Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Republicans

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:43:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Republicans often cast themselves as defenders of liberty. I don't really know why.

They are right that democrats and liberals have been doing all they can to expand the state (which undermines freedom and prosperity).

They are right that democrats and liberals are either liars or fools who base their polices on totally irrational or dishonest premises.

They are right that Barack Obama has been an unusually bad president.

However, the problem really is that Republicans are not much better.

To be fair, when I look at the 20th and 21st century, I see two good presidents: Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Both of these men were Republicans.

However, that was in the 1920s. Recently, we've had neoconservative, Bismarckian conservatism that is basically a combination of welfare statism and imperialism. The only difference with liberalism is that there is more emphasis on the exploitative imperialism than the exploitative welfare statism. This philosophy was embodied by the Bush administration.

Ronald Reagan did, on some issues, have his head in the right place. However, he ultimatley was a militarist who did nothing for the cause of liberty. Communism wouldve fallen on its own.

Unlike many hardcore libertarians/anarcho capitalists, I am willing to accept the possibility that there really is a lesser of two evils in the mainstream. I am willing to take positions on mainstream issues. But, the Republicans just don't cut it.

Are they better than Democrats?

In rhetoric, marginally better. In practice, the exact same.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:15:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:43:49 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Republicans often cast themselves as defenders of liberty. I don't really know why.

They are right that democrats and liberals have been doing all they can to expand the state (which undermines freedom and prosperity).

They are right that democrats and liberals are either liars or fools who base their polices on totally irrational or dishonest premises.

They are right that Barack Obama has been an unusually bad president.

However, the problem really is that Republicans are not much better.

To be fair, when I look at the 20th and 21st century, I see two good presidents: Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Both of these men were Republicans.

However, that was in the 1920s. Recently, we've had neoconservative, Bismarckian conservatism that is basically a combination of welfare statism and imperialism. The only difference with liberalism is that there is more emphasis on the exploitative imperialism than the exploitative welfare statism. This philosophy was embodied by the Bush administration.

Ronald Reagan did, on some issues, have his head in the right place. However, he ultimatley was a militarist who did nothing for the cause of liberty. Communism wouldve fallen on its own.

Unlike many hardcore libertarians/anarcho capitalists, I am willing to accept the possibility that there really is a lesser of two evils in the mainstream. I am willing to take positions on mainstream issues. But, the Republicans just don't cut it.

Are they better than Democrats?

In rhetoric, marginally better. In practice, the exact same.

Don't forget social conservatism (mainly I'm talking about Perry and Santorum). They would be a perfect example of ditching liberty in favor of institutionalized morality. However, I do hope that most are just pandering for the Christian conservative voting blocs. It'd be sad if they really didn't know that the First Amendment actually exists.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 12:42:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, Republicans are better. In fact, I just switched my party registration from Democrat to Republican on Sunday.

Democrat has the word "Democrat" in it, and Democracy is bad. Republican has the word "Republic" in it and Republics are good.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 2:58:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:15:38 AM, drhead wrote:
At 5/16/2013 3:43:49 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Republicans often cast themselves as defenders of liberty. I don't really know why.

They are right that democrats and liberals have been doing all they can to expand the state (which undermines freedom and prosperity).

They are right that democrats and liberals are either liars or fools who base their polices on totally irrational or dishonest premises.

They are right that Barack Obama has been an unusually bad president.

However, the problem really is that Republicans are not much better.

To be fair, when I look at the 20th and 21st century, I see two good presidents: Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Both of these men were Republicans.

However, that was in the 1920s. Recently, we've had neoconservative, Bismarckian conservatism that is basically a combination of welfare statism and imperialism. The only difference with liberalism is that there is more emphasis on the exploitative imperialism than the exploitative welfare statism. This philosophy was embodied by the Bush administration.

Ronald Reagan did, on some issues, have his head in the right place. However, he ultimatley was a militarist who did nothing for the cause of liberty. Communism wouldve fallen on its own.

Unlike many hardcore libertarians/anarcho capitalists, I am willing to accept the possibility that there really is a lesser of two evils in the mainstream. I am willing to take positions on mainstream issues. But, the Republicans just don't cut it.

Are they better than Democrats?

In rhetoric, marginally better. In practice, the exact same.

