The hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party

[Doctor Cringelord]

Remember when these people at least pretended to be principled?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[Red Memories]

Waited for it

for real though...like those people like WE GONNA MARCH

I'm like ok I heard you cry for 4 years telling libs to get over it anddddd....soooo.....karma's a bitch isn't it man.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

I hope Kayleigh McEnany never gets taken seriously ever again the way she's cheerleading these bogus efforts.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

One impression that I have isn't necessarily verifiable, so take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes I think that the best representatives of the Republican Party - the people who value autonomy, focusing on social programs that get people back to work, trusting the "Free Market" to correct for errors, etc., tend to be a little nerdy with less social charisma than an Obama or Clinton (I have issues with Bill, but note the external social charisma). In order to establish social fervor charisma, they went in the opposite direction with Trump's anti-charisma charisma.

I'm not against all Republican perspectives and see it can provide potential balance when it is that true, reasoned, objective type of notions. I think there are some underlying issues because there are certain segments of the population that are too compromised to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and there are people who do not fit the free market equation: namely the poor that are sick. The underlying foundational notion of Capitalism and the free market is that the primary human right is property not life. I still see their perspective as an important element in the overall dynamic. There are a lot of grey area people in society that need help, but also need a push to be functional, contributing members. Providing help that is on point is key, and this category that is debated over with Left and Right does not include everyone needing assistance. I also think that Democratic perspectives can create imbalance and that social programs are complex to plan and implement efficiently.

In an ideal world, we would alternate Left and Right presidents where the ones on the Left would introduce a bunch of new social programs to help marginalized groups, then the Right would take office and eliminate the programs that are not financially sound, then the Left would come back in and introduce more, then the Right would edit out the inefficient ones, etc. With that ebb and flow, a society could conceivably have effective and cost efficient social programs with a balanced, healthy, growing society that also has compassion for the most vulnerable individuals. Ideally the Left would create and the Right would edit.

Instead we have this nightmare situation with Trump. We need healthy, intelligent Republicans to reclaim their party and provide their insightful contribution to the dynamics of society.

 

[J. Starke]

Both parties are morally bankrupt.

 

[ceecee]

Both parties are morally bankrupt.

I agree but what the Republicans have become is far more than just morally bankrupt. All that bothsideism the media humps like a dog really paid off - Republican voters simply excuse everything they do and rabidly attack everything/everyone else.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In an ideal world, we would alternate Left and Right presidents where the ones on the Left would introduce a bunch of new social programs to help marginalized groups, then the Right would take office and eliminate the programs that are not financially sound, then the Left would come back in and introduce more, then the Right would edit out the inefficient ones, etc. With that ebb and flow, a society could conceivably have effective and cost efficient social programs with a balanced, healthy, growing society that also has compassion for the most vulnerable individuals. Ideally the Left would create and the Right would edit.

For you ideal world is the system with just two parties ?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

For you ideal world is the system with just two parties ?

No. Although I'm mostly just placing a positive dynamic on what happens to exist.

I have listened to some commentary on the two party issue. I understand that the United States' population is quite enormous to be slotted into two options. This deep division between two choices is a deep sociological phenomenon that might be an outgrowth of the two-team sports culture, but that may be another manifestation of it as well. We have Coke vs. Pepsi, Mac vs. PC, and typically there are two comparable pop stars, and of course Superbowl football teams, etc. People will be divisive about these opposing, but comparable corporate product choices.

I see the political system as generally being the same historically, except that Trump is an anomaly, which is likely why people are reading positive assumptions into him as a true outsider, but he is corporate, and the corporations pull the strings on the puppet politicians, so he isn't an outsider. What Trump is accomplishing though, is a dragging down of his opposition into this equivalency assumption. That might be the function he is intended to serve. I suspect* he is serving an intentional function.

I think this "comparable, but divisive corporate product choice" phenomenon as being part of hyper-capitalism, post-capitalism, or whatever is the correct term. It goes beyond free market choosing among options into a hyper level of perceptual control that is actually providing only one option in the guise of two. It permeates every detail of society, and will be nearly impossible to break.

 

[Mole]

For you ideal world is the system with just two parties ?

In the real political world, we find power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we limit power by pitting one power against another power. Such as the Labor Party against the Liberal Party, or the Executive against the Judiciary.

The Separation of Powers limits power at the price of discontent.

By contrast idealism seeks to maximise power at the price of corruption.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In the real political world, we find power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we limit power by pitting one power against another power. Such as the Labor Party against the Liberal Party, or the Executive against the Judiciary.

The Separation of Powers limits power at the price of discontent.

By contrast idealism seeks to maximise power at the price of corruption.

That wasn't the point, the point was "why just two?".
Because when those two start to do deals beneath the table you basically get a subtle dictatorship. Therefore democracy is generally much more stable if you have more political poles. Especially since you get better representation in the terms of values.


(just to be clear)

 

[Lark]

I can understand how career politicians could be upset but really there's a lot of the differences between the republican party and the democratic party are merely cosmetic.

The idea of a black leader or something like that could send some of the Trumplicans insane but to be honest that in itself is a pretty cosmetic difference. Seriously.

Its unlikely to happen but I do think that years since Obama ought to have political elites thinking about how easy it was for a rich guy to hijack their republic with all kinds of stunts and run the whole thing like some banana republic, pretty sure it wasnt what the founding fathers had in mind, its almost a vindication of monarchy which is definitely not what they had in mind.

 

[Lark]

That wasn't the point, the point was "why just two?".
Because when those two start to do deals beneath the table you basically get a subtle dictatorship. Therefore democracy is generally much more stable if you have more political poles. Especially since you get better representation in the terms of values.


(just to be clear)

Yeah, pluralism is absolutely the best idea and democracy will falter without it.

As will any of the other pre-requisites to democracy themselves. Pluralism and diversity is just great.

 

[Maou]

Republicans are spineless deep state controlled opposition. They are just as bad as establishment Democrats, who want to get involved in pointless wars while claiming its for the "good" of America. Fuck them. Fuck the two party system, and burn it down. Anarchy when.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

In the real political world, we find power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we limit power by pitting one power against another power. Such as the Labor Party against the Liberal Party, or the Executive against the Judiciary.

The Separation of Powers limits power at the price of discontent.

By contrast idealism seeks to maximise power at the price of corruption.

I think that power removes boundaries and absolute power removes all boundaries and so it