Tired of Republicans.

[tstorm823]

The ideology of the Republican party is based on the lie that everyone in America has the same opportunity to achieve the American dream.

You mean based on the hope that anyone can achieve the American dream, and pursuant of that condition, rather than deciding some people can't possibly achieve it so we should feed them and then shove them away in a corner.

and that everyone who doesn't deserved to fail.

That isn't true, but some people do deserve to fail. Some people earn their failures fair and square. Not every inequality is a systematic oppression.

The Republicans are perfectly happy making sure that the US electoral system is inadequate, and particularly inadequate in predominantly black areas.

The Venn Diagram of stricter election controls and predominantly black areas is specifically Georgia. Red states like these things regardless of demographics. When you see counties shut down polling places due to shrinking populations, it's nearly always in rural white areas. You're going to have a tough time arguing that Republican's target minorities specifically with any real data. The claim is entirely baseless nonsense.

It has no respect for worker's rights, and will always be the first in line to bust unions.

Unions are, at their best, a necessary evil. When they aren't necessary, they are only evil. If someone can get a desirable contract with their employer without a union, that's a good thing, not union busting. Nobody is making laws banning unions, but the unions want laws mandating their presence because they know in many cases they've ceased to good or necessary. My personal union experience was working for UPS. The teamsters did nothing but take money from my paycheck. UPS did anything good for us themselves, and still could hardly keep the place full because the job sucks by its nature. The only involvement the union ever had was demanding they rehire people who didn't show up half the time, which only hurt the rest of us who were there, only to have these people continue to skip work until they got fired a second time. And it wasn't personal issues, a lot of people called in and got off when they had problems, a lot of workers had set up to not work certain days of the week, the company accommodated that. I'm talking people who just ditched and didn't tell anyone. That's the impact of the teamsters. Negative.

Long gone are the days when the Republicans were the trust busting, anti monopoly party; they love them now, and will do anything for their sugar daddies.

Nonsense sentence about people who spend every waking moment pushing for small business.

It's got fossil fuel lobby money coming out of every orifice as we waltz ever closer to the point where we can't make the climate how it was ever again.

It's obvious to anyone with eyes that energy companies are ultimately the solution to climate change. And also, it's nice having electricity in my life.

It loves to be tough on crime, which equates to making sure that rates of recidivism are high enough to make sure there's always people the privatised prisons can use as slave labour.

I suppose there's no recidivism without arrests, but that's a stupid rhetorical point. Nobody cares about prison labor, it's all optional. You can't be an optional slave, that's not how words work.

It strongly supports putting illegal immigrants into what can only be described as concentration camps.

Wanna bet? Many could literally be described as child care facilities. Nobody is in a detention center that hasn't been given the option to leave. Everyone there has decided for themselves to pursue a court appearance requesting sanctuary in the US, and the facilities exist to give them food and shelter while they wait. Customs and Border Patrol regularly search mountains and deserts, rescuing people who would otherwise die of exposure in the wilderness. The functions are humanitarian in nature. They're also not partisan until people want to lie to yell about Trump.

It values "freedom", in the sense that if you're not rich you're free to die.

The US has the biggest safety net in the world. Including charities, Republicans contribute more to it than anyone.

Every time the police arbitrarily murder someone, they will find a way to blame the victim.

Citation needed. Some people get upset that it is ever not the police's fault. I don't know anyone who says it's never the police's fault. It shouldn't be a blanket statement.

They see the world as a pyramid and will kick down anyone they think is getting too high. That's what the Republicans represent.

They don't see the world that way at all. Republicans see the world as comprised of individuals, each with our own unique life. We also see the government as comprised of individuals, each acting on their own. We don't see government as a magical vehicle of democracy that does whatever the majority wants, because that isn't what it is. It's individuals making decisions themselves. The only route to democracy is allowing individuals control of their own lives. All decisions should be managed at the lowest possible level of organization. If you can handle your own economic well-being, you should handle it yourself, and the government should keep out. If the federal government is in charge of my economic well-being, I have no representation in the things that determine my own life. Not 0.0000003% representation. Literally zero. Because the president may be an elected representative, but their decisions are just that, theirs. That is reality.

