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?

 

[coldseat]

I do not mind social programs paid by a capitalist nation.

I will never accept full blown socialism. It does not work!

Social programs is not the same as socialism.

Why do you keep talking about socialism, if by your definition nothing the Democrats are proposing is socialist?

 

[Paul]

You never answered the question of are you okay with the GOP labeling "social programs paid by a capitalist nation" socialism as a scare tactic to turn people against it

Is it okay? Yes or No?

It is obviously wrong!
I am for Medicare for all.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I agree, anecdotes are anecdotes, but they are useful to communicate a point.

The old dogma was that liberals were vastly more tolerant than conservatives. However, this has changed and now some liberals are as intolerant as conservatives.

Political Intolerance, Right and Left

Research recently published in Political Psychology suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion. ...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Do as you say, not as you do. Gotcha.

You keep sharing things that don't actually support your position. Everything you have shared (that isn't a heavily biased opinion piece) comes back to the paradox of tolerance that has been described to you many times.

 

[Paul]

Why do you keep talking about socialism, if by your definition nothing the Democrats are proposing is socialist?

The Democrats want a welfare state so they can stay in power perennially. It is the new feudalism. If citizens were successful on their own there would be no need for the Democratic Party.

Neo-feudalism​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Neo-feudalism or new feudalism is a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy, and public life, reminiscent of those which were present in many feudal societies. Such aspects include, but are not limited to: Unequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility,[1] dominance of societies by small and powerful elitist groups, and relations of lordship and serfdom between the rich and the poor."

The Lords will be the political leaders. The place of the clergy will be taken up by media moguls and a few oligarchs. The rest will be on UBI and fully dependent on the benevolence of the state. Upward social mobility will continue to go down.

 

[MT15]

I will accept that vulgarity is evenly distributed in the political spectrum. However, I have personally observed a greater degree of intolerance for different points of view among the extreme left. And that is odd because traditionally they were very tolerant of different views.

In 1964 Berkeley led the free speech movement. Today they do not allow conservative speakers on campus.

So, Paul, according to the studies referenced by your first article, if you are experiencing a greater degree of intolerance from people on the left, it could be that you fit into one of the categories cited in the article, no? And if you fit into the other set of categories you would be feeling that intolerance from the right. It’s really not that hard to understand what they found.

 

[Paul]

So, Paul, according to the studies referenced by your first article, if you are experiencing a greater degree of intolerance from people on the left, it could be that you fit into one of the categories cited in the article, no? And if you fit into the other set of categories you would be feeling that intolerance from the right. It’s really not that hard to understand what they found.

Yes, but in the old days the most tolerant people in the planet were the liberals. Tolerance was the hallmark of a liberal. Nowadays they seem as intolerant as Evangelicals on the right. This happens because the atheist left has adopted woke as their new religion.

 

[coldseat]

The Democrats want a welfare state so they can stay in power perennially. It is the new feudalism. If citizens were successful on their own there would be no need for the Democratic Party.

Neo-feudalism​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Neo-feudalism or new feudalism is a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy, and public life, reminiscent of those which were present in many feudal societies. Such aspects include, but are not limited to: Unequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility,[1] dominance of societies by small and powerful elitist groups, and relations of lordship and serfdom between the rich and the poor."

The Lords will be the political leaders. The place of the clergy will be taken up by media moguls and a few oligarchs. The rest will be on UBI and fully dependent on the benevolence of the state. Upward social mobility will continue to go down.

Stop contradicting yourself. So in other words, you don't believe that social programs paid for by taxes dollars are good.

No, Democrats do not want a welfare state. I'm vote democrat, I do not want a welfare state. Those are just republican talking points, which you've shown, many times over, are highly affective on you.

 

[Paul]

Stop contradicting yourself. So in other words, you don't believe that social programs paid for by taxes dollars are good.

No, Democrats do not want a welfare state. I'm vote democrat, I do not want a welfare state. Those are just republican talking points, which you've shown many times over are highly affective on you.

I also want social programs. However, that does not negate the statement: If everybody could take care of their own affairs there is no need for the Democrats.

 

[tigerfan]

no one is ending a relationship or friendship because the other person wants lower taxes or fewer regulations

They are ending friendships because they are insane

 

[MT15]

Yes, but in the old days the most tolerant people in the planet were the liberals. Tolerance was the hallmark of a liberal. Nowadays they seem as intolerant as Evangelicals on the right. Thus happens because the atheist left has adopted woke as their new religion.

No, that may be your opinion but if you read the studies and think about it there‘s really no evidence of that.

