Scrutinizing the Democrats and Republicans. Republicans 1st.

Post Reply New Topic

«“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” -Winston Churchill»
Disclaimer: I am fully aware that simply being a certain age does not define one's intelligence nor wisdom.
Numerous cases can be demonstrated where even little boys and girls act more mature than so-called adults.

Anyway, when it comes to the Republican-side of polemic-factions, the Republicans seem to think cops are good... I thus quote a question that I came across which I will quote below as a repeat...

I quoted the above and I think Republicans/Conservatives have mostly never been personally affected by police corruption or court-corruption, probably because most Republicans/Conservatives seem to be well-to-do, land-owning, generally middle-class or middle-upper class portions of the population, who have never «struggled» for survival in their entire life, due to nearly all of them living some kind of hand-me-down inheritance life-style (or having a lot of support from their family/community/relatives/etc). Were a Republican willing to just give up everything they own, and start from the very bottom of the rung in so-called society (I call it so-called because we do not live in a society; we live in an anti-society), from homelessness with NO resources, and NO contacts, WITHOUT a giant wad of cash, they they would learn very quickly just how corrupt the government really is and how cops enforce extortion upon the poor and struggling. I would also like to play a «song» just below this paragraph followed by quoting an important portion of its lyrics...«They got us running around like chickens with our heads cut off, sacrificing our lives to jobs that barely pay enough to get by; to add insult to injury... it is becoming illegal to be homeless» (from 09m02s to 09m17)
I am also of the belief that anybody with true critical-thinking skills would never trust anything in Government (Departments that are involved in any form of Punishment upon others; whether they be innocents or even proven-criminals). With Democrats/Liberals, I find that they largely seem to blindly Communist, expecting the State or the Government to babysit everybody's needs for survival, when it should actually be a community effort where everybody can donate (but should not be forced). Not only that, and not to be polemic (because I do not trust either party to ever do the right thing 100% due to their state-affiliation meaning that Government to both is treated like some sort of god which I refuse to worship), but I find that most Liberals/Democrats either do not seem to learn from economic-history or just do not understand economic-history or even economics in general (and that crap in colleges and universities that they pass off as economics is not economics; it's indoctrination due to being infiltrated by political-moles, always talking about how government-policies of President X or Y or Z affected this or that, instead of giving any credit to business-decisions that contributed towards the economic-betterment of any particular community).

Similarly to how I perceive that most (if ANY) Republican/Conservative has never truly experienced any genuine hardships (such as homelessness without any form of social-support for whatever variety of reasons that can cause one's life to be ruined into such a condition), I also have reason to believe that most Liberals/Democrats have never been truly independent, such that they were personally earning each and every last penny that went to pay for their food, for their bills, for their transportation (car or otherwise), maintenance-expenses (car and/or house/apartment and/or otherwise), for personally improving their own personal credit-rating (although I know enough about the world by now to be able to tell you for a fact that the entire banking system industry is a gigantic scam), etc., and so do not personally know what it is like for these bankster-controlled government-systems to loot you out of every last penny that you were trying to save up in order to get out of homelessness in the first place !

Some liberal-fallacies are written here at this following link...
http://proconservative.net/PCVol4Is8.LibFallacies.shtml
(Although I do not agree to call what he calls Capitalism, Capitalism, because the current system is more like Anarcho-Capitalism or Crony Capitalism, such that it's not genuine creation/building of wealth for everybody, but more like government-control of every important resource under the direction of greedy criminal-lobbyists...)
I wish to hear how Conservatives/Republicans would like to respond to the above-portion of this post and how Liberals/Democrats would like to respond to the lower-portion of this post and if there is a good reason for me to believe that my current perceptions about Liberals/Conservatives/Democrats/Republicans is inaccurate then please explain the errors that I may have in my assessment. Also, according to The Jimmy Dore Show (I find him quite amusing), Republicans generally aren't protesters, not unless it involves abortion then you might see a Republican being up-in-arms about abortion-issues (I have to go with The Messiah's writings on this one in regards to defining life as beginning the very moment the sperm meets the ovum since that is where and when the process of being able to develop into a fully grown human begins), but other than that Republicans are generally not the ones doing any protesting. This so-called country (even though it's not actually a country but a corporation) has been an Orwellian-style Police-State since 2001 (largely no thanks to that so-called PATRIOT Act; its meanings being completely perverted and its contents having NOTHING «patriotic» within its clauses what-so-ever).