Conservatives are small government because we recognize that pyramid as what big-government people want to build, and we seek to limit it as much as possible. Don't project your own faults onto me.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[tstorm823]

Is everyone really benefitting? Wealth inequality has gotten worse. Millions of people are out of work. The social security net is frayed.

The primary beneficiaries of the pre-Covid economy were the bottom 20% of earners.

Are you seriously suggesting that other NATO countries would have gone into Iraq if Bush hadn't pushed for it?

Okay, fine, both parties voted for war in Iraq. Bush is still the one who led the country into the war.

Perhaps nobody else would have pursued it, and Hussein would have continued gassing his people. Sure. There were definitely many who considered that an undesirable outcome and signed onto action.

Fairness?

Thomas Hofeller is credited as "the master of the gerrymander." Hoffeller worked with the Republicans. The states that had gerrymandering are predominantly located in the south, which the Republicans have dominated since the party flip/Southern Strategy. It's why Republicans can win elections while losing the popular vote.

I know Democrats have done it too, but worse? That's a stretch. Remember seeing a chart of gerrymandered states, the Republicans were in the vast majority (in terms of who controlled which state).

12 of the House’s worst districts

With the help of six experts, we identified the 12 worst examples of gerrymandered congressional districts.

thefulcrum.us

Let's google worst gerrymanders and check that claim. Maryland Democrats come up twice. Chicago is in there. Georgia is described explicitly as an improvement over the Democrats gerrymandering of the previous map. The voting rights act and enfranchising minorities comes up multiple times. Huh, sounds pretty familiar.

Okay, but who mandated the federal law? And isn't it convenient that it's minorities, people who traditionally vote Democratic, who tend to get shafted?

Democrats. Democrats did. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, written by Democrats, signed by Bill Clinton. Mandates that the states:

(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of—

(A) the death of the registrant; or

(B) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (d);

And I'm not saying the Democrats were being racist, the bill was designed to get more people registered to vote. Voter purges aren't disenfranchisement. They're a necessary part of maintaining people's registrations. They are done in every state, usually without complaint. The problems only seem to come up with Republicans are in charge of majority black communities, not because they're doing anything different than states like California, but because Democrats want their free smear points.

The only time I'm aware of in modern history that southern Republicans did anything especially unique with regards to voting was when they were allowed by the federal government to update their election procedures. States that were guilty of Jim Crow disenfranchisement (reminder, done by Democrats) were not permitted to do things like move around voting locations out of fear they might use that as a tool to disenfranchise black voters. When those restrictions were eventually removed, they had to clean up a lot of old messes they were previous barred from fixing, things like closing polling places that served communities that no longer exist. And to my knowledge there's no evidence that any changes were made with racist purposes.

 

[09philj]

Nonsense sentence about people who spend every waking moment pushing for small business.

US antitrust laws are extremely weak.

They don't see the world that way at all. Republicans see the world as comprised of individuals, each with our own unique life. We also see the government as comprised of individuals, each acting on their own. We don't see government as a magical vehicle of democracy that does whatever the majority wants, because that isn't what it is. It's individuals making decisions themselves. The only route to democracy is allowing individuals control of their own lives. All decisions should be managed at the lowest possible level of organization. If you can handle your own economic well-being, you should handle it yourself, and the government should keep out. If the federal government is in charge of my economic well-being, I have no representation in the things that determine my own life. Not 0.0000003% representation. Literally zero. Because the president may be an elected representative, but their decisions are just that, theirs. That is reality.

Conservatives are small government because we recognize that pyramid as what big-government people want to build, and we seek to limit it as much as possible. Don't project your own faults onto me.

If you genuinely believe all that, then you shouldn't be a capitalist. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with the ideal of small government. Try mutualism instead.

