian intelligence is factual misrepresentation of an actual named post and dignitary. Sacrificed geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia? Kwark must be on about Obama. Newsflash: facts differ from interpretations, which is why you probably would disagree with Obama doing he same on Syrian red line or in communication with Medvedev (infamous hot mic). Except not a single other member of the Armed Service Committee met with a Russian ambassador during 2016 and atleast one has commented that they never called/met (in the capacity of the Armed Service Committee). That all went through the foreign office. That's a big change from up to 30 Senate Democrats that met with Russian officials in 2015. Sorry, let me update my rhetoric to match the current tone. McCaskill and others announcing their support for the Iran deal mere days after secret meetings with Russian officials. Waiting for the probe of what really went on behind closed doors. But I'm well aware of things that were fine in 2015 turning sinister in 2016. Because you lost an election. Now, go contact Democratic Senator Ed Markey. Ask what really went on when he was partying with the Russian Ambassador at the French ambassadors residence. Or wait, that was 2016 so clearly they were at the same party and never met. Absolutely absurd, Senators are involved in treaties and ambassadors are representatives of foreign governments. With the Iran deal, Russia was on our "team", and we were coordinating with them. It was a 6 or 7 nation deal. Sessions meets with the Russian ambassador/spy at the worst possible time. And it's part of a pattern with team Trump. Pretty partisan to brush it off.
You choose to brush off one set of secret meetings, choose to brush off what it means for this being a common occurence for Senators in direct opposition to the person I quoted, and brush off what it means for fun parties. Sorry, you're too hyperpartisan to see straight.
|
Good on Rand Paul for doing this.
|
On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with.
I've been in this thread since Bush terms... don't get me started. And what are you trying to pull out of me? If I'm right leaning from how republicans were back in the 1800's or when they basically swapped platform with democrats? But I think this would explain where I lean: Social justice. I mean, both parties once advocated equality for all no at one point did they not? Why has that changed in the recent years with only the current GOP? I don't understand.
|
On March 03 2017 04:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with. I've been in this thread since Bush terms... don't get me started. And what are you trying to pull out of me? If I'm right leaning from how republicans were back in the 1800's or when they basically swapped platform with democrats? But I think this would explain where I lean: Social justice. I mean, both parties once advocated equality for all no at one point did they not? Why has that changed in the recent years with only the current GOP? I don't understand.
Well, you struck me as the kind of centrist that hasn't voted for a Republican president nor can point to elements of the GOP platform that they like. Like European centrists, which lie pretty solidly in the American left. Social justice and centrism ... you go ahead and have fun with reconciling that one.
|
United States42694 Posts
On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with.
For what it's worth I broadly agree with conservative principles. In the UK I was a member of the Conservative party. I define those principles as the safeguarding of individual liberty against the state, an economy built on the free market as a tool for wealth creation and resource allocation, an acceptance that inequality is an unavoidable outcome of a functioning economic system, and that individuals should be given as much control as possible over their own destiny.
The problem is that the Republican party, as a conservative platform, is abhorrent to me.
Their record on women, ethnic minorities, LGBT folks and civil rights in general is completely antithetical to the principles of individual liberty. They've gone off the deep end in fetishizing the police and an overmighty state and viewing any resistance to the status quo, including good faith attempts to restore the status quo to a purer and freer form, as the enemy.
Their record on the free market is spotty at best. Capitalism has gone the way of oligarchic capitalism and state sponsored capitalism. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than their environmental policies which defend the externalization of costs onto broader society, to be realized through tax funded cleanup. I have absolutely nothing against a profitable polluting business, by which I mean a business that makes profit in excess of the amount spent offsetting the pollution. If a business had no choice but to contaminate local water supplies and it set its margins high enough to pay for a designated water pipeline to replace the contaminated water then I'm good with that. But coal is just bad economics, as are shit like the car franchise law Reagan signed that established a system of monopolies. The Republican party and the free market parted ways a long time ago.
Control over your own destiny, or to phrase it differently, the American Dream, can only be built on a solid platform of minimum guarantees. If some kids don't have access to schools and their parents both work 60 hour weeks then those kids don't have access to the American Dream. Social policies that include education, healthcare, food and housing to establish a viable minimum platform have to be there. That doesn't mean state mandated equality and it doesn't mean provided by the state, but if you want people to be able to realize their destinies through hard work and innovation then you have to break any chains they're born with.
The whole religious, anti science, anti education and the rest of it is obviously sickening too.
I'm a conservative, but I have no political party to call home in the United States and Trump's Republican party is off the deep end.
|
Your political home is the centrists democratic party, in theory. But I agree that it’s a tough sell right now, or ever(as someone who has never been part of it)
|
On March 03 2017 04:39 Danglars wrote:Good on Rand Paul for doing this.