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... atriot+Act

I find the first question to be an amusing yet honest truth. "Why do so many Republicans seem to reflexively side with the police if they distrust government power?" There are a lot of similar questions which can also be asked of them as well. What seems to hold true through my own observations is that they want government power checked in areas they care about and don't mind an authoritarian cracking down on all points of view they dislike or don't care for. This seems to hold true throughout the political spectrum however. They just use different means to accomplish this goal. I suppose it comes down to the construct of wanting everything in the world to agree with them and have all dissenting views ejected. Their group is right and compromise is unacceptable to them.

Another point is that Republicans like being told what to do. They like having an authority figure that will punish and dispatch vengeance on those who wrong them. Then they are able to claim how much better they are than those "criminals". Keep in mind I am speaking in more general terms, I am sure there are exceptions. Through careful observation I have found this to be true in my anecdotal observations.

Most of the Republicans I know, what you say would apply to. They are generally either well off or lucky not to have had any serious problems hinder their ability to provide economically for their families. This is not universally true however. Just look to the "red states". There is an enormous amount of poverty in those states and the people there have been manipulated into voting against their own interests. Decades of voting for the same parties and those states are still pretty awful overall. Sure, there are nice areas. Michigan is not a red state but what comes to mind when you think of Detroit? It is not all bad, the issue there is serious wealth inequality. There are areas of Detroit that are ridiculously rich and then down the street or in the inner city it descends quickly into abject poverty. This seems to be the case in a large amount of the US. Not a lot of people in the middle.

It is most wise not to trust government blindly. It is filled with people, very few of which should be trusted. That is why you have checks and balances in place. We could have a whole new forum post on their effectiveness in the current world however. I honestly don't know any democrats that are "communist". Not unless you use that term so loosely it loses all meaning. The US is a somewhat socialist country already and always has been. Roads, mail service, even your telephone (if you live in a rural area) you have "socialism" to thank for. However, what they teach about economics is a whole other question. They teach what will prop up the existing system, which is ultimately unsustainable. Unlimited growth on a finite planet is impossible. The problem with Democrats is the problem with parties in general. They defend these entities like they are gods. Despite the obvious problems with Clinton for example, some of them will defend her until the last days. The same can be said of Republicans and their people however.

I know plenty of Democrats that support themselves fully. The difference is those people look at those with less and who live in poverty and think about how they can help those people instead of how to make them go away. Obviously again, some are pure evil. The banks seem to do what they want regardless of who is in power at the moment. Both parties benefit greatly from the banks and receive a lot of political donations from them. The root of the problem is all of the money that is floating around. Money is power, money is a voice. The more of it you have, the more votes you get. I don't mean votes in the literal sense of the word but as a matter of influence. Here is a question. If a person who spits on the poor and won't donate so much as a soup can to a food bank gives someone 2 million dollars, would you not question it? Business people never give away money. Never. They always expect to get something for it, that is their mindset. So when they donate to political parties they will expect something in return for it later. What that will be is something that will serve their own selfish ends, sometimes it even benefits society but that is a fluke.

I abhor the words "crony capitalism" because there is no such thing. There is just capitalism and it's inevitable results. What we are seeing currently is the result of unregulated capitalism. People are generally selfish and greedy, so without rules, they will eventually destroy their own fortunes. Normally that may act to temper their greed but our system has removed all accountability from the upper classes. A CEO can willfully and intentionally exploit his own company for his own gain and run it into the ground in the process. His reward? Incredible wealth. When banks take huge risks with other peoples' money they suffer no personal consequences for those actions. That leads to a system where they can play the casino without having to worry about personal losses. This is an obvious disaster in the making. This is what happened in 2007 to some degree. Banks took too many risks and lost, however, they did not suffer the consequences, the people did. We paid for their greed and irresponsibility.

I agree with you on the Patriot act. It is the result of millions of people reacting with fear accepting something without giving it rational thought. More and more freedoms are being stripped away by governments and corporations. Fear is one of the best tools to manipulate the masses into accepting things they otherwise would reject. As a group Republicans seem to be the most susceptible to fear, the ones I know are afraid of nearly everything. The Democrats are no better though as we saw in 2013. They also love surveillance and suppressing dissent. Basically, those with power eventually become corrupt and use it to maintain their power. Hopefully this answers some questions and opens some new ones. If something sounds outrageous let me know and I will try to clarify it.