 

[tstorm823]

If you genuinely believe all that, then you shouldn't be a capitalist. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with the ideal of small government. Try mutualism instead.

I feel as though you skipped the part about dealing with reality as it is.

 

[09philj]

I feel as though you skipped the part about dealing with reality as it is.

The reality is that small government is incompatible with capitalism. The reality is that the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any nation on Earth and still 44 million people there don't have health insurance. The reality is that the IRS has been underfunded by both parties for years to better facilitate tax evasion. The reality is that companies routinely get too big to fail, and then fail, and have to go cap in hand to the federal reserve. The reality is that a portion of the value of all the work you do is taken from you by the people who own the tools. "Reality" is just a conservative codeword which actually means "not structurally changing anything about our fundamentally unjust system". Conservatism is, in actual fact, wholly unconcerned with reality; reality is where people become medically bankrupt and suffer racial injustice and two million people in the US don't have access to safe tap water and some people in Louisiana get poisoned by a neoprene factory. Reality is an inconvenient place where "freedom" and "free markets" have human consequences. Conservatives like to paint themselves as strong, but when confronted with the sheer, inconceivable cruelty of their ideology, all they can do is whine about "reality" because deep down they know they're far, far too weak to ever really stand up for themselves, or too happy reaping it's rewards to care about the people who lose out.

 

[Silvanus]

The reality is that the US government spends more on healthcare per capita than any nation on Earth and still 44 million people there don't have health insurance.

Ah, but it's still capitalism so long as the government gets fuck-all in return for that expenditure. The government can spend as much as possible in America; the free market has no problem with this so long as the companies still call every shot.

Of course, none of this works in the interest of the average citizen. A cynic might conclude it's just a convoluted way of getting investment without divulging any proportionate ownership.

 

[Saelune]

They don't see the world that way at all. Republicans see the world as comprised of individuals, each with our own unique life. We also see the government as comprised of individuals, each acting on their own. We don't see government as a magical vehicle of democracy that does whatever the majority wants, because that isn't what it is. It's individuals making decisions themselves. The only route to democracy is allowing individuals control of their own lives. All decisions should be managed at the lowest possible level of organization. If you can handle your own economic well-being, you should handle it yourself, and the government should keep out. If the federal government is in charge of my economic well-being, I have no representation in the things that determine my own life. Not 0.0000003% representation. Literally zero. Because the president may be an elected representative, but their decisions are just that, theirs. That is reality.

Conservatives are small government because we recognize that pyramid as what big-government people want to build, and we seek to limit it as much as possible. Don't project your own faults onto me.

Bullshit.

Republicans do not support individual liberties. Their opposition of LGBT rights is all the proof you need of that.

 

[ObsidianJones]

I'm going to side step in here for a second.

Basing voting on IQ tests will... simply keep the status quo. Or possibly make it worse.

The obstinately well off and above will have the majority of the voting power, and the poor and uneducated will have less. Remember, IQ scores are derived from Standardized tests. If you live below the standard in terms of education, an IQ score based voting system will never be fair to you.

I bring up the city near me once again. Rochester's school system is breaking down. Tonight, the School district votes on whether to cut 300+ jobs, 280 of those jobs being teaching positions. Let alone closing around 4 schools. That's also off the heels of being considered the 3rd worst school district in Upstate NY.

How big is Upstate NY? It's literally everything North of the NYC Metropolitan area. That's right, anything North of the Bronx (Much love to the Boogie Down), is Upstate New York.

It's the 3rd worst school district. Not just because of the poverty level, but the level of incompetence of people who went to higher learning for education that have mishandled what little money they have that there's literally not enough to keep schools open and keep enough teachers to teach children. With an IQ based system, not only will these people never have a chance, but they will never be afforded the means to give their children the chance that was deprived them via voting.

 

[tstorm823]

Reality is an inconvenient place where "freedom" and "free markets" have human consequences.