Don't forget social conservatism (mainly I'm talking about Perry and Santorum). They would be a perfect example of ditching liberty in favor of institutionalized morality. However, I do hope that most are just pandering for the Christian conservative voting blocs. It'd be sad if they really didn't know that the First Amendment actually exists.

With fairness doctrines, anti hate speech laws, book censoring, putting down of all war dissent, neither major party has any respect for free speech.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 2:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 12:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Republicans are better. In fact, I just switched my party registration from Democrat to Republican on Sunday.

Democrat has the word "Democrat" in it, and Democracy is bad. Republican has the word "Republic" in it and Republics are good.

That is the basis by which you chose your party...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:06:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 2:58:40 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 12:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Republicans are better. In fact, I just switched my party registration from Democrat to Republican on Sunday.

Democrat has the word "Democrat" in it, and Democracy is bad. Republican has the word "Republic" in it and Republics are good.

That is the basis by which you chose your party...

1. Half of it is Libertarian.
2. I agree with Conservatives more than Liberals, in fact sometimes Conservatives are better than mainline Libertarians.
3. I like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Mike Lee, Justin Amash.
4. It is the best vehicle to advance Liberty.
5. Reagan said At the heart and soul of Conservatism is Libertarianism.
6. I enjoy Fox News.
7. Yes, Republicans have in essence, a better understanding that this is Republic, not a Democratic tyranny that votes your rights away.
8. Republicans oppose Liberalism and Collectivism.

People can point to Neo-Cons but I say the Republican ship is still better even if Neo-Cons historically grabbed the steering wheel at times.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:12:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:06:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

3. I like ... Marco Rubio

When I said that Marco Rubio would be a better choice for the GOP in 2016 than your usual old neoconservative, you attacked me and said he was a big-time statist. Hypocrisy.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:15:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:06:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 2:58:40 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 12:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Republicans are better. In fact, I just switched my party registration from Democrat to Republican on Sunday.

Democrat has the word "Democrat" in it, and Democracy is bad. Republican has the word "Republic" in it and Republics are good.

That is the basis by which you chose your party...

1. Half of it is Libertarian.
2. I agree with Conservatives more than Liberals, in fact sometimes Conservatives are better than mainline Libertarians.
3. I like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell, Mike Lee, Justin Amash.
4. It is the best vehicle to advance Liberty.
5. Reagan said At the heart and soul of Conservatism is Libertarianism.
6. I enjoy Fox News.
7. Yes, Republicans have in essence, a better understanding that this is Republic, not a Democratic tyranny that votes your rights away.
8. Republicans oppose Liberalism and Collectivism.

People can point to Neo-Cons but I say the Republican ship is still better even if Neo-Cons historically grabbed the steering wheel at times.

Do you remember the Bush years?

The years that involved large deficits, infringements on civil liberties, bank bailouts, expansion of the regulatory state, corporate cronyism, pointless wars, etc.

I also remember when Clinton was president and surpluses and a slowly shrinking state.

Granted, Obama has been awful. But, what historically makes you think Republicans are so good for liberty?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:22:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:12:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/16/2013 3:06:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

3. I like ... Marco Rubio

When I said that Marco Rubio would be a better choice for the GOP in 2016 than your usual old neoconservative, you attacked me and said he was a big-time statist. Hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy, no. Changed my mind, yes. After 3 years of hating Marco Rubio, he has finally proved to be an honest man fighting for Liberty and on the right side of the issues for the most part.

His speech at CPAC 2013 was the beginning. Excellent points, passionate delivery and it connected with me. Following that, it was revealed that Marco Rubio has lunch with Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee everyday and they're all friends. Cruz has spoken about him in high regard.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 3:30:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:15:31 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Do you remember the Bush years?

The years that involved large deficits, infringements on civil liberties, bank bailouts, expansion of the regulatory state, corporate cronyism, pointless wars, etc.

Again, the Republican ship is better, but when Neo-Cons steer it, they drive it just like a Democrat. Yes, Neo-Cons are as bad as Democrats. I'm saying the Republican party is better because it is field that cultivates and invites Liberty. That's why it attracts Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, Massie, Lee, Rubio, etc.

I also remember when Clinton was president and surpluses and a slowly shrinking state.

