Why does the Right stand any chance - at all?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree. I feel like we need an alternative to Trump and to many of the Democrats.

However.....I must say that the prospect of my student loans being "forgiven" carries some appeal with me.

I abhor the Kindergartener who is Trump----but I also abhor the present-day PC culture which seems to have permeated Academia somewhat---but hasn't really spread amongst most "regular" people who are not in politics, famous in other ways, or those seeking any advantage they can get.

For me, the problem transcends left/right, liberal/conservative. You may choose to share your wealth liberally IF YOU WANT TO. You may hoard it (which is stupid) if you want. You may decide to form a collective or join one, or you can be a hermit. You can do anything in between. You can accumulate wealth. Or not.

It’s achievement that counts. Those with the best ability should lead and teach. Leading/teaching enables others to achieve YOUR goals, to better support your success. But if you aren’t a strong idea man, lack leadership ability, etc., what strengths do you have? Can you be a strong worker? And if your strength contributes to the success of a powerful mind, shouldn’t you expect to be awarded based on what merit you DO have? You have the freedom to do what you can.

My objection to the left has to do with institutional collectivism. Liberalism is OK as long as it remains a personal choice. If you value people so much you wanna play Santa, fine. But it’s wrong to expect everyone else to play Santa with you. Conservatism is fine. But you can’t impose a strict set of rules on people that favors anything besides merit. If you can’t grow, change, innovate, you wither and die. Libertarianism is a sweet idea. But libertarians make a show of politics to push their agenda. The problem with libertarians is that government IS the problem, and participation in GOVERNMENT and forcing ideas like smaller government, etc., will not fix a problem that is primarily societal.

Redistribution is looting, taking advantage of a system in which producers have no say in what to do with their wealth in order to steal money and give it to those who have the means to earn but don’t. It’s one thing to take care of people in need because they are important to you. It’s quite another to take care of people when it’s DEMANDED of you. If my mom told me I had to take her in and treated me disrespectfully after helping her—and she’s in perfect health—I’d put her on the street and wouldn’t shed a tear. If she can’t support herself and she’s always treated me well, and the only reason she acts ugly is because her mind is gone, of course I’d either take her in or get her some qualified help. She’s my mom and I love her. The point is that there has to be something in it for me. If I have no meaningful relationship with my mom and become a functional slave to her, I’m not going to want her. If she has something to offer beyond carrying me in her belly for 9 months, if she at least treats me like a grownup and is nice to me, that’s meaningful. But no parent or even a child can approach the other, make unfair, unreasonable demands that violate your morals, and not be a parasite. If YOU care about someone, YOU take care of them. You can’t put the burden on the public for, say, EVERYONE’S ongoing methadone treatments when those people made the conscious decision to take highly addictive drugs. Many times wealth redistribution serves to reward behaviors that prevent people from achieving more, sometimes reinforcing behaviors that are self-destructive. It’s morally wrong.

It’s also impossible in the long term. Money will eventually dry up. You can tax the rich into bankruptcy at some point...then who will be left to keep society intact? The lazy? The entitled? The incompetent? “That’s not my job.” “I wasn’t trained for that.” “I can’t.” “I’ve got a cold, can’t work today.” “I need to take another week for ‘mental health.’” What are THEY going to do?

The government can just keep printing money, but that money has no value. How can you spend money when it has no value? Value is created when something is made that someone wants. Redistribution means that goods and services are devalued, which has two effects: 1. There is no incentive for producers to make anything of value, 2. There is no logical reason to desire anything since everything is low or no value. No economy can show effectiveness when there is no free exchange of value. Redistribution of wealth is directly responsible for a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine, for instance, and ultimately that is exactly what you can expect.

The GOP would have to be far to the left of the Dems on social issues in order for them to survive.

When I was growing up, we received $365/month in cash because my dad died when I was a baby and my late brother and I got SSI. Then we got about the same amount in food stamps. I think it was less, but let’s be generous and say it was the same. Some months, we would get $50 a month during the Winter for heat assistance. For a few years my mom also got a WIC check for my little brother. That is in food items and was the equivalent to about $30 a month.

So that’s $810 for a family of four for the three “richest” months and $760 for the rest. In 1986.

That’s $1896 and $1779 in today’s dollars respectively. In today’s dollars, the poverty line for a family of four is $25,750. https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

I’m white. Now out of my family of four, I’m the only one who made it. I was not allowed to go to school after the second grade. But I worked in a factory, and then earned an associates, two bachelors, and a masters degree before I retired from a management position because of a degenerative disease.

However, I am prepared to work again if I ever need to. I’m not voting against my interests. I believe that we all have the power to be the best person we can. No one else can give that to us.

This white privilege and ableist stuff began a few years ago. It was interesting at first, but now it’s just disturbing. The idea that “I can’t because” or “it’s harder for me because” is all bullsh@t. Each of us can do better for ourselves and others. We all have something to give and more we can do.

Frankly, it’s worse with autists. We as a society need your different thoughts. If you let people tell you that you can’t do things and need help constantly, it keeps big advances out of greater society. Chr@st, stretch out.