Reality is a place where everything has consequences. The suggestion that bad pipes or pollution are specific to capitalism, or that lack of freedom doesn't come with it's own human consequences is pure fantasy.

Reality is an inconvenient place. If you're not inclined to deal with inconvenience, forget about politics and governance and walk away.

 

[SupahEwok]

Reality is a place where everything has consequences. The suggestion that bad pipes or pollution are specific to capitalism, or that lack of freedom doesn't come with it's own human consequences is pure fantasy.

Reality is an inconvenient place. If you're not inclined to deal with inconvenience, forget about politics and governance and walk away.

Big fan of you sweeping all of those concerns under the rug of "inconvenience" and going about your merry way. The epitome of "fuck you, got mine."

 

[tstorm823]

Bullshit.

Republicans do not support individual liberties. Their opposition of LGBT rights is all the proof you need of that.

There are lots of Republicans that feel exactly the way you think they should. The LGBT lobby is a brick wall standing in its own way, determined to humiliate anyone it disapproves of, even if it means spitting on the rights that you actually want. Republicans have offered dozens of ways to empower individual liberty without taking a dump on Christians, and the activist class want none of it. Blame them.

 

[tstorm823]

Big fan of you sweeping all of those concerns under the rug of "inconvenience" and going about your merry way. The epitome of "fuck you, got mine."

They aren't honest concerns. An honest person worries whether people have access to healthcare. A dishonest equates insurance to healthcare and then pins the issue on capitalism. Not having healthcare is the status quo, getting people healthcare is a good thing that we do as a society, framing it that way isn't even trying to be reasonable. It's deliberate hatred.

Racial injustice is not a product of capitalism. It's older than human history, and can thrive under any governmental system. Pinning that on conservatives is nonsense. It's not wrong to be concerned about these things, it's wrong to imagine that all you have to do is tear down the status quo and suddenly issues that predate human civilization will fix themselves.

That post may as well blame Republicans for cancer and killer bees. There's no sense in arguing against it.

 

[Saelune]

There are lots of Republicans that feel exactly the way you think they should. The LGBT lobby is a brick wall standing in its own way, determined to humiliate anyone it disapproves of, even if it means spitting on the rights that you actually want. Republicans have offered dozens of ways to empower individual liberty without taking a dump on Christians, and the activist class want none of it. Blame them.

Bullshit.

The only obstacle to LGBT rights is bigotry vanguarded primarily by the Republican Party and Christianity (not that there is a big difference) who hate LGBT people. I will blame Republicans for doing what Republicans do, which is oppose human rights. I will blame the people who vote for them. If you vote Republican, you vote against LGBT rights. That is an objective fact as Republicans platform on opposing LGBT rights.

Republicans do not care about individual liberty, they care about the freedom of Christianity to abuse everyone else.

 

[tstorm823]

Bullshit.

The only obstacle to LGBT rights is bigotry vanguarded primarily by the Republican Party and Christianity (not that there is a big difference) who hate LGBT people. I will blame Republicans for doing what Republicans do, which is oppose human rights. I will blame the people who vote for them. If you vote Republican, you vote against LGBT rights. That is an objective fact as Republicans platform on opposing LGBT rights.

Republicans do not care about individual liberty, they care about the freedom of Christianity to abuse everyone else.

If you don't think the opposite exists, you're not paying attention. Like, government determining who counts as married doesn't exist to attack you. It exists to attack me. It's a tool that was introduced to try and pull people away from the Catholic Church. It was "your religious traditions don't matter, it's the government that gets to decide what counts". And now there are people who would take it the next step, who will not be satisfied until they can force a church to marry them and bake them a cake while they're at it. A group of Republicans put together legislation to give LGBT people equal rights and protections, except with the exception for religious institutions, and it was spat on.

Some people aren't after equal rights. They're after revenge against Christianity.