Clinton was riding on the technology boom. Had nothing to do with him, had to do with the free market. Clinton created the housing bubble financial crisis of '08, one of the worst economic recession in our history. Thanks Clinton, gay job on the economy!

Granted, Obama has been awful. But, what historically makes you think Republicans are so good for liberty?

Not Republicans, the Republican PARTY. Though, I can point to dozens of Republicans I support, and no Democrats I support.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
dyanaprajna2011
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 5:36:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Republicans and Democrats are both the same, and we all know what Lewis Black had to say about them.

Both groups have shown that they could care less about the people, and only care about padding their bank accounts.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:07:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

That's nonsense. Your perception is colored and distorted by regional political leanings, and it shows - not that that's your fault.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:10:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:07:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

That's nonsense. Your perception is colored and distorted by regional political leanings, and it shows - not that that's your fault.

At the risk of sounding overly indignant, how could you possibly know where my political leanings come from?

Also how was WHAP?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:26:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:10:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:07:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

That's nonsense. Your perception is colored and distorted by regional political leanings, and it shows - not that that's your fault.

At the risk of sounding overly indignant, how could you possibly know where my political leanings come from?

At the risk of stereotyping, your parents are probably Republican, and even if you might be surrounded by some democrats, that isn't necessarily the culture of the region. I don't know this, but I think it's probably true. Am I wrong?

Also how was WHAP?

Not bad actually. Multiple Choice was the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever seen in my life. It had NOTHING to do with world history; just about every other question was a passage or a quote and then an analysis of the quote. There was nothing on Greece or Rome or Mongols or any Chinese dynasties, or anything past 1900. No mesopotamia or maya or tenochtitlan. No enlightenment or industrial revolution. I studied for nothing - and my proctors didn't warn me when there were 5 minutes left, so they called time and I had 10 questions left, 60 answered.

The essays were less stupid. I lucked out on the change over time, because it was exactly what I studied and just about the only thing I could write a whole essay on and know what I was talking about.

Thanks for asking
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:30:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

Of course that's predicated on the whole lesser-of-two-evils being a legitimate means of choosing a candidate, which I personally consider to be hogwash in terms of choosing your vote.

Then again, the whole idea of needing to use lesser-of-two-evils was largely created by First Past the Post--so it isn't really the fault of those who use it. Not saying you were wrong thett. ;)

It seems so many issues with voting could be ameliorated by Instant Runoff.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:33:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:26:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:10:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:07:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

That's nonsense. Your perception is colored and distorted by regional political leanings, and it shows - not that that's your fault.

At the risk of sounding overly indignant, how could you possibly know where my political leanings come from?

At the risk of stereotyping, your parents are probably Republican, and even if you might be surrounded by some democrats, that isn't necessarily the culture of the region. I don't know this, but I think it's probably true. Am I wrong?

They're swing voters/apathetics from California/Massachusetts actually but I can see your point regarding regional culture. The people I hang around with now are usually liberal, but not so for most of my life

Also how was WHAP?

Not bad actually. Multiple Choice was the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever seen in my life. It had NOTHING to do with world history; just about every other question was a passage or a quote and then an analysis of the quote. There was nothing on Greece or Rome or Mongols or any Chinese dynasties, or anything past 1900. No mesopotamia or maya or tenochtitlan. No enlightenment or industrial revolution. I studied for nothing - and my proctors didn't warn me when there were 5 minutes left, so they called time and I had 10 questions left, 60 answered.

That's ridiculous, sounds closer to Modern History than world history...and yikes. At my school we always take the tests in a huge gym and they project a large timer onto the wall so we always know how much time is remaining. Thats awful

The essays were less stupid. I lucked out on the change over time, because it was exactly what I studied and just about the only thing I could write a whole essay on and know what I was talking about.

Lol same thing happened for me with Euro yesterday

Thanks for asking
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:36:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:30:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

Of course that's predicated on the whole lesser-of-two-evils being a legitimate means of choosing a candidate, which I personally consider to be hogwash in terms of choosing your vote.

Kind of especially considering there was literally no possible chance my vote would impact the election so voting with my heart probably would've been a good idea

Then again, the whole idea of needing to use lesser-of-two-evils was largely created by First Past the Post--so it isn't really the fault of those who use it. Not saying you were wrong thett. ;)

It seems so many issues with voting could be ameliorated by Instant Runoff.