So yes the right has a chance. And the left needs to sift some of these loser mouthpieces out of the forefront. Concentrate more on the people who are positive.

At work, they tried to promote me to line cook. Problem was that my short-term and working memory are garbage.

It's hard to create a dish when you can't memorize the recipes, and you keep losing your place when composing a dish.

Look, I'm one of the "disposable underclass" that makes American capitalism possible. I don't think I should be paid like a Lord, but I don't think I should be treated like garbage either. I do the nasty, dirty jobs that no one else wants to do. I'll work hard, but I just think that should result in me being able to at least afford the bare minimum to survive.

1) Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and as president worked for the rights of labor.
2) Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and implemented segregation.
3) Hitler came to power in a “multiparty” government because the vote was so split that moderates had to collaborate with extremists to get a majority and form a government.

My point? Primarily that broad generalizations don’t work. Not all right wing’ers and capitalists are heartless mongers with only their best interests at heart.

“The only things you truly keep are those you give away.” - Waite Phillips, wealthy oil man and philanthropist

Agree 100%. I can understand dumping on someone like Trump or Cruz, but they're going after Susan Collins, despite her being to the left of even some of the current Dems.

Sorry can't let that one go
The first steps toward official segregation came in the form of “Black Codes.” These were laws passed throughout the South starting around 1865, that dictated most aspects of black peoples’ lives, including where they could work and live. The codes also ensured black people’s availability for cheap labor after slavery was abolished.
Segregation soon became official policy enforced by a series of Southern laws. Through so-called Jim Crow laws (named after a derogatory term for blacks), legislators segregated everything from schools to residential areas to public parks to theaters to pools to cemeteries, asylums, jails and residential homes. There were separate waiting rooms for whites and blacks in professional offices and, in 1915, Oklahoma became the first state to even segregate public phone booths.

Segregation was a bipartisan issue. Abraham Lincoln might have got rid of slavery (and don't republicans love to say this) but he did not want blacks living in the USA because his christian charity didn't extend to admitting them as fellow humans. Lincoln even recognised Haiti and with the intention of deporting freed slaves overseas out of white areas. His philosophy is actually little different to that of the far right today.

“American capitalism” is anything but capitalist.

Agreed. There are self-haters all across the political spectrum.

Perfect explanation.

I could give a list of reasons why the right appeals to me. But when it really comes down to it, I shut down when the majority of 'woke' leftists cite 'uneducated red-necks' as what comprise the right.

Uneducated, really? We do great, thanks. And there are a variety of reasons I feel we do well, the primary one being that I adhere to a code that doesn't involve slaughtering the unborn and stealing. The left never entertains the idea that being for these things may contribute to why some of their lives stay a festering pile of dookie. Since they are unwilling to say it, I will.

To the left: try not supporting abortions as a means of birth-control, if you are going to get behind 'forcing' Americans to do something, why not force your brothers and sisters to practice birth control instead of forcing other Americans to pay you with increased taxation. Quit voting to prop up the government punishing people who have had success, that's theft. Quit running down to the office of vital stats to change your 3 years old gender because they played with a barbie, or a football and expressed an interest in what it might feel like to be the opposite sex for a day. Kids have been doing that for a long time, why do you think 'penis envy' was documented years ago. You do all this fekked up shite and wonder why you don't prosper. Never do you consider it make be Karma, or the universe biting you in the ass. It has to be the fault of the right.

So, this is my reason "why the Right stands a chance-at all."

So all this amounts to: I don't wan't to pay tax for anything that I don't use or for anybody who I deem unworthy. Is that about right?

Anarchy and state atheism should be on the right's agenda. That way, there are no cops to manhandle us, and no more bullying.

How else can they outdo the Dems on social issues?

I'm happy to pay the set amount that exists now in the US. I would not be happy to pay the amount that Canadians or UK citizens pay.

It took me a while to get to this and it looks like some fair points were made about social capital and the issue of perception, sort of like the classic point of Christian FBI and attendees of a Wiccan/Neopagan festival having a perceptual stand-off in a Tennessee woods and having completely different takes on the reality of events that transpired.

It sounds like ContraPoints was suggesting that some sort of procedural streamlining made sense (Blaire White had a video on this topic and as imagined she was so much on her side that I felt I had to go back and watch your video to make sure I was getting the full story). I get too that if a movement is so hot off the press that it's still exploring it's territory it wants to shoot for the moon and will generally react quite negatively to outside calls for moderation even if that outside call is coming from a very close tangent community.

So yeah, this may not necessarily be a case of bittnerness or revenge, maybe on the level of some individuals (which that's probably always the case but it doesn't encapsulate the whole story).

I would still say though that the point Bret was making about the left having two memberships with radically different goals but similar language does need to be taken seriously. The better place to look for this in a lot of cases though may be in older situations where group equality has already progressed past it's official public victory, results have been found wanting, and a sort of war on capitlism, liberalism, and pretty much anything that seems like red tape ensues as a result of intense dissatisfaction with results.

Ok so in your view the Democrats would increase current taxation on "hard working republicans" to pay for free healthcare, welfare, carbon pricing, alternative energy sources, mass immigration or civil rights quotas. Is that what you fear the democrats will do?