Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on August 04, 2018, 07:21:09 PM
-
What does it mean to be on the right?
Economics? Both run budget deficits and are mostly globalist anti-nationalists.
Morals? Both have abandoned traditional morality and have embraced just about every form of sexual perversion other than sex with children (coming soon I’m sure).
Race? Both assent to race as a social construct and yet promote “white” guilt. (as if all the Caucasians that have been slaughtering each other for centuries are a monolithic group).
The USA? Both buy the idea that anyone and everyone is a proto American just waiting to be taught the right propositions while on our magic soil.
My proposition is the right is the left, but just not so fast.
-
Avoid the Nihilism man. Both parties are as you described, and a pox on both of them.
Find your tribe locally, the larger picture is past help.
To your original question? Have a good understanding of local politics and hold the line against socialists.
-
If you want to know the basis behind these distinctions, you should read about the moral foundations theory.
Basically, there are five foundations for morality. "Conservatives" believe in all of them. "Leftists" care only about two of them.
Here is a summary:
http://moralfoundations.org/
There is a books about it, one of the best I have ever read:
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
by Jonathan Haidt (Author)
The book explains political beliefs very, very well. It made me understand why I believe what I believe, and why leftists think the way they do.
(The author is fairly left wing, but his reasearch gave him insight into why others believe differently).
-
Avoid the Nihilism man. Both parties are as you described, and a pox on both of them.
Find your tribe locally, the larger picture is past help.
To your original question? Have a good understanding of local politics and hold the line against socialists.
Well, I’ve got my tribe, a faith and a hope that delivers from nihilism, so I agree with you there.
The modern conservatives conserve nothing, zero, zilch. The modern libertarians are frequently nothing more than perverts and moral degenerates looking to undermine the moral order that historically keeps societies from flying apart at that seams and crashing from low birth rates.
-
Well, I’ve got my tribe, a faith and a hope that delivers from nihilism, so I agree with you there.
The modern conservatives conserve nothing, zero, zilch. The modern libertarians are frequently nothing more than perverts and moral degenerates looking to undermine the moral order that historically keeps societies from flying apart at that seams and crashing from low birth rates.
Can't disagree with you on any point. Big picture is FUBAR, that only leaves local IMO. I personally am a volunteer firefighter. It's not much, but it does give me a bit of credit within the community. My county gov't is otherwise run buy *expletive deleted*ing democrats.
-
If you want to know the basis behind these distinctions, you should read about the moral foundations theory.
Basically, there are five foundations for morality. "Conservatives" believe in all of them. "Leftists" care only about two of them.
Here is a summary:
http://moralfoundations.org/
There is a books about it, one of the best I have ever read:
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
by Jonathan Haidt (Author)
The book explains political beliefs very, very well. It made me understand why I believe what I believe, and why leftists think the way they do.
(The author is fairly left wing, but his reasearch gave him insight into why others believe differently).
Fairly left wing? He is an atheist non practicing Jew who is a lifelong self identifiied man of the left that uses evolutionary theory to describe morality.
That book is fantastic. Super highly recommend it. Second best book I’ve read this year.
Don’t let my recommendation scare you away. I take issue with him on plenty, but man, what a fascinating read.
-
the problem is those darned moderates!
They're always taking moderation to extremes.
-
deleted, wrong thread
-
Simple:
Leftists want more traffic lights.
Conservatives want fewer.
>:D
-
Ask yourself which party in power is more likely to pass laws/regs you don't like versus stuff you like. If you want perfection, you picked the wrong planet.
-
If the American Democrats and the Republicans are the tail and nose of the same creature what are our options?
Has Trump started a third party and is only wearing the Republican label as a skin suit?
Or is it just the old paleo cons (military) finally muscling the loser neo cons off to the side?
At least with paleo con Trump the ratchet has slowed.
-
If the American Democrats and the Republicans are the tail and nose of the same creature what are our options?
Has Trump started a third party and is only wearing the Republican label as a skin suit?
Or is it just the old paleo cons (military) finally muscling the loser neo cons off to the side?
At least with paleo con Trump the ratchet has slowed.
I feel like this is an extension/continuation/morphing of the Tea Party movement. Seemed like it basically died after the first election, and then erupted with this as a pushback from the left going crazy.
-
If the American Democrats and the Republicans are the tail and nose of the same creature what are our options?
Has Trump started a third party and is only wearing the Republican label as a skin suit?
Or is it just the old paleo cons (military) finally muscling the loser neo cons off to the side?
At least with paleo con Trump the ratchet has slowed.
The label most seem to be attaching to the Trump political movement, aside from all the fascistnaziracist stuff, is "populist." It doesn't tell you what policies are involved, but it suggests it's a bit outside the usual paleo-con, neo-con, so-con and other divisions. I don't think Trump is really taking things in a new direction. He's just trying to deliver what he thinks his voters (or potential voters) will reward him for. (Wionder where he got that idea?)
