Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XI

[Handsome Rob]

Rob, to be honest I dont give a fig about you.

And yet you still took the time to respond . . . twice.

You were the one harping on about a Republican candidate you have a crush on. I find it funny how you libertarians are so quick to point out you're not Republicans. But the only candidates you ever support ARE Republicans.
If it quacks like a duck...

And the reason you're making such a big issue out of this candidate is exactly because there's such a stunning lack of diversity in the GOP compared to the Dems. If she was a Dem, no one would bat an eye. Still waiting on the mainstream gay Republican running for statewide office though. Get back to me when there's one of those.

ONLY ever support Republicans? I've cast votes for Republicans, a relatively conservative Democrat (over a very unsettling Republican), and Libertarians over the years. So stating I only ever support Republicans? How many times am I going to have to correct you when you presume to tell me what I believe or whom I support?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Wow, you voted for a Democrat once? In the singular sense? A whole one?? How independently minded of you.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Wow, you voted for a Democrat once? In the singular sense? A whole one?? How independently minded of you.

Frankly, if that Republican hadn't been such a freak, my voting history would only have consisted of casting for Republicans and Libertarians. That doesn't count Democrats who ran unopposed, of course. But, you can't really count those votes as really being "for" Democrats.

Honestly, though, how often would you expect a conservative who considers himself further to the right than a Republican to vote for a Democrat? I'm only independent of a political party, but I'm firmly in the conservative camp. That's why I said "closer to a libertarian." I never claimed to be a libertarian, which naturally meant that your next response was going to get it wrong and accuse me of being a libertarian.

You've now given enough of a "fig" to respond three times to my posts, by the way. But, I notice you didn't make another incorrect statement about my beliefs in this last one, though.

That's good. That's personal growth. Keep it up.

 

[wiegeabo]

Being to the far right doesn't make someone 'closer to a libertarian'. Because they right favors economic liberty but social regulation.

Because being far to the left of Democrat would also make someone 'closer to a libertarian' since they'd favor social liberty but economic regulation.


Libertarians favor liberty in both. If anything, in today's climate, being far to the right would make someone a fascist (total social control with private ownership of capital) while being far to the left would make someone a communist (total social liberty with state ownership of captial).

 

[Handsome Rob]

Being to the far right doesn't make someone 'closer to a libertarian'. Because they right favors economic liberty but social regulation.

Because being far to the left of Democrat would also make someone 'closer to a libertarian' since they'd favor social liberty but economic regulation.


Libertarians favor liberty in both. If anything, in today's climate, being far to the right would make someone a fascist (total social control with private ownership of capital) while being far to the left would make someone a communist (total social liberty with state ownership of captial).

I suppose the personal definition of conservative would play into it. I would consider both personal/social and economic liberty to be conservative positions. While I'm clearly a conservative Christian in my religious beliefs, I tend to be more socially moderate when it comes to how I see those beliefs influence law and policy. For instance, I'm definitely pro-life and would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned in a heartbeat. Libertarians are usually pro-choice, which I clearly am not. But, while I believe homosexual activity to be morally wrong, I don't believe the government has or should have any authority (especially the federal one) to legislate the sexual practices of consenting adults. I also support drug legalization and the legalization of prostitution, and I don't think you'll find many social conservatives who support those, either.

I can't and won't truly call myself a Libertarian (I did at one point in the past--I think before I became a member here--but I hadn't studied the planks of that party in depth, yet). But I do relate to them.


Edit: And yet I did call myself a Conservative Libertarian as recently as 2009. On here. I had to do a search to see. Since then, I've only said "leaned libertarian" or something to that effect. Anyone have a towel? There's some egg on my face . . .

 

[hippie_hunter]

Being to the far right doesn't make someone 'closer to a libertarian'. Because they right favors economic liberty but social regulation.

Because being far to the left of Democrat would also make someone 'closer to a libertarian' since they'd favor social liberty but economic regulation.


Libertarians favor liberty in both. If anything, in today's climate, being far to the right would make someone a fascist (total social control with private ownership of capital) while being far to the left would make someone a communist (total social liberty with state ownership of captial).

One chart I read pretty much goes like this:

Marxist/Communist (authoritarian) <---> Social Democratic <---> Progressive <---> Moderate/Centrist <---> Conservative <---> Libertarian <---> Reactionary/Fascist (authoritarian)
​

 

[Schlosser85]

I have some Libertarian leanings. I also support the legalization of marijuana and the legalization of prostitution, and I don't have a problem with polygamy being legal, even though I don't personally have any interest in any of the above.

But I'm not a full-fledged Libertarian.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Typically I would support the legalization of prostitution, because in practice, it's essentially two consensual adults performing a business transaction. But I think it should remain illegal because of how women are treated overall and even in places where it's legal it is rampant with child prostitution (Las Vegas, Amsterdam).

 

[wiegeabo]

The way the parties have split things up, the terms liberal and conservative pretty much don't work in that way anymore. The parties still try to use those terms, but they're not.

Instead of describing the amount of government involvement and regulation, they're used to describe the 'morals' the extremes of each party demand.

 

[wiegeabo]

Typically I would support the legalization of prostitution, because in practice, it's essentially two consensual adults performing a business transaction. But I think it should remain illegal because of how women are treated overall and even in places where it's legal it is rampant with child prostitution (Las Vegas, Amsterdam).

Selling's legal. ****ing's legal.

Why isn't selling ****ing legal?!