This is true. Or by not having single-member districts. I definitely think there should be more people in the House of Reps.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:38:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:30:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

Of course that's predicated on the whole lesser-of-two-evils being a legitimate means of choosing a candidate, which I personally consider to be hogwash in terms of choosing your vote.

Then again, the whole idea of needing to use lesser-of-two-evils was largely created by First Past the Post--so it isn't really the fault of those who use it. Not saying you were wrong thett. ;)

It seems so many issues with voting could be ameliorated by Instant Runoff.

I don't get your voting philosophy.

Voting is at its core, completely arbitrary.

Voting is unfree when you're allowed only 2 dichotomous options.

Worst of all, voting has arbitrary results that reflect no sentient intentions.

The philosophy of democracy is inherently incomplete. It's like the its advocates are pursuing a certain autonomous direction of each individual's life. However, rather than submitting to collective totalities with no meaning or justification on the individual scale, they left the decision to the science of public persuasion and systemic propaganda - which produce results much like playing a game with strategies and an objective.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:41:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:38:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:30:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

Of course that's predicated on the whole lesser-of-two-evils being a legitimate means of choosing a candidate, which I personally consider to be hogwash in terms of choosing your vote.

Then again, the whole idea of needing to use lesser-of-two-evils was largely created by First Past the Post--so it isn't really the fault of those who use it. Not saying you were wrong thett. ;)

It seems so many issues with voting could be ameliorated by Instant Runoff.

I don't get your voting philosophy.

Voting is at its core, completely arbitrary.

Voting is unfree when you're allowed only 2 dichotomous options.

Worst of all, voting has arbitrary results that reflect no sentient intentions.

The philosophy of democracy is inherently incomplete. It's like the its advocates are pursuing a certain autonomous direction of each individual's life. However, rather than submitting to collective totalities with no meaning or justification on the individual scale, they left the decision to the science of public persuasion and systemic propaganda - which produce results much like playing a game with strategies and an objective.

I meant, rather than submitting to individual decisions that affect individuals. They submit to collective decision making - that's more the result of persuasive science than freedom and choice.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:41:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:43:49 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Republicans often cast themselves as defenders of liberty. I don't really know why.

They are right that democrats and liberals have been doing all they can to expand the state (which undermines freedom and prosperity).

They are right that democrats and liberals are either liars or fools who base their polices on totally irrational or dishonest premises.

They are right that Barack Obama has been an unusually bad president.

However, the problem really is that Republicans are not much better.

To be fair, when I look at the 20th and 21st century, I see two good presidents: Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Both of these men were Republicans.

However, that was in the 1920s. Recently, we've had neoconservative, Bismarckian conservatism that is basically a combination of welfare statism and imperialism. The only difference with liberalism is that there is more emphasis on the exploitative imperialism than the exploitative welfare statism. This philosophy was embodied by the Bush administration.

Ronald Reagan did, on some issues, have his head in the right place. However, he ultimatley was a militarist who did nothing for the cause of liberty. Communism wouldve fallen on its own.

Unlike many hardcore libertarians/anarcho capitalists, I am willing to accept the possibility that there really is a lesser of two evils in the mainstream. I am willing to take positions on mainstream issues. But, the Republicans just don't cut it.

Are they better than Democrats?

In rhetoric, marginally better. In practice, the exact same.

The Republican and Democratic Party are coalition parties. The core of the Democratic Party is democracy; it is the party of the people. They have always been the party of the people, expanding voting rights, and so on. The republicans have always been in favor of republicanism; they favor rule of law.

The changes in each party over time has more to do with the ideologies of those within the parties. Republicans use to favor nationalism, back in the days of Lincoln and socialism, while the Democratic party use to favor classic liberalism, and conservatism. Republicans use to favor a stronger central government, while Democrats use to favor a weaker central government.

While the basis of the parties remained the same, those who aligned themselves with the coalitions changed over time.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:12:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 3:43:49 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Republicans often cast themselves as defenders of liberty. I don't really know why.

They are right that democrats and liberals have been doing all they can to expand the state (which undermines freedom and prosperity).

They are right that democrats and liberals are either liars or fools who base their polices on totally irrational or dishonest premises.

They are right that Barack Obama has been an unusually bad president.

However, the problem really is that Republicans are not much better.