Many middle class to poor people vote conservative for law and order reasons. This was even more true decades ago, these days distrust for the government is becoming more widespread among people of all political persuasions. Conservatives by definition do not like change be it the counterculture back then or the language redefinition and economic dislocation of today. Fear of crime was evident then and now. If you do not like change you would tend to favor strong figures enforcing that status quo and putting those who they perceive as spitting on their values in their place. When we think of "law and order" we must think of the military as well as the police. Conservative politicians tend to favor an increase in defense spending.

While this is breaking down big time Americans more than most have tended to view every person as good choices and hard work away from being successful.

My late firemen neighbor told me back in the 80's he knew voting for Reagon was bad for his union, but he did it for the good of the country.

I see this as being true as well. The problem is when you have poverty, you have an increase in crime. That leaves two options. You can put more people in jail, or you can do things to decrease inequality. People who have decent jobs and are not struggling are much easier to control and far less likely to commit crime. It is also better for society as a whole. Voting based solely on crime is short-sighted for the above mentioned reasons. You won't find many revolutionaries in wealthy neighborhoods, they are quiet and compliant for the most part. They rob people legally. (Some)

Our system only punishes those who commit basic crimes. If I were to rob someone at an ATM with a knife I would go to jail and everyone would happily see me go. However, if I put on a suit and tie and work for a bank. I can use my education to intentionally deceive the less educated out of their money. I can draw up a contract that is intentionally convoluted and obfuscates the true interest rate of a loan and then trick someone not educated enough to understand it into signing it. I will then receive a bonus and praise from my colleagues for being good at business. I see neither of these things in a good light yet one is ok and the other is vilified.

The problem with resisting change is that change is needed. We have not arrived at utopia as a society and must continue to evolve and change to make things better.

A lot of lower and middle class caught on to this and elected Trump. But even with this there is a lot of he is rich he must be right thinking.

Thank you for your interesting and informative responses. I now add some commentary...

Certainly, the rigid right-left paradigm, with so-called righties and so-called lefties being the most-visible, they seem to use different means to accomplish a similar end. When that 9/11 stuff proliferated, anybody who disagreed with the official-narrative about what happened was auto-labelled a terrorist, and it seems that disagreements with the war-mongering factions of republicans/conservatives tend to get you auto-labelled without hearing you out.

Then, more recently, the democrat/liberal-side of things, partly on the grounds of being due to the most-recent election-fiasco, seemed to go all out in ironically creating fake/false narratives against anything and everything that was even remotely identified as republican/conservative, actively blocking information or exposés of liberal-hypocrisies or irrational logical-fallacies. Lots of examples of this can be easily demonstrated by observing democratic/liberal-reactions to news-stories and reports about things like The Clinton Body Count, references to Killary or Hitlery Clinton, and her and her party's complicity to all manners of rather questionable activities.

The republican/conservative-version of censorship and information-suppression seems to come in the form of a type of ostracisation by automatically labeling you as a terrorist or a terrorist-sympathiser or unpatriotic or anti-American or any other numbers of ridiculous labels for not towing their party-line. The democrat/liberal-version of censorship and information-suppression seems to be just outright censorship and suppression or even disinformation.

I know I was once «duped» into being a part of each faction at one point or another in my life, for various reasons of having lived amongst different geographical-regions with different cultural/political-ideologies, but as my thirst-for-knowledge led me towards being able and willing to question everything, including my own beliefs, I went through a hell of a lot of cognitive-dissonance for a time to the point where I could recognise the flaws in both belief-systems. Yes. Belief-systems. That is exactly what I will call them because that is exactly what they are; belief-systems (i.e.: religions, and even less politically correct, I could even now go so far as to refer to both as cult-systems).One «patriotic» (and ignorant) flag-waving American (who would surely have identified himself as a republican considering that he and his girlfriend were into country music and all) whom I came across in the past one literally said to me during one of our conversations before I later on scared him off the next day with too much of a written truth-bomb: «War is peace.» Yes, literally, his exact words that I still remember him saying to this very day, when talking about how he just LOVES his country, that he would die for his country, and his reactions the following day after he had read the truth-bombs that I had printed out from a Neo-Tech source was exactly like that of someone whose entire world had been shattered and was avoiding me as-if though I were somehow responsible for causing some severe heart-break (similarly to how a former spouse starts avoiding a partner due to feelings of betrayal from some affair resulting in a divorce or break-up; except that we were not in any actual relationship other than the fact that he had originally looked up to me like I was some sort of legend-on-earth).Well, I once again live amongst a red-state area, but there seems to be a stark contrast between the red state of South Dakota where I am at now (the most corrupt county of the entire state), and the red state of Kansas where I wish to go in the future, and the main reason for the impoverished portions of South Dakota is because its government-leaders are incredibly stupid. I know for a fact that the officials in Kansas have a hell of a lot more (business) sense than the ones in South Dakota. I won't quote the sources here at this time, but there are multiple sources that rank South Dakota as being consistently amongst the top 5 of most-corrupt states of the entire U.S. over the last decade (and probably much longer), and these government-officials and politicians in this South Dakota town «wonder» why they just can't seem to make any money for the city or attract business to their town... then there are also articles about Kansas having a growing economy, with lowered tax-rates that are never mentioned in the media (although taxes should actually just be abolished altogether), and amongst the country's fastest and most-affordable Internet-services (what I currently pay in South Dakota for Internet-access is 5x as expensive as what I could get in Kansas at only 20% of what this monopoly Internet-service in South Dakota is costing me monthly).

Not to digress, but more relevant to the portion I chose to quote, is that I do not believe that the vast majority (if any at all) of republicans have ever experienced true and genuine hardship. Even as corrupt as this town is where I am stuck at for now, this red-state town still does not have anybody that I see going through and true and genuine poverty, for it seems that everybody here has a roof over their head, whether from the welfare-system itself or other form of «social» support. See, I have experienced what it's like to have ZERO social-support (neither from government nor from family nor from friends nor from ANYBODY in society), and being «mildly autistic» was not exactly helping me to get out of poverty any time soon, and it is my opinion that republicans have ALWAYS had some sort of social-support in some form or another (they always had someone available to whom they could turn to ask for help, such as a friend, family member, relative, even the state social-services itself in rare cases), where-as I had ZERO access to assistance from anywhere, from anybody, for a very long time, but I have this rather strange «luck» within my life to where I have to suffer through a lot of BS first and then later on I get somehow rewarded or compensated in some other way (similar to the story of Joab in the Old Testament for those who are familiar with him).I am now reminded of the Anti-Corruption Act that passed in South Dakota back in November of 2016CE, a Bill called IM-22, that prohibits political-campaigners from receiving bribes or private-contributions from special-interest groups (something like that anyway; the http://www.represent.us/ web-site should explain it more clearly), but it seems that South Dakota's politicians are trying to repeal the bill, probably due to not wanting their golden egg cash-cow gravy train of special-interest groups and organisations funding and thus influencing political-election results (and I also have another suspicion that it is likely connected to trying to cover up South Dakota's possible political-connection to what could be termed PedoGate).
The identification of fear within a group does seem to be an important piece of the whole puzzle. For the most part, I can agree with or at least understand most of your responses, but I will need to re-read over a few things a few times in order to fully absorb the dialogue properly. I hope more people take these things into consideration.

I can see a lot of the reason Trump was elected and I can't disagree with everything he does. He played the role of the anti-establishment with great success. However, it concerns me highly that he has appointed 3 people from Goldman Sachs and his party plans to get rid of Dodd-Frank. Goldman Sachs committed some of the worst fraud in recent history, prior to, and during the financial meltdown. His appointment of those people causes me some doubt as to his motives. I know the motives of Goldman already.

They're both scum.

The simple answer. LoL Although I like to believe there are good people caught up in it all. They are just ignored by the media.

I do find pejoratives such as "terrorist", "anti-american" etc to serve little purpose other than stifling discourse. They are thrown out there as a way to "win" an argument instead of having to resort to presenting facts. Something that seems abhorrent to a large number of society. The other one I have a problem with is the labeling of something as a valid opinion, even when it has no factual basis. "Well that is my opinion and it is valid". No, that is not how it works. If all the evidence is to the contrary, then policy should not be based on your opinion, it should be based on the available evidence. Should the government entertain my irrational fear of heights and ban all high structures? Certainly not, because there is no evidence to suggest high structures are dangerous.

I think the root of the problem is that we have political parties. A political party is a structure of power and therefore subject to the universal truth that power will eventually corrupt most people. The entire political system is designed to support the power of these parties at the expense of the people. That is not how a democracy is supposed to function.

They are like belief-systems. People subscribe to an ideology, not because they have taken it to it's logical conclusion and determined it's good, but because the team they are a member of endorses it. You see this kind of group think when you watch say, Fox News, and the next day you hear a repetition of everything they said by the people who you know likely watched it. They don't think for themselves. This is not exclusive to any political party however. Personally I try to take news from a number of different sources in order to achieve more balance.



I don't even understand what "war is peace" even means. What comes to mind is the book "War and Peace" which I am sure he was not referring to. I don't see an issue with a healthy amount of pride in ones country, although I find it kind of silly personally. I find the level of nationalism in some people is at a dangerous level. History has shown that such people, if manipulated by the correct person, can be lead to do incredibly horrible things. They tend to ignore everything that suggests their country is not the best and focus on a small subset of things that they believe makes it the best. There is no objectivity with such people.



That depends on how you define being good at business. Under the current definition it means making lots of money at the expense of everyone else in the country. A business that hires lots of employees is considered bad because people are viewed as a liability. What people think efficiency means and what it means from a business perspective are two different things. A lot of people think of assembly lines or making a lot of something cheaper and faster. This is only a small piece of the puzzle and not really what is meant anymore. To be efficient means having the least number of employees while making the least amount of products sold at the highest possible price. Apple doesn't want everyone to have an iPhone, that would be a lot of effort in manufacturing and shipping and employees hired only to make the same amount of money. It is far better for them to make less and sell them at a very high price. Less shipping costs, less employee liability and the same profit. Less risk as well. I think it's obvious where this is going to lead because it has already lead there in much of the country. We can even get into the fact that much better and more efficient is making money without having to produce anything or hire many people at all, welcome to the financial sector.

The problems with internet prices are well documented in the tech community. The problem is that internet is a natural monopoly. The costs of build out are very high and this automatically stifles competition. There is also the fact that the large ISPs all have gentleman's agreements not to compete with each other so they can all make lots of money. Free markets and capitalism do not work in this scenario without some tweaking via regulations etc. Making problems even worse is the fact ISPs are also content sellers. This allows them to use their position as an ISP to force customers, through data caps or preferential treatment of internet traffic from specific websites etc, on to their own media consumption platforms. From a business perspective, it also doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars running cable to every house on the block and then having to compete on price with another company. This is bad for profit. The current model is much better for the ISPs. Create and maintain a defacto monopoly and everyone wins. Except consumers of course. Net Neutrality was supposed to change this situation. It's premise is that ISPs are common carriers like the electric company. They sell you data at a specific speed and that is what you get. No throttling, no preferential treatment of some data over other data and no spying on your customers and selling the data to third party advertisers and likely three letter agencies. This plan has been jettisoned by current FCC chair Ajit Pai however. A corporate shill from Verizon.



I suppose it depends on how one defines poverty. Obviously they would not meet a definition of third world poverty, which is something we should avoid in a first world country. I do think the welfare system needs to be reformed but with a lot of the current attitudes, a reasonable discussion on that issue is impossible. This means reform will never happen in a beneficial and meaningful way. I know what you mean by lots of people having support. I think that also comes down to NTs just having more social connections and being able to leverage them to their advantage. We are not so fortunate in this regard.



There is a lot of corruption when it comes to campaign funding. The same reasons a reasonable discussion can't be had on welfare reform or immigration are the same reasons this issue gets overlooked. I do not know the particulars of that bill but from your explanation it seems like an obvious improvement. I'm a bit familiar with what Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers did in Wisconsin. Last I heard a judge had ruled their redistricting unconstitutional. We'll see if any meaningful reform comes from that. The media pretty much ignores the main issues with campaign funding reform because they benefit from this system as well. However one of the main reasons none of this stuff will get fixed is because the people actually like corruption. They say they don't but they actually do. The key being, so long as that corruption benefits me and my political party of choice, I am good with it. Until people start to punish politicians that lie and do corrupt things, even when they are in your favorite party, nothing will ever change. The people get the government they deserve.

Fear is the favored tool of dictators and despots alike. There seems to be nothing that can corral people like fear does.