Agree or disagree? Discuss...
https://me.me/i/issues-universal-he...pport-it-gun-ddb2e5bc23734a798e2259ec79783a4f
https://me.me/i/issues-universal-he...pport-it-gun-ddb2e5bc23734a798e2259ec79783a4f
Last edited:
The Difference Between Republicans & Democrats
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I agree that both parties are the same in the sense that they both agree it is perfectly appropriate for the government to rule our conduct. But if the meme is at all accurate there would appear to be a huge difference between the two parties as to what conduct that rule is to apply.
Both parties were the same.
Both are being dramatically rebranded. It’s now a matchup of leftists vs MAGA. Traditional conservatives vs liberal battle lines are to the right of anything the leftists consider alt right nowadays.
@Been Jammin is living in the past.
Both are being dramatically rebranded. It’s now a matchup of leftists vs MAGA. Traditional conservatives vs liberal battle lines are to the right of anything the leftists consider alt right nowadays.
@Been Jammin is living in the past.
Really it is not about Dems vs repubs anymore it is Communists/socialists vs folks that believe in the Constitution
It is interesting to me that so many people have the same perspective as you. While I agree with you that the Democratic Party has taken a turn to the hard left and has been taken over by socialists (not communists, not yet), the belief that the Republicans, thanks to MAGA, are vigorously defending the Constitution, in my opinion is in error. Nationalism in foreign policy and protectionism in economic policy are almost as anti-Constitution as socialism.
Cuban-Americans, who know firsthand the terror that collectivism brings, confront Marxist-sympathizing Nancy Pelosi.
I am unclear what this has to do with the subject at hand. Would you please clarify?
I’ll start with this. I’ll see what else I can scrounge up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...ation_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States
Are you seriously asking a table comparison made obviously by a far leftists is accurate?
How about this? It is about as equal as your table.
1) For individualism: Conservatives = for Liberals = against
2) Freedoms: C = for L = against
3) Money you make. C = yours. L = government’s
4) SCOTUS C = constitution. L = constitution is moving doc
5) identity politics. C = for individuals. L = their lifeblood
6) groups they attack. C = criminals. L = the rich
7) police. C = tomprotect and serve. L = abusive and worthy of scorn
8) crimes. C = a crime against anyone is equal. L = punishment should be worse based on individuals identity
9) biological science. C= understood. L = being redefined
10) streets. C = for driving to work. L = for blocking traffic
Last edited:
Please explain. I'd love to know what section would preclude these concepts.
This is self indulgent at this point. Nothing short of a libertarian administration and Congress will ever pass your litmus test.
The fact is MAGA is clearly a more Constitutionslist philosophy than the neocons were. And the leftists are clearly more collectivist and anti-Constitution than the liberals were.
One of those is moving in the right direction.
For the record it’s not my meme, nor is it one to which I subscribe. I just thought it would make for interesting commentary. Regrettably the more sensible left wingers have been run off for various reasons, and all we’ve been left with have been a 30+ year old with limited intellectual prowess and another who claims not to be left wing and most often replies with emojis. It was a mistake on my part to post this. It has not had the expected story line.
You’re probably right.
My assertion is the Founding Fathers, the ones who devised the Constitution, had in mind that individuals should be free to live their lives unencumbered by intrusive government. For example they did not install edicts against immigration into this country, in fact the country had open borders.
And while they instituted tariffs as a means to pay for the government they never intended to allow one person, the President, to have a say into with whom you or I could choose to trade.
While DJT has been fairly good on reducing regulations he has acted like a dictator on those things. In that regard he and the MAGA crowd are notably anti-Constitution.
Completeky agree! But being “more constitutionalist” does not make one a constitutionalist.
Of course I have a litmus test, don’t you? My litmus test calls for, as you describe it, a libertarian society. One in which the individual is free from government shackles. The fact that the MAGA crowd proposes fewer shackles than the Progressives in no way makes me want to applaud the MAGA’s.
It’s time for people to understand they have been trapped into a shell game being played by politicians. Both teams have invented an elaborate scheme that diverts attention away from their ultimate goal, which is complete control of the economy and our social structure.
They have us bickering like school children over which side is worse. Whataboutism is rampant. Look at this board! Posters from each side ignore repression perpetrated by their team by saying the other team does it too. It doesn’t matter! Repression by your team is just as dangerous and deadly as repression by the other team.
It astounds me that so many people are blind to this. Willingly blind. Team victory seems to be the only thing that matters.
Actually I can’t, at least as it regards immigration, because nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted any authority over immigration, only naturalizion. About 100 years into our history the Supreme Court intervened (what a surprise, the federal government agreed it had an authority the Constitution had granted to the states only). So, no, I can’t cite a constitutional authority that does not exist.
So your post was just full of crap and your claim about protectionism and nationalism being anti-constitution is absurd. Got it.