To be fair, when I look at the 20th and 21st century, I see two good presidents: Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Both of these men were Republicans.

However, that was in the 1920s. Recently, we've had neoconservative, Bismarckian conservatism that is basically a combination of welfare statism and imperialism. The only difference with liberalism is that there is more emphasis on the exploitative imperialism than the exploitative welfare statism. This philosophy was embodied by the Bush administration.

Ronald Reagan did, on some issues, have his head in the right place. However, he ultimatley was a militarist who did nothing for the cause of liberty. Communism wouldve fallen on its own.

Unlike many hardcore libertarians/anarcho capitalists, I am willing to accept the possibility that there really is a lesser of two evils in the mainstream. I am willing to take positions on mainstream issues. But, the Republicans just don't cut it.

Are they better than Democrats?

In rhetoric, marginally better. In practice, the exact same.

I started watching this because I was bored and it sounded interesting, and am about 40 minutes into the hour and a half talk. If you have the time to watch it, I do recommend it. Don't let the Info Wars logo scare you off. I'm not an Alex Jones follower by any stretch, but the author/historian in this video, G. Edward Griffin, does a really good job in explaining the problem of collectivism in our society, and why there is no difference between Republicans or Democrats.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:21:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:38:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:30:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

Of course that's predicated on the whole lesser-of-two-evils being a legitimate means of choosing a candidate, which I personally consider to be hogwash in terms of choosing your vote.

Then again, the whole idea of needing to use lesser-of-two-evils was largely created by First Past the Post--so it isn't really the fault of those who use it. Not saying you were wrong thett. ;)

It seems so many issues with voting could be ameliorated by Instant Runoff.

I don't get your voting philosophy.

Voting is at its core, completely arbitrary.

Voting is unfree when you're allowed only 2 dichotomous options.

Worst of all, voting has arbitrary results that reflect no sentient intentions.

The philosophy of democracy is inherently incomplete. It's like the its advocates are pursuing a certain autonomous direction of each individual's life. However, rather than submitting to collective totalities with no meaning or justification on the individual scale, they left the decision to the science of public persuasion and systemic propaganda - which produce results much like playing a game with strategies and an objective.

For once in a blue moon, we're in semi-agreement. I don't see the democratic process as inherently incomplete. However, I do agree with the statement "Voting is unfree when you're allowed only 2 dichotomous options."

I think that, although clearly not AS bad as a single-party state, a two-party state runs into much of the same ideological shoehorning that one sees in single-party states.

I further think that FPTP, when used to choose something as important as a representative, is TERRIBLE, and is one of the main factors, if not THE factor, that helped solidify the two-party framework we see today. My personal preference, though not perfect, would be instant runoff.

As to my voting philosophy, I take voting as an ideological/philosophical exercise, versus an exercise of strategy. I think strategic voting is essentially a scourge on any functioning republic or democracy.

Of course, people may vote for any reason they wish--but I strongly disapprove of strategic reasons.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:36:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:30:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

Of course that's predicated on the whole lesser-of-two-evils being a legitimate means of choosing a candidate, which I personally consider to be hogwash in terms of choosing your vote.

Kind of especially considering there was literally no possible chance my vote would impact the election so voting with my heart probably would've been a good idea

Well, voting is a strange issue. It's an example of the Reverse Tinkerbell effect. For instance:

When more people believe their vote counts, more people vote, and their votes count less. However, when more people believe their vote doesn't count and less people vote, the voters' votes count MORE.

By believing in something, that thing stops being true.

Then again, the whole idea of needing to use lesser-of-two-evils was largely created by First Past the Post--so it isn't really the fault of those who use it. Not saying you were wrong thett. ;)

It seems so many issues with voting could be ameliorated by Instant Runoff.

This is true. Or by not having single-member districts. I definitely think there should be more people in the House of Reps.

Oh no, I personally am still in favor of constituencies. I think that it's primarily the voting system that's an issue.

I also agree that we need more representatives--somewhere close to 800, I'd say.

However, though some articles suggest making it a part-time job done online, etc, I personally think that there's something intrinsically important about having legislatures meet in person to do business, especially in a big country like the United States of America.