 

[wiegeabo]

One chart I read pretty much goes like this:

Marxist/Communist (authoritarian) <---> Social Democratic <---> Progressive <---> Moderate/Centrist <---> Conservative <---> Libertarian <---> Reactionary/Fascist (authoritarian)
​

I think it's become this

(I should have picked different options so Centrist didn't get covered up).

 

[Handsome Rob]

The way the parties have split things up, the terms liberal and conservative pretty much don't work in that way anymore. The parties still try to use those terms, but they're not.

Instead of describing the amount of government involvement and regulation, they're used to describe the 'morals' the extremes of each party demand.

Agreed. I use "conservative" and "liberal" all the time, but some of my positions I call conservative would be called liberal by people who call themselves conservative, while I would call their position more liberal because of how I define liberalism.

 

[wiegeabo]

I think conservative now means government restrictions (government conserving power from the people) and liberal now means government freedom (liberal distribution of power to the people).

Which is funny because they used to mean the opposite, and people still tend to use the terms that way.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I would say that Conservative is more along the lines of preserving the status quo and traditional values and Liberal is more along the lines of those who want more radical change.

If you look back. What we call conservatives today were essentially called liberals back in the 1700's.

 

[SV Fan]

One chart I read pretty much goes like this:

Marxist/Communist (authoritarian) <---> Social Democratic <---> Progressive <---> Moderate/Centrist <---> Conservative <---> Libertarian <---> Reactionary/Fascist (authoritarian)
​

I think going to the far right of Libertarian would be Anarchist not Fascist

I said this many times before but I will say it again, my big beef with some social conservatives is they "want big government out of there business" when many of there platforms are the pure definition of Big Government intruding in people's business. Sad part is many I think don't see the illogical connection to both statements

I do think the far right of Social Conservatism though is Fascist

 

[wiegeabo]

I think going to the far right of Libertarian would be Anarchist not Fascist

Yeah, Libertarian doesn't fit on the line.

The political spectrum as a line doesn't work.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think going to the far right of Libertarian would be Anarchist not Fascist

Anarchists are more along the lines of a leftist ideology. They're very similar to Marxism in terms of ideals and goals (opposition to capitalism) and developed together until the Hague Conference in 1872 where Mikhail Bakunin and his followers were kicked out of the First Socialist International.

But where they differ is that while Marxism essentially requires the dictatorship of the proletariat, anarchism opposes authority. Anarchists believe that Marxists would essentially just be replacing the ruling elite that they're trying to get rid of.

I said this many times before but I will say it again, my big beef with some social conservatives is they "want big government out of there business" when many of there platforms are the pure definition of Big Government intruding in people's business. Sad part is many I think don't see the illogical connection to both statements

Well again, you have to take a look at what Conservatism represents: preservation of the status quo. And just what has been the status quo of the United States? Laissez-fair liberal economics while promoting social morality.

 

[Superman]

Rob, to be honest I dont give a fig about you. You were the one harping on about a Republican candidate you have a crush on. I find it funny how you libertarians are so quick to point out you're not Republicans. But the only candidates you ever support ARE Republicans.
If it quacks like a duck...

And the reason you're making such a big issue out of this candidate is exactly because there's such a stunning lack of diversity in the GOP compared to the Dems. If she was a Dem, no one would bat an eye. Still waiting on the mainstream gay Republican running for statewide office though. Get back to me when there's one of those.

 

[Schlosser85]

Well again, you have to take a look at what Conservatism represents: preservation of the status quo. And just what has been the status quo of the United States? Laissez-fair liberal economics while promoting social morality.

Their definition of social morality and mine are diametrically opposed.

 

[hippie_hunter]

But again, it's all about the status quo.

 

[SV Fan]

But again, it's all about the status quo.

Still if you are going to make "we want big government out of our business" your moniker, you should at least understand what that exactly means. If you want Big Government for this issue and that issue but not these issues, state it that way, don't act like you're some high moral majority and your values somehow define what is and isn't Big Government.

 

[Schlosser85]

They want big government to not interfere with corporations, but they want to say what consenting adults can and can't do with each other.

 

[SentinelMind]

I have voted for Democrats before...even in a local election where the Dem was running against a tea party favored Republican. I liked that the Dem was running a more positive campaign and still promised to cut his budget, where the tea party candidate was making jokes about abortion clinics.

Like Rob, I'm not a registered Republican, I favor candidates based on character and their philosophy, not party line. However, I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings as well.

If the Democratic Party had more Senator Manchins, Warners, and Bayhs,..I'd probably be ok with voting for Democrats more. These guys make up about half the Democratic Party constituents...blue collar, mostly white, workers who favor tradition, support creating some safety nets but do care about budget deficits and don't support extreme social engineering. 40-50% the Democratic Party are moderates like these guys, but unfortunately they don't have any real representation at the top of Democratic Party's platform. The Democrats will parade these guys at their conventions, but when health care reform filled with mandates and restrictions is put up for a vote, the Bayhs, Warners of the Dems are wrestled to the floor for their vote and instructed to stay in line. The Pelosis of the Dems are the ones really in control. I can't believe she's still the party's leader. How do you go from Gephardt to Pelosi? Seriously.

My problem with Democratic Party is their far left leadership that's outside mainstream of America.

 

[enterthemadness]

I think it would be cool if someone made a music video of GJ facts and his platform set to music from The Brave's "give me something to believe."

At least GJ is slowly getting more tv time. Was on MSNBC this week for 5 min interview. He posted clip onto his site. Few weeks back he did Colbert Report.

 

[8wid]

BREAKING: Gingrich to end White House bid

I imagine will be hearing from Ron Paul shortly about the same thing. Hopefully he will run as a third party candidate again and not give up despite this loss of the nomination.