OK, so as a baseline - you are on record as completely agreeing with my post - which postulated that MAGA is constitutionally speaking, an improvement over neocons, and Leftists (aka progressives/democratic socialists and whatever the fK else they call themselves) are worse than classic Bill Clinton style liberals. So let's note for the record - you agree.
No, but moving from neocon to MAGA, as you've already agreed is a move in the right direction.
A libertarian society - as much as I may agree with you in principle - is not a litmus test. It's a pipe dream in our current two party state. Realistically the best use of libertarianism is to be the primary ingredient of a reformed Republican party, and eventually that of a defeated and similarly reformed Democrat party.
And forgive me but it's absurd not to "applaud" MAGA for being demonstrably more Constitutionalist than the Neocons they replaced. Will you applaud nothing short of pure libertarian idealism? That's gonna be a long wait.
People do understand that. It's that understanding which birthed MAGA and got Trump elected. Without some political instinct on MAGA's part however, that couldn't have happened. It turns out - in politics, you can't quite get away from political gamesmanship.
I really think you are more nuanced than to honestly believe MAGA is a monolith so easily defined. It's a populist movement that has attracted more than a few libertarians because it's viewed as an actual game changer - not a pie in the sky utopia we'll never realistically achieve. MAGA is a game changer for small business and private enterprise. That's not the dystopian "complete control" you imagine at all. Lower taxes, lower regulations, Constitutionalist judicial appointments. None of that supports your claim that "both" want complete control of the economy and social structure. This is pure fabrication and simplification because it supports your position of staying in the middle. To do that, you have to imagine equal and opposite opposing binary teams applying equal constitutional pressures. It's simply not the case.
One is clearly worse form a Constitutional point of view. You are already on record as agreeing with me on this point.
This is the self indulgence - you are acting as though both binary "sides" are equally bad from your declared middle point of view. I see no nobility in that at all. I see a commitment to being in the middle no matter what truth reveals itself, and that is not admirable. I say this as an avowed centrist by the old rules of right vs left. I am no longer in the middle - not because I've changed but specifically because I have not.
You might take a closer look at what you are willingly blind to.
Let's say you are right that there are two teams and only two monolithic teams - each of which can be oversimplified into easily quantified descriptions.
You've already agreed with me that from a virtual uniparty, we now have MAGA and Leftism/Socialism represented openly at the highest levels of government. You have already agreed to me that the leftists are actively moving away from Constitutional rule (I mean take your pick... Gun rights, free speech, due process, electoral college) in favor of collectivism.
Meanwhile, MAGA is appointing Constitutionalist judges, deregulating industry, slashing taxes and has our record setting economy at virtual full employment.
At what point do you look at this, hold your nose and support the "side" that is against people who are openly unconstitutional in their stated goals?
I've left your crazy interpretation of the founding fathers' probable opinions of national borders alone for now.
.
Great reply! You’ve left me with a lot to consume. For now let me say I hardly see myself in the middle of the political infighting between Republicans/Democrats, MAGA’s/Progressives/NeoCons/NeoLibs. I see them as disparate branches of the same political philosophy, the philosophy best described as statism. The belief state intervention in (pick a subject) is appropriate and necessary. The only argument between the lot of them centers over who gets to tell the rest of us what to do. One who opposes both - all - of the competing statist sides can hardly see himself as advocating for something in the middle.
Hate to be that guy, but your statism/non- statism position is well documented. Do let's not reinvent the wheel.
Barring an apocalypse, a state will always exist.
Since you are forced to choose between the lesser of all evils, let's start there.
Brad, I am always in favor of choosing the lesser of two evils provided those are my only choices. Who wouldn’t be? That doesn’t alter the fact that I am choosing evil. And because it is evil - even when it is the lesser choice - I am not hesitant to call it what it is. If I were on one of the teams I would insist that it stop practicing evil. Neither team will ever stop its rampage through our liberty until the pawns of the teams force their own leadership to back off. But that doesn’t happen. The pawns willingly sacrifice their individual identity in the name of winning no matter what the cost. It astonishes me that so few people understand that basic principle.
Let's take it a step further, are the legislative philosophies you can realistically choose between literally evil?
*Admittedly I entered that word, and I see that was a bad turn of phrase.
Well I did not necessarily say that the repubs are totally pro Constitution. There are progressive repubs as well that think the state should control a lot that it shouldn't.
To put things another way. This is about those who believe in individual liberty and freedom and those who think the state should control the collective. The current leadership and direction of the Democratic party are all in the latter group. In fact the latter group is composed almost entirely of Democrats, members of the socialist/Communists parties and anarchists.
As stated by others both parties used to believe in America and it's exceptionalism. This is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.