I think it's good as well, but I have my doubts as to him being able to sway the house. Especially if he's being literal about it being under lock and key.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The centrist Democrats chose to tie their fate to Hillary Clinton. Bad call. Even Obama and Billy Clinton couldn't make us stomach that disaster. The people who pretended that she was not just tolerable, but good (more goodly than Obama in fact, because she would make better backroom deals for America) didn't help.
|
On March 03 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with. For what it's worth I broadly agree with conservative principles. In the UK I was a member of the Conservative party. I define those principles as the safeguarding of individual liberty against the state, an economy built on the free market as a tool for wealth creation and resource allocation, an acceptance that inequality is an unavoidable outcome of a functioning economic system, and that individuals should be given as much control as possible over their own destiny. The problem is that the Republican party, as a conservative platform, is abhorrent to me. Their record on women, ethnic minorities, LGBT folks and civil rights in general is completely antithetical to the principles of individual liberty. They've gone off the deep end in fetishizing the police and an overmighty state and viewing any resistance to the status quo, including good faith attempts to restore the status quo to a purer and freer form, as the enemy. Their record on the free market is spotty at best. Capitalism has gone the way of oligarchic capitalism and state sponsored capitalism. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than their environmental policies which defend the externalization of costs onto broader society, to be realized through tax funded cleanup. I have absolutely nothing against a profitable polluting business, by which I mean a business that makes profit in excess of the amount spent offsetting the pollution. If a business had no choice but to contaminate local water supplies and it set its margins high enough to pay for a designated water pipeline to replace the contaminated water then I'm good with that. But coal is just bad economics, as are shit like the car franchise law Reagan signed that established a system of monopolies. The Republican party and the free market parted ways a long time ago. Control over your own destiny, or to phrase it differently, the American Dream, can only be built on a solid platform of minimum guarantees. If some kids don't have access to schools and their parents both work 60 hour weeks then those kids don't have access to the American Dream. Social policies that include education, healthcare, food and housing to establish a viable minimum platform have to be there. That doesn't mean state mandated equality and it doesn't mean provided by the state, but if you want people to be able to realize their destinies through hard work and innovation then you have to break any chains they're born with. The whole religious, anti science, anti education and the rest of it is obviously sickening too. I'm a conservative, but I have no political party to call home in the United States and Trump's Republican party is off the deep end.
Sounds pretty Libertarian to me, as I understand it.
|
On March 03 2017 04:57 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with. For what it's worth I broadly agree with conservative principles. In the UK I was a member of the Conservative party. I define those principles as the safeguarding of individual liberty against the state, an economy built on the free market as a tool for wealth creation and resource allocation, an acceptance that inequality is an unavoidable outcome of a functioning economic system, and that individuals should be given as much control as possible over their own destiny. The problem is that the Republican party, as a conservative platform, is abhorrent to me. Their record on women, ethnic minorities, LGBT folks and civil rights in general is completely antithetical to the principles of individual liberty. They've gone off the deep end in fetishizing the police and an overmighty state and viewing any resistance to the status quo, including good faith attempts to restore the status quo to a purer and freer form, as the enemy. Their record on the free market is spotty at best. Capitalism has gone the way of oligarchic capitalism and state sponsored capitalism. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than their environmental policies which defend the externalization of costs onto broader society, to be realized through tax funded cleanup. I have absolutely nothing against a profitable polluting business, by which I mean a business that makes profit in excess of the amount spent offsetting the pollution. If a business had no choice but to contaminate local water supplies and it set its margins high enough to pay for a designated water pipeline to replace the contaminated water then I'm good with that. But coal is just bad economics, as are shit like the car franchise law Reagan signed that established a system of monopolies. The Republican party and the free market parted ways a long time ago. Control over your own destiny, or to phrase it differently, the American Dream, can only be built on a solid platform of minimum guarantees. If some kids don't have access to schools and their parents both work 60 hour weeks then those kids don't have access to the American Dream. Social policies that include education, healthcare, food and housing to establish a viable minimum platform have to be there. That doesn't mean state mandated equality and it doesn't mean provided by the state, but if you want people to be able to realize their destinies through hard work and innovation then you have to break any chains they're born with. The whole religious, anti science, anti education and the rest of it is obviously sickening too. I'm a conservative, but I have no political party to call home in the United States and Trump's Republican party is off the deep end. Sounds pretty Libertarian to me, as I understand it.
There is nothing Libertarian about any major party in Europe. The US owns that crazy branch of free thinkers. They are one step away from sovereign citizens.
|
On March 03 2017 04:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with. I've been in this thread since Bush terms... don't get me started. And what are you trying to pull out of me? If I'm right leaning from how republicans were back in the 1800's or when they basically swapped platform with democrats? But I think this would explain where I lean: Social justice. I mean, both parties once advocated equality for all no at one point did they not? Why has that changed in the recent years with only the current GOP? I don't understand. Well, you struck me as the kind of centrist that hasn't voted for a Republican president nor can point to elements of the GOP platform that they like. Like European centrists, which lie pretty solidly in the American left. Social justice and centrism ... you go ahead and have fun with reconciling that one.