Yeah, I have eclectic taste when it comes to political systems.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:27:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 9:21:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:38:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:30:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

Of course that's predicated on the whole lesser-of-two-evils being a legitimate means of choosing a candidate, which I personally consider to be hogwash in terms of choosing your vote.

Then again, the whole idea of needing to use lesser-of-two-evils was largely created by First Past the Post--so it isn't really the fault of those who use it. Not saying you were wrong thett. ;)

It seems so many issues with voting could be ameliorated by Instant Runoff.

I don't get your voting philosophy.

Voting is at its core, completely arbitrary.

Voting is unfree when you're allowed only 2 dichotomous options.

Worst of all, voting has arbitrary results that reflect no sentient intentions.

The philosophy of democracy is inherently incomplete. It's like the its advocates are pursuing a certain autonomous direction of each individual's life. However, rather than submitting to collective totalities with no meaning or justification on the individual scale, they left the decision to the science of public persuasion and systemic propaganda - which produce results much like playing a game with strategies and an objective.

For once in a blue moon, we're in semi-agreement. I don't see the democratic process as inherently incomplete. However, I do agree with the statement "Voting is unfree when you're allowed only 2 dichotomous options."

I think that, although clearly not AS bad as a single-party state, a two-party state runs into much of the same ideological shoehorning that one sees in single-party states.

I further think that FPTP, when used to choose something as important as a representative, is TERRIBLE, and is one of the main factors, if not THE factor, that helped solidify the two-party framework we see today. My personal preference, though not perfect, would be instant runoff.

As to my voting philosophy, I take voting as an ideological/philosophical exercise, versus an exercise of strategy. I think strategic voting is essentially a scourge on any functioning republic or democracy.

Of course, people may vote for any reason they wish--but I strongly disapprove of strategic reasons.

A collective decision is not a decision at all. Why can't individuals just govern their lives on an individual basis? How in the world do you feel a sense of freedom and choice when you're tossed into a pool of 100 million and your opinion is stripped of all intellectual content to dispassionately serve a semi-random assessment of the public leaning.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:34:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 12:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Republicans are better. In fact, I just switched my party registration from Democrat to Republican on Sunday.

Democrat has the word "Democrat" in it, and Democracy is bad. Republican has the word "Republic" in it and Republics are good.

I hope you realize that is a stupid reason.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:39:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 9:34:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/16/2013 12:42:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, Republicans are better. In fact, I just switched my party registration from Democrat to Republican on Sunday.

Democrat has the word "Democrat" in it, and Democracy is bad. Republican has the word "Republic" in it and Republics are good.

I hope you realize that is a stupid reason.
+1
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:43:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
" How in the world do you feel a sense of freedom and choice when you're tossed into a pool of 100 million and your opinion is stripped of all intellectual content to dispassionately serve a semi-random assessment of the public leaning."

This is phenomena an inevitable part of belonging to a society. All the way from macro to micro, from democracy to statism, the average person just can't expect to have much influence on the path his or her society takes. I wouldn't say the democratic process is particularly guilty in this regard.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:46:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 9:43:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
" How in the world do you feel a sense of freedom and choice when you're tossed into a pool of 100 million and your opinion is stripped of all intellectual content to dispassionately serve a semi-random assessment of the public leaning."

This is phenomena an inevitable part of belonging to a society. All the way from macro to micro, from democracy to statism, the average person just can't expect to have much influence on the path his or her society takes. I wouldn't say the democratic process is particularly guilty in this regard.

*This phenomena is an...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:29:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:10:10 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:07:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:53:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
If you vote on candidate and not party it becomes simpler. It's pretty clear to people holding my ideology (which is likely similar to yours) that Romney was by far the lesser of two evils compared with Obama, but there are also tons of cases where the democrat is the lesser evil especially when compared to, shall we say, Rick Santorum republicans.

That's nonsense. Your perception is colored and distorted by regional political leanings, and it shows - not that that's your fault.

At the risk of sounding overly indignant, how could you possibly know where my political leanings come from?

Also how was WHAP?

I imagine it looked something like this:

*Looked at profile*
*Saw that you live in Texas*

However, I personally do not see Romney as the lesser of two evils, with the great amount of changing his opinion he seemed to do. At least Obama is mostly consistent. Romney's opinions would be about as reliable as what would be found upon opening a Schrodinger's cat box. You really have no idea what the hell is going to happen until he is elected.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian