What happens to the Republican Party now? (1 Viewer)

[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?

 

[Taurus]

Libertarians and Marxists are pretty much the same. They all believe that people will always respect everyone else.

Both systems are easily taken over by those willing to abuse others.

They also both sound good in a vacuum.
Problem is, you can't start from zero.

 

[Paul]

Libertarians and Marxists are pretty much the same. They all believe that people will always respect everyone else.

Both systems are easily taken over by those willing to abuse others.

Socialists are all about control which is not what libertarians want. Perhaps you are talking about anarchists who are as opposed to authoritarianism as libertarians. The anarchists are the so-called libertarian socialists.

A society with no government does not work very well . As independent as they are even the Amish have rules.

 

[Taurus]

Socialists are all about control which is not what libertarians want. Perhaps you are talking about anarchists who are as opposed to authoritarianism as libertarians. The anarchists are the so-called libertarian socialists.

A society with no government does not work very well . As independent as they are even the Amish have rules.

Libertarians would trade governmental control for a moneyed aristocracy.
You can't start from zero. There are already massively wealthy people who wield enormous power. Allowing them to do as they will just sets up a new feudal system.

 

[Paul]

Libertarians would trade governmental control for a moneyed aristocracy.
You can't start from zero. There are already massively wealthy people who wield enormous power. Allowing them to do as they will just sets up a new feudal system.

The natural state of humans is poverty.
Somewhere in the distant past humans were all poor. Some figured out out to make wealth and the majority remains behind.

We are well on our way to a new feudalism where the Lords are the people running tech companies. They are dictating how the masses should live. The high tech oligarchs already control commerce and social life. Some of the tech oligarchs are already planning how to run the lives of all the new generation kids who faithfully fall on line. Another segment of new generation live in plantations in the inner city where they live on the land of the local government.

 

[coldseat]

I mean, he's not exactly wrong. He has done more to increase the power and influence of the Christian Evangelical Right in this country than Jesus ever has. And that's what the Christian evangelicals in this country want, power and influence. So it's no wonder that he's a deity to them and they'd follow him to the ends of the earth, democracy be dammed.

 

[Paul]

I mean, he's not exactly wrong. He has done more to increase the power and influence of the Christian Evangelical Right in this country than Jesus ever has. And that's what the Christian evangelicals in this country want, power and influence. So it's no wonder that he's a deity to them and they'd follow him to the ends of the earth, democracy be dammed.

Some hardcore evangelicals can be like thew Taliban; others are peaceful. Basically they are like the Muslims, some are fundamentalists and others not. God luck if you live in the south!

 

[insidejob]

ah the good ol' echo chamber clap back. Next you'll be throwing around other words like tribalism and straw man and anecdotes
Do you know anything about the Koch brothers?
I've seen enough to know that there is nothing "helpful" in inundating myself with certain groups

edit: to complete our bingo card, look out for: race ID politics, Latin America, I’m an outsider, McWhorter

yo. you forgot coercion.

 

[Paul]

yo. you forgot coercion.

Guys: These are some of the bad words in my dictionary:

coercion
socialism
democratic socialism (an oxymoron)
tribalism
echo chamber
victimhood
straw man arguments
anecdotes as arguments (use is ok if used to illustrate an argument)
SJW behavior
Use of the F word

I am sure there are many more

 

[bird]

Guys: These are some of the bad words in my dictionary:

coercion
socialism
democratic socialism (an oxymoron)
tribalism
echo chamber
victimhood
straw man arguments
anecdotes as arguments (use is ok if used to illustrate an argument)
SJW behavior
Use of the F word

I am sure there are many more

libertarian paradise (oxymoron)
compassionate conservative (an oxymoron)
T.I.N.A.
Reaganism
Thatcherism
"Free Market" (a fairy tale)
"Markets decide..." (an impossibility)
Corporations are people (an impossibility)

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I vote Libertarian, because i cannot, in good conscious, vote for major Republican or Democratic candidates. Maybe yall are ok with holding your noses each and every election, i am not.

 

[Paul]

libertarian paradise (oxymoron)

Democratic socialism is a much greater oxymoron than libertarian paradise.

Democratic-Socialism is an oxymoron; it combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually antithetical to democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social services to the government, then you have given up self-determination and freedom.

The government then must determine what you get, when you get it, whether you need it and most importantly whether you “deserve” it. They must rank you personally and morally.

Democratic-Socialism is an oxymoron

Democratic-Socialism is an oxymoron; it combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually antithetical to democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social

www.coastalview.com

A libertarian paradise only works for the few that are high on the competency hierarchy. Those that are low in the hierarchy need the state for support.

compassionate conservative (an oxymoron)

According to Jonathan Haidt libertarians have less compassion than conservatives.

T.I.N.A.
Reaganism
Thatcherism
"Free Market" (a fairy tale)
"Markets decide..." (an impossibility)
Corporations are people (an impossibility)

I will admit that the word socialism causes an orgasm in many.

 

[RobF]

Democratic socialism is a much greater oxymoron than libertarian paradise.

Democratic-Socialism is an oxymoron; it combines two contradictory words. Socialism is actually antithetical to democracy. If you give control of the means of production, distribution, management of industries and social services to the government, then you have given up self-determination and freedom.

The government then must determine what you get, when you get it, whether you need it and most importantly whether you “deserve” it. They must rank you personally and morally.

We already had an entire thread - https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...uity-v-equality-and-government-policy.151049/ - where you clearly established that you don't know what democracy is, don't know what socialism is, and keep changing your definitions of both in order to try and make your pointless, futile, argument.

We really don't need to do it again.

Let's keep this thread at least vaguely about the Republican party's future, rather than make it yet another "Paul demonstrably doesn't know what he's talking about and is wrong, again" thread.

 

[Paul]

We already had an entire thread - https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...uity-v-equality-and-government-policy.151049/ - where you clearly established that you don't know what democracy is, don't know what socialism is, and keep changing your definitions of both in order to try and make your pointless, futile, argument.

We really don't need to do it again.

Let's keep this thread at least vaguely about the Republican party's future, rather than make it yet another "Paul demonstrably doesn't know what he's talking about and is wrong, again" thread.

I fully agree Robbie.
However democracy and socialism do not mix. Just sayin'

 

[RobF]

I fully agree Robbie.

Good to hear!


<--- Also it's Rob. It says it right there. Not sure why you keep getting it deliberately wrong?

Although you can use 'Mr F' if you like.

 

[Paul]

Good to hear!


<--- Also it's Rob. It says it right there. Not sure why you keep getting it deliberately wrong?

Although you can use 'Mr F' if you like.

Where I come from changing Rob to Robbie or John to Johnnie is quite common. I will call you Mr. F if you like formality.

 

[zztop]

I will admit that the word socialism causes an orgasm in many.

I think I just discovered one of Paul's kinks
(edited for spelling)

 

[Paul]

I think I just discovered on of Paul's kinks

Ha, ha. A kinky person among the land of the puritanical!

 

[Booker]

However democracy and socialism do not mix. Just sayin'

Just curious, why couldn't a socialist government be democratically chosen? Not that I would be in favor of it happening, but why couldn't a majority of the constituents of a nation decide that they favored a socialist system?

I don't get this. As long as the government continues to follow the will of the people, either though direct or representative democracy, and majority rule dictates socialist policies, what is the issue? Be that actual socialism (government control of means of production and distribution), or just the "socialism-lite" (social welfare programs, health care, UBI, etc.) favored by a number of European nations.