Let me offer an alternative opinion. Liberals are very tolerant of almost every POV, except intolerance. So as the right has become more and more radical, the left has become less and less tolerant of their intolerance.

 

[MT15]

They are ending friendships because they are insane

Yes, the Q folks and the Trump cultists are quite insane.

 

[coldseat]

I also want social programs. However, that does not negate the statement: If everybody could take care of their own affairs there is no need for the Democrats.

Whatever man. This is a stupid thought. We have Democrats, deal with it.

Regardless of what society you're in, there will always be people that need to be taken care off, children for one. But unless you're a psychopath, that's not the exclusive responsibility of the evil Democrats who are just trying to take all of your money and turn the US into a socialist hell hole.

 

[Optimus Prime]

If everybody could take care of their own affairs there is no need for the Democrats.

spoken like a true centrist

 

[superchuck500]

Interesting take from Josh Marshall (talkingpointsmemo).

I this his observation about the singular focal center of the GOP versus the coalition form of the Democrats is spot-on, at least over the past decade or so. There used to be a power-base in the GOP that was based on secular business/capital interests, but I think that's just along for the ride now (or in some instances has shifted to the moderate wing of the Democratic coalition).

This is not only about weak knees. It is also rooted in the differing sociologies of the two parties. White Christian conservatives are the dominant force in the Republican party and have been for decades. Not everyone in the GOP is white, Christian and conservative of course. But if you’re in the GOP you’re in their house. And what they say goes. Those folks know what they want and when the electorate chooses not to give it to them deciding to want something different isn’t really the first option that comes to mind or even an option that ever comes to mind. The Democratic party, on the contrary, is a coalition of fairly disparate groups: white liberals, African-Americans, left-wing progressives, Hispanics, the LBGTQ community, organized labor, women, immigrants. There is a constant intramural struggle over who should be running the show and whose issues get first dibs. The party’s achilles heel is that every reverse triggers a re-litigation and second-guessing of whether the mix was right, who should have been calling the shots and whose issues should be on top.

And yet a lot of it does come down to weak knees, whatever their roots in the structural dynamics of the party and its coalitional nature. It is also rooted in the qualities people on the center-left value most. Empiricism and at least an idealized version of civic democracy are rooted in skepticism and doubt. The taproots of Authoritarianism are confidence and aggression. We don’t come to these things, either side of the political spectrum, by accident.

 

[J-DONK]

spoken like a true centrist

He is one of our registered independent free-thinkers.

 

[MT15]

Interesting take from Josh Marshall (talkingpointsmemo).

I this his observation about the singular focal center of the GOP versus the coalition form of the Democrats is spot-on, at least over the past decade or so. There used to be a power-base in the GOP that was based on secular business/capital interests, but I think that's just along for the ride now (or in some instances has shifted to the moderate wing of the Democratic coalition).

Being a Whiny Little B Isn’t Good For Your Soul

Yesterday CNN headlined that President Biden returned to a Democratic “nightmare”. The Times Peter Baker said Biden was returning to a “different country”. There’s no doubt Democrats had a rough night.

talkingpointsmemo.com

There used to be a much larger tent in the R party. There were moderates and even liberal Rs, I’m that old that I can remember that. There were also principled conservatives. It’s a shell of its former self. But that notion is probably right, that presenting a united front has an appeal to some voters.

If the R party was in its present form back when I was younger, we would have had Nixon finish his second term easily, and we would have never had the civil rights legislation that Johnson ushered through. The two parties used to work together, especially in the Senate.

It was “normal” for most of my life to have both parties be an amalgamation of disparate views.

Sorry if I’m repeating anything from the article, it’s behind a paywall.

 

[superchuck500]

There used to be a much larger tent in the R party. There were moderates and even liberal Rs, I’m that old that I can remember that. There were also principled conservatives. It’s a shell of its former self. But that notion is probably right, that presenting a united front has an appeal to some voters.

If the R party was in its present form back when I was younger, we would have had Nixon finish his second term easily, and we would have never had the civil rights legislation that Johnson ushered through. The two parties used to work together, especially in the Senate.

It was “normal” for most of my life to have both parties be an amalgamation of disparate views.

Sorry if I’m repeating anything from the article, it’s behind a paywall.

Sorry - I grabbed the link from the article, I launched it from his tweet (which avoids the paywall). I updated the post above.

I'm not a subscriber so I was wondering how that happened.

 

[tigerfan]

Yes, the Q folks and the Trump cultists are quite insane.

I don’t disagree. What’s interesting is that the groupthink crew here has no idea that the rest of America thinks you guys are also nuts. But in your little bubble, you pat each other on the back for your insane ideas.