What's the issue? I can't advocate for the right to own all guns, but at least be mentally stable? I can't advocate the right to social justice, creating equality for all, so each person has individual liberty? Can't advocate for small government? Fiscal conservatism? Less Taxes? Free Markets? I was poor dirt, and rode that capitalism train to where I am at today. Like I said, I find both parties to have great values, but also terrible ones. And as of recent, the current GOP members really like digging their hands into the large government, and trying to take away individual liberties.
What is a centrist to you?
|
On March 03 2017 04:39 Danglars wrote:Good on Rand Paul for doing this.
I'm sure that whatever the GOP is up to is a garbage plan, but Rand's grandstanding on this is rather silly. Let them finish their plan before demanding that they air it.
|
On March 03 2017 04:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:20 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Most of the time they are right though. How are they right? The people I approach about name calling can't even back their own "facts" or sit to debate without getting mad, aggressive, and this is on both sides. But I've definitely have had more issues with right wingers because they choose to believe in their narrative without accepting new facts, where lefts choose to believe their narrative, and accept new facts.
There are plenty of left wingers in this threat still believes that Trump is racist toward people of Mexico heritage even though he specifically said "illegal immigrants" and is simply following the law.
And there are still plenty of left wingers that still believes in wage gap myth too spewed by the leftiest media to propel Hillary Clinton into presidency (which hilariously failed).
Also there are plenty of left wingers who defends BLM. These people should learn a bit from Koreans and look at their way of protesting peacefully and got the result they wanted.
But if you (ShoCkeyy) aren't like those left wingers, then all the power to you.
|
On March 03 2017 04:57 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with. For what it's worth I broadly agree with conservative principles. In the UK I was a member of the Conservative party. I define those principles as the safeguarding of individual liberty against the state, an economy built on the free market as a tool for wealth creation and resource allocation, an acceptance that inequality is an unavoidable outcome of a functioning economic system, and that individuals should be given as much control as possible over their own destiny. The problem is that the Republican party, as a conservative platform, is abhorrent to me. Their record on women, ethnic minorities, LGBT folks and civil rights in general is completely antithetical to the principles of individual liberty. They've gone off the deep end in fetishizing the police and an overmighty state and viewing any resistance to the status quo, including good faith attempts to restore the status quo to a purer and freer form, as the enemy. Their record on the free market is spotty at best. Capitalism has gone the way of oligarchic capitalism and state sponsored capitalism. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than their environmental policies which defend the externalization of costs onto broader society, to be realized through tax funded cleanup. I have absolutely nothing against a profitable polluting business, by which I mean a business that makes profit in excess of the amount spent offsetting the pollution. If a business had no choice but to contaminate local water supplies and it set its margins high enough to pay for a designated water pipeline to replace the contaminated water then I'm good with that. But coal is just bad economics, as are shit like the car franchise law Reagan signed that established a system of monopolies. The Republican party and the free market parted ways a long time ago. Control over your own destiny, or to phrase it differently, the American Dream, can only be built on a solid platform of minimum guarantees. If some kids don't have access to schools and their parents both work 60 hour weeks then those kids don't have access to the American Dream. Social policies that include education, healthcare, food and housing to establish a viable minimum platform have to be there. That doesn't mean state mandated equality and it doesn't mean provided by the state, but if you want people to be able to realize their destinies through hard work and innovation then you have to break any chains they're born with. The whole religious, anti science, anti education and the rest of it is obviously sickening too. I'm a conservative, but I have no political party to call home in the United States and Trump's Republican party is off the deep end. Sounds pretty Libertarian to me, as I understand it.
Their view on the free market is quite a bit different. Specifically, they get a little antsy when using the government to collect on the "externalizations of costs on the broader society." But you'd have to speak to a libertarian, which I'm not, for the deeper explanations.
|
On March 03 2017 05:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:46 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:40 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with. I've been in this thread since Bush terms... don't get me started. And what are you trying to pull out of me? If I'm right leaning from how republicans were back in the 1800's or when they basically swapped platform with democrats? But I think this would explain where I lean: Social justice. I mean, both parties once advocated equality for all no at one point did they not? Why has that changed in the recent years with only the current GOP? I don't understand. Well, you struck me as the kind of centrist that hasn't voted for a Republican president nor can point to elements of the GOP platform that they like. Like European centrists, which lie pretty solidly in the American left. Social justice and centrism ... you go ahead and have fun with reconciling that one. What's the issue? I can't advocate for the right to own all guns, but at least be mentally stable? I can't advocate the right to social justice, creating equality for all, so each person has individual liberty? Can't advocate for small government? Fiscal conservatism? Less Taxes? Free Markets? I was poor dirt, and rode that capitalism train to where I am at today. Like I said, I find both parties to have great values, but also terrible ones. And as of recent, the current GOP members really like digging their hands into the large government, and trying to take away individual liberties. What is a centrist to you?