Obama did succeed in transforming the Democrat party but not for the better. I believe now that if the U.S. was attacked like Pearl harbor or 9-11 there are significant portions of the Democratic party that would, privately at least, cheer because their hatred of this country and what it has stood for all these years.
Now how did significant portions of our country get to be this way..... The education system is a large part of the reason as we do not teach civics like we used to if at all. The younger generations have not been taught about this country, how and why it came to be and the reasons for why this government is as designed as exceptional as it is.
Why do we not teach this in school any longer? IMO this is because the left was allowed to ingrain themselves in all levels of academia because constitutionalists of all stripes and especially conservatives have been asleep and too busy to be bothered putting their energy into education.
Too truly 'right the ship', and it's a long term fix, conservatives and constitutionalists need to get involved in the local school boards and in running colleges and fight hard for the inclusion of civics and the principals of individual liberty and freedom.
This countries government as designed is the best that has ever existed by far. Has our history been perfect -heck no - but it is the only one that would have allowed the changes to right wrongs that this country allows.
To put things another way. This is about those who believe in individual liberty and freedom and those who think the state should control the collective. The current leadership and direction of the Democratic party are all in the latter group. In fact the latter group is composed almost entirely of Democrats, members of the socialist/Communists parties and anarchists.
As stated by others both parties used to believe in America and it's exceptionalism. This is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.
Obama did succeed in transforming the Democrat party but not for the better. I believe now that if the U.S. was attacked like Pearl harbor or 9-11 there are significant portions of the Democratic party that would, privately at least, cheer because their hatred of this country and what it has stood for all these years.
Now how did significant portions of our country get to be this way..... The education system is a large part of the reason as we do not teach civics like we used to if at all. The younger generations have not been taught about this country, how and why it came to be and the reasons for why this government is as designed as exceptional as it is.
Why do we not teach this in school any longer? IMO this is because the left was allowed to ingrain themselves in all levels of academia because constitutionalists of all stripes and especially conservatives have been asleep and too busy to be bothered putting their energy into education.
Too truly 'right the ship', and it's a long term fix, conservatives and constitutionalists need to get involved in the local school boards and in running colleges and fight hard for the inclusion of civics and the principals of individual liberty and freedom.
This countries government as designed is the best that has ever existed by far. Has our history been perfect -heck no - but it is the only one that would have allowed the changes to right wrongs that this country allows.
I agree with every word! Your analysis/criticism of the left’s attack on liberty is spot on.
Now, the question is: can you turn an equally cynical eye on the proposals/programs that have been enacted by the Republicans or conservatives.
In 2018 the budget deficit is an atrocity. The trade imbalance - in spite of Trump’s preposterous tariffs - is “worse” than ever. The Republican Government has turned a blind eye on the disastrous and inhumane bombing of Yemen by the Saudis. The Republican Attorney General is conducting a one man war against legalizing pot.
I recognize your comments about historical Republican cowardice in the face of leftist rhetoric. But when they have had controls of the levers of power they have sought to strengthen those powers, not weaken them, despite their campaign promises. Republican leadership (including those in the Trump administration) will not curtail their lust for power until people like you, longtime Republican supporters, derail them.
Yeah, evil was your word, not mine. I struggle with a proper definition of political evil. Is a policy that is mostly good but a little bit evil good or evil? Hell if I know. Ayn Rand wrote that in any compromise between good and evil, only evil wins. I think there is a great profundity in that statement. Coupled with Hayek’s thesis in “The Road to Serfdom” one can see the truth in the sentiment.
Politics is the “art of compromise,” or so we’re assured. So does that make all of politics evil? Maybe. That’s above my philosophical pay grade.
My “policy” is to always be on the watch for political shenanigans that attempt to usurp my personal legitimacy. Will I accept a lesser invasion of my liberty over a greater one? When those are my only choices? Of course! But it doesn’t mean I won’t do everything in my power to overthrow such an invasion. Just because “my team” proposed a lesser evil doesn’t mean I should rejoice in the team’s victory. It is my moral responsibility to be an annoying gnat buzzing the policy makers until they correct their errors. Surely you agree!
Last edited:
It all comes back to one point: The goal of any government is to perpetuate itself.
Damn, what an insult to dribblers/dribbling.............
Someone can be openly approving and supportive of the MAGA actions that they believe are in the right direction for the country AND openly critical of and nonsupportive of the actions they believe are wrong minded.
I guess I don’t get/accept the notion that you have to support a “side” at all. I’m not saying the “sides” are equally bad at all, but claiming you have to pick a “side” and support it instead of evaluating each issue, case, decision on its own merit regardless of from which “side” it originates is equally binary as saying they are both the same.
I don’t disagree - other than to say that at some point if it becomes clear one side leads to ruin and one side needs some ironing out, it’s easier to pick than it used to be. For me it is anyway.
Similar threads