 

[09philj]

If you don't think the opposite exists, you're not paying attention. Like, government determining who counts as married doesn't exist to attack you. It exists to attack me. It's a tool that was introduced to try and pull people away from the Catholic Church

Religion is nothing more than a deeply held belief. It is the deeply held belief of some people in America that interracial marriages are unacceptable. Should they be afforded the same freedom to discriminate? If not, what's so special about homophobia that makes it better than racism? Actually, if people should be allowed to do what they want with their private property, why not repeal all those nanny state bills that stopped racial segregation by companies?

 

[fOx]

If you don't think the opposite exists, you're not paying attention. Like, government determining who counts as married doesn't exist to attack you. It exists to attack me. It's a tool that was introduced to try and pull people away from the Catholic Church. It was "your religious traditions don't matter, it's the government that gets to decide what counts". And now there are people who would take it the next step, who will not be satisfied until they can force a church to marry them and bake them a cake while they're at it. A group of Republicans put together legislation to give LGBT people equal rights and protections, except with the exception for religious institutions, and it was spat on.

Some people aren't after equal rights. They're after revenge against Christianity.

If we introduce theocratic communism, this issue will no longer matter. It's a moot point. The seperation of church and state was a colosal mistake in the first place

 

[Trunkage]

If we introduce theocratic communism, this issue will no longer matter. It's a moot point. The seperation of church and state was a colosal mistake in the first place

I actually see something similar with turning science into a religion. Science is about discovery of mistakes made in previous logic. What is understood as true, maybe wrong or expanded upon centuries later. Religion runs amok of ‘this is the way it’s always done’ and there are far too many people who use studies to justify poor beliefs (Social Darwinism is a easy example.)

But strongly disagree onJefferson’s Wall being a mistake. Without that, we would be like Iran. But I definitely think it should include Cults of Personality or any ideology holding dominance. Have your ideas, that’s great. Turning them into Authoritative dogma is awful

 

[Terminal Blue]

If you don't think the opposite exists, you're not paying attention. Like, government determining who counts as married doesn't exist to attack you. It exists to attack me.

Government has determined who is married for a very, very long time. You just didn't object because the law governing that determination supported your religious beliefs. It's only now that the government's legal definition of marriage differs from your personal definition that you have a problem. Even if this was an "attack" on you, which it's not because it has literally nothing to do with you, it is no more an attack on you than the previous determination of marriage was an attack on gay couples, who were barred from it.

It's a tool that was introduced to try and pull people away from the Catholic Church.

Honestly, if anyone wanted to pull people away from the Catholic church, equal marriage would be a terrible way to do that.

You've got this the wrong way round. Noone wanted equal marriage because they thought it would turn people away from Catholicism. People wanted equal marriage because they wanted to get married, and it just so happens that the Catholic Church has politically alienated enough people on its own that they were no longer capable of winning the debate.

Some people aren't after equal rights. They're after revenge against Christianity.

As a hypothetical exercise, what exactly is wrong with that?

 

[Saelune]

If you don't think the opposite exists, you're not paying attention. Like, government determining who counts as married doesn't exist to attack you. It exists to attack me. It's a tool that was introduced to try and pull people away from the Catholic Church. It was "your religious traditions don't matter, it's the government that gets to decide what counts". And now there are people who would take it the next step, who will not be satisfied until they can force a church to marry them and bake them a cake while they're at it. A group of Republicans put together legislation to give LGBT people equal rights and protections, except with the exception for religious institutions, and it was spat on.

Some people aren't after equal rights. They're after revenge against Christianity.

Bullshit.

Christianity is not under attack in the US and never has been. Christianity has a beyond unfair position of power and control of the US law and policy, and Christians have NEVER been persecuted in the US ever, except by oh, other Christians. (The KKK started as anti-Catholic as well as anti-black until they realized alot of White Catholics hated blacks too).

You are literally making lies up and playing the victim for people fighting back.

YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT IMPEDED BECAUSE YOU ARE BEING TOLD TO STOP IMPEDING MINE!