See, I was wrong on my first surmise. For the conclusion, I think the major tenets of social justice work against individual liberty and equality for all as I understand it ... such that they're fundamentally irreconciliable in the long term and will tend away from centrist policy if dearly held. But that's a discussion for a different thread and different time.
|
The GOP is trying to avoid the issues they had with trying to “defund” the ACA and start some voucher bullshit. Parts of the bill got out into the world (just like the ACA) and people flipped their shit because it looks like nothing was going to be covered by health insurance.
They can try, but people are going to see that bill at some point. Might as well start explaining it now.
|
United States42694 Posts
On March 03 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:57 Gahlo wrote:On March 03 2017 04:47 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On March 03 2017 04:19 ShoCkeyy wrote:On March 03 2017 04:16 LegalLord wrote:On March 03 2017 04:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On thing I do notice from the right is that they're quick to call everyone idiots, stupid, and morons. Meh, the left probably does that more. Though racist/sexist/xenophobic also makes up an important part of their vocabulary. As a person in the middle, I see the right use it far more times than the left. You choose to ignore the right's usage on it, not going to argue with you there. Two people in the middle disagreeing on who uses it more. A pretty big tell that you're in the middle lol. Go back in the thread and research the beginning of the acrimony and see which parties were involved. Actually, let me know what parts of the (historical) Republican platform you agree with. For what it's worth I broadly agree with conservative principles. In the UK I was a member of the Conservative party. I define those principles as the safeguarding of individual liberty against the state, an economy built on the free market as a tool for wealth creation and resource allocation, an acceptance that inequality is an unavoidable outcome of a functioning economic system, and that individuals should be given as much control as possible over their own destiny. The problem is that the Republican party, as a conservative platform, is abhorrent to me. Their record on women, ethnic minorities, LGBT folks and civil rights in general is completely antithetical to the principles of individual liberty. They've gone off the deep end in fetishizing the police and an overmighty state and viewing any resistance to the status quo, including good faith attempts to restore the status quo to a purer and freer form, as the enemy. Their record on the free market is spotty at best. Capitalism has gone the way of oligarchic capitalism and state sponsored capitalism. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than their environmental policies which defend the externalization of costs onto broader society, to be realized through tax funded cleanup. I have absolutely nothing against a profitable polluting business, by which I mean a business that makes profit in excess of the amount spent offsetting the pollution. If a business had no choice but to contaminate local water supplies and it set its margins high enough to pay for a designated water pipeline to replace the contaminated water then I'm good with that. But coal is just bad economics, as are shit like the car franchise law Reagan signed that established a system of monopolies. The Republican party and the free market parted ways a long time ago. Control over your own destiny, or to phrase it differently, the American Dream, can only be built on a solid platform of minimum guarantees. If some kids don't have access to schools and their parents both work 60 hour weeks then those kids don't have access to the American Dream. Social policies that include education, healthcare, food and housing to establish a viable minimum platform have to be there. That doesn't mean state mandated equality and it doesn't mean provided by the state, but if you want people to be able to realize their destinies through hard work and innovation then you have to break any chains they're born with. The whole religious, anti science, anti education and the rest of it is obviously sickening too. I'm a conservative, but I have no political party to call home in the United States and Trump's Republican party is off the deep end. Sounds pretty Libertarian to me, as I understand it. Their view on the free market is quite a bit different. Specifically, they get a little antsy when using the government to collect on the "externalizations of costs on the broader society." But you'd have to speak to a libertarian, which I'm not, for the deeper explanations.
Libertarians believe that the government shouldn't be necessary because the free market actors have perfect information and are perfectly rational. Therefore there does not need to be a law saying a bottled water company cannot buy a reservoir and cut off water supplies because the consumers would naturally punish them for such a decision. They're the economic equivalent of physicists who will only work in frictionless vacuums. I like the free market a lot but it's only as good as the rational informed actors working within it who are not very rational and even less informed. It's a great tool, but what separates me from the libertarians is that while I want to use it I have no desire to build a shrine to it.
|
On March 03 2017 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
I'm glad that, looking at the way the Benghazi matter went, Democrats here essentially decided, "I want to have one of those too except on Republicans we don't like!!!@!@!"
Since that's probably the most reasonable way to interpret the Sessions issue.
A Benghazi investigation was completely normal. An ambassador died ffs.
An investigation in the Russian connections to Trump's cabinet is perfectly fine. When we get 6 (did Benghazi have 6 or more?) you can come to me and complain that the Democrats are being hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