I think I've mentioned before that Trump is, in a way, what Americans have been clamoring for, for a long time. "Ideology" was supposed to be a bad word, and people said they wanted someone who would do what works. "No ideologues," they said. Well, that's Trump.
-
To me it means being a Constitutionalist. While that means being fairly libertarian. (Small "l" not Big "L"). It does avoid the Open Borders nonsense. "Yes", free trade, "No" to unfair trade. Tariffs should be reciprocal. 0% both ways works best. Yes, we need to dramatically reduce the size of .gov. Yes, we need to stay out of other countries, unless we face an existential threat. And yes, I don't give a crap as to what you choose to ingest, but you're on your own after doing so. Leave me the hell alone.
-
Wrong thread
-
To me it means, largely, opposing the liberal "free *expletive deleted*it for everyone!" policies, the worst examples of which are of course Bernie Sanders and that moron woman running in New York who doesn't have a freaking clue how money works.
It was frightening seeing the kind of support Bernie got from the 20somethings in the run up to the 2016 election.
I want free college, I want free health care, I want free this, I want free that, all paid for by harvesting the magical money trees!
-
I suspect what is going on with the leadership of the Republican Party is the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
The people running the Republican Party (probably the Democratic Party also) care absolutely nothing about their supposed principles, and absolutely everything about their money, power and status as part of the party leadership.
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
It would explain the "Republican" Party running up huge deficits, refusing the repeal obamacare, giving hundreds of millions of dollars to abortionists, filling the country with illegals, refusing to pass pro-gun laws, root out left wing gov corruption, etc. They despise their constituents, and only see them as a vehicle for getting power and status.
-
Mike Irwin said,
It was frightening seeing the kind of support Bernie got from the 20somethings in the run up to the 2016 election.
Yeah, and it is even more frightening to hear various proposals to let 16-year-olds vote.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/31/598575862/a-case-for-giving-16-year-old-activists-the-vote
The Washington Post has a "number of free articles limitation," which I have hit, so I can't look at the whole thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/should-16-year-olds-be-able-to-vote-a-majority-of-the-dc-council-thinks-so/2018/06/27/7ce0cbfc-796c-11e8-93cc-6d3beccdd7a3_story.html
Y' know, I think I might take up praying again.
Or drinking.
One of the two.
Terry
-
Y' know, I think I might take up praying again.
Or drinking.
One of the two.
Why not both?
-
I'm not too worried about the 16 year olds voting, at least for Federal offices. Lowering the national voting age would require a change to the Constitution and I don't see that happening in my lifetime, to be honest.
At the state and local level? Don't much care what states do to screw themselves over.
-
I'm not too worried about the 16 year olds voting, at least for Federal offices. Lowering the national voting age would require a change to the Constitution and I don't see that happening in my lifetime, to be honest.
At the state and local level? Don't much care what states do to screw themselves over.
How would lowering the voting age to 16 violate the 26th Amendment? (I assume that's what you're talking about) Read it carefully.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It would be stupid, but IMHO would be constitutional.
-
How would lowering the voting age to 16 violate the 26th Amendment? (I assume that's what you're talking about) Read it carefully.
It would be stupid, but IMHO would be constitutional.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
How? By the bolded part?
-
How? By the bolded part?
26A says citizens age 18+ shall not be denied the right to vote on account of their age. It is silent about 16 and 17 year-olds.
-
26A says citizens age 18+ shall not be denied the right to vote on account of their age. It is silent about 16 and 17 year-olds.
It's also pretty much silent on the subject of abortion but the left managed to "find" it in there anyway.
-
It's also pretty much silent on the subject of abortion but the left managed to "find" it in there anyway.
16 year olds have no constitutional right to vote. (18 YOs do, since 1971) But there's nothing in the Constitution that I know of that prevents a stupid Congress for giving 16s the vote.
-
How would lowering the voting age to 16 violate the 26th Amendment? (I assume that's what you're talking about) Read it carefully.
It would be stupid, but IMHO would be constitutional.
I have read the 26th Amendment carefully.
The wording clearly establishes the minimum age for voting in Federal elections. In essence, it creates the basement and you can't go lower than that established basement without changing the Constitution or without an action by a Federal court nullifying that section.
Section 1 states: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Congress could pass a law saying 10 year olds could vote in Federal elections, but it would be challenged, and likely overturned, on the clear basis of the wording in Section 1.
The phrase "on account of age" clearly means that Congress can't pass a law saying that yeah, you're 20, but we're still not going to let you vote.
But the phrase "on account of age" does NOT nullify "18 years & older" to give those under 18 the vote.
-
26A says citizens age 18+ shall not be denied the right to vote on account of their age. It is silent about 16 and 17 year-olds.
No. It's not. As I said below, 18 years and older establishes the basement allowable age for voting in Federal elections. By setting the mark at 18, it automatically denies the vote to those 17 and younger.