What happens to the Republican Party now? (3 Viewers)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[samiam5211]

I disagree, there is a large silent minority that is essentially libertarian and the last thing they want is authoritarianism.

If they are not authoritarians, they better hurry up and say something.

I know they don't want to be accused of coercing anyone, but if they just stand by silently while the party they vote for slides into authoritarianism, they are going to noncoerce themselves right into a dictatorship.

 

[Paul]

So the Democratic Party, which is home to the vast majority of nonwhite voters, is just like animals in a zoo. Remember when you said to point out the racist crap you spew? Here it is. Intentional or not, this is exactly it.

Once again you have your racism detector on high sensitivity settings. The pink skin Scandinavians with white hair and pale eyes also want the same thing. You need to put your detector on normal settings. You always see racism where there is none.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Once again you have your racism detector on high sensitivity settings. The pink skin Scandinavians with white hair and pale eyes also want the same thing. You need to put your detector on normal settings. You always see racism where there is none.

If a dozen people are telling you something, perhaps there's more truth to it than you realize. Like I said, maybe it was unintentional. What was your goal in comparing Democratic voters to zoo animals?

 

[samiam5211]

Deleted

 

[MT15]

I fully agree, but the libertarian side of me sees liberals that are very willing to have the government take care of them. I understand that animals in the zoo live longer, but i am not so sure they are happier. Or at least----- I would not be happier.

And most left wing programs require some sort coercion.

This is not a moderate POV.

 

[Paul]

If they are not authoritarians, they better hurry up and say something.

I know they don't want to be accused of coercing anyone, but if they just stand by silently while the party they vote for slides into authoritarianism, they are going to noncoerce themselves right into a dictatorship.

I know lots of libertarians. I have many libertarian tendencies, but I am fine with National Medical, free college, etc. That makes me a libertarian to the left of the center line. Most libertarians are to the right of the midline and hence fear the left to a greater degree than the right.

If a dozen people are telling you something, perhaps there's more truth to it than you realize. Like I said, maybe it was unintentional. What was your goal in comparing Democratic voters to zoo animals?

I was making a philosophical point. And the point is quite valid. Some people believe the state should be the caretaker and other people believe in individualism. It is what it is!

If there is going to be an open conversation then we should have an open conversation. When racism is invoked inappropriately then the conversation is stifled and there is no exchange of ideas. Free speech requires that I may say something you dislike or find offensive. By the same token you may say something I find offensive. If we are not willing to feel offended in a conversation then we might as well find an echo chamber where all members say what you want to hear.

 

[Paul]

This is not a moderate POV.

For someone that is on the far left a moderate looks like a right winger. I do not blame you. If anything I am to the left of the midline.

Oops, I almost forgot. Do you have an argument?

 

[samiam5211]

I know lots of libertarians. I have many libertarian tendencies, but I am fine with National Medical, free college, etc. That makes me a libertarian to the left of the center line. Most libertarians are to the right of the midline and hence fear the left to a greater degree than the right.

I was making a philosophical point. And the point is quite valid. Some people believe the state should be the caretaker and other people believe in individualism. It is what it is!

If there is going to be an open conversation then we should have an open conversation. When racism is invoked inappropriately then the conversation is stifled and there is no exchange of ideas. Free speech requires that I may say something you dislike or find offensive. By the same token you may say something I find offensive. If we are not willing to feel offended in a conversation then we might as well find an echo chamber where all members say what you want to hear.

Anyone who votes for a Republican and staying silent while people like Marjorie Taylor Green are supported by the party is not a libertarian.

 

[Paul]

Anyone who votes for a Republican and staying silent while people like Marjorie Taylor Green are supported by the party is not a libertarian.

MTG is a nut, a charlatan. This is what you get with tribal politics. The worse raises to the top. She probably comes form a district of inbred rednecks.

 

[samiam5211]

MTG is a nut, a charlatan. This is what you get with tribal politics. The worse raises to the top. She probably comes form a district of inbred rednecks.

If the silent majority of Republicans don’t purge that sect of their party they will be overtaken by the loud minority.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I was making a philosophical point. And the point is quite valid. Some people believe the state should be the caretaker and other people believe in individualism. It is what it is!

If there is going to be an open conversation then we should have an open conversation. When racism is invoked inappropriately then the conversation is stifled and there is no exchange of ideas. Free speech requires that I may say something you dislike or find offensive. By the same token you may say something I find offensive. If we are not willing to feel offended in a conversation then we might as well find an echo chamber where all members say what you want to hear.

I understand your unsupported opinion just fine. It's not the opinion that I commented on, though. It was the analogy with which I took issue.

Free speech doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't have to let you express a thought without repercussion. Freedom of speech applies only to the government's ability to prevent citizens from speaking out.

If ten people find themselves in a room, and nine of them call the tenth racist when he uses the N word, are those nine people justified in calling the tenth racist?

 

[Taurus]

I fully agree, but the libertarian side of me sees liberals that are very willing to have the government take care of them. I understand that animals in the zoo live longer, but i am not so sure they are happier. Or at least----- I would not be happier.

And most left wing programs require some sort coercion.

How about just wanting VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY?!? Seriously. We all pay taxes, that'll never, ever go away. So I, for one, want something in return. Not Raytheon, not Lockheed, Exxon or DuPont. Me. Free college for my kids, free healthcare for my family, clean water, wilderness, I have a list a mile long and as far as I'm concerned, Monsanto can suck it.

 

[Paul]

How about just wanting VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY?!? Seriously. We all pay taxes, that'll never, ever go away. So I, for one, want something in return. Not Raytheon, not Lockheed, Exxon or DuPont. Me. Free college for my kids, free healthcare for my family, clean water, wilderness, I have a list a mile long and as far as I'm concerned, Monsanto can suck it.

I get your point. But, as you said: Someone has to cough up the money.

As for the economical hierarchy: That is the way it has been for a long time. At the onset all humans were poor. That is the normal state of humanity. Some people figured out how to make money and now they try to control the system to their benefit just as you are looking out for you. I don't have a solution.

 

[Paul]

I understand your unsupported opinion just fine. It's not the opinion that I commented on, though. It was the analogy with which I took issue.

The analogy had nothing to do with racism as it also applies in European nations where many want the state to be the nannie of the people.

Free speech doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't have to let you express a thought without repercussion. Freedom of speech applies only to the government's ability to prevent citizens from speaking out.

I agree! However, I was talking about conversation between people. If the conversation is curtailed and stifled there is no flow of ideas.

If ten people find themselves in a room, and nine of them call the tenth racist when he uses the N word, are those nine people justified in calling the tenth racist?

I understand mob rule quite well. If nine people do not like any other word then the solitary "number one" cannot use it. It does not have to be the N word. It can be any other word.

 

[Taurus]

I get your point. But, as you said: Someone has to cough up the money.

As for the economical hierarchy: That is the way it has been for a long time. At the onset all humans were poor. That is the normal state of humanity. Some people figured out how to make money and now they try to control the system to their benefit just as you are looking out for you. I don't have a solution.

Help me look out for us.

That's how the system is supposed to work. They have the money, we have the numbers.
It's when a sizeable chunk of "us" vote for "their" interests that it falls apart.
I guarandamntee you that Exxon isn't turning down any subsidies with "O! I am offended you would even offer, Uncle Sam! Keep your filthy lucre, for we are a proud, independent company and need no one's pity money. We abjure the government teat and look down upon any who suckle of its poisonous milk! Avaunt, knaves and trouble us no more."

 

[Paul]

Help me look out for us.

That's how the system is supposed to work. They have the money, we have the numbers.
It's when a sizeable chunk of "us" vote for "their" interests that it falls apart.
I guarandamntee you that Exxon isn't turning down any subsidies with "O! I am offended you would even offer, Uncle Sam! Keep your filthy lucre, for we are a proud, independent company and need no one's pity money. We abjure the government teat and look down upon any who suckle of its poisonous milk! Avaunt, knaves and trouble us no more."

Humans are corrupt and try to get ahead by playing dirty tricks on others. Hopefully over time humans become more enlightened and there is a fair system for all. A lot of progress have been made. iI the 19th century a poor person was very skinny, malnourished, had a short life span, and lived in a gutter. Today poor people have it much better and some are even obese due to excess calories. We are making progress, but we continue to have a system where most of the wealth is in the hands of a few. What a dilemma! Assume we get all their wealth! Then what?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The analogy had nothing to do with racism as it also applies in European nations where many want the state to be the nannie of the people.

I agree! However, I was talking about conversation between people. If the conversation is curtailed and stifled there is no flow of ideas.

I understand mob rule quite well. If nine people do not like any other word then the solitary "number one" cannot use it. It does not have to be the N word. It can be any other word.

Debating whether or not I should act surprised that you missed the entire point of everything I said. I'm leaning toward not bothering because I don't have the energy for your stupid forking games tonight.

 

[MT15]

I know lots of libertarians. I have many libertarian tendencies, but I am fine with National Medical, free college, etc. That makes me a libertarian to the left of the center line. Most libertarians are to the right of the midline and hence fear the left to a greater degree than the right.

I was making a philosophical point. And the point is quite valid. Some people believe the state should be the caretaker and other people believe in individualism. It is what it is!

If there is going to be an open conversation then we should have an open conversation. When racism is invoked inappropriately then the conversation is stifled and there is no exchange of ideas. Free speech requires that I may say something you dislike or find offensive. By the same token you may say something I find offensive. If we are not willing to feel offended in a conversation then we might as well find an echo chamber where all members say what you want to hear.

And yet, you have chided people on here repeatedly for expressing an opinion that you are offended by. And told them they need to change their opinion. Do they not have the right to express their opinion that you are using racist analogies, and echoing white supremacist talking points?

Do you not see the hypocrisy of you taking offense to a “word” that others are using to describe you and trying to convince them they shouldn’t use that “word” because it stifles discussion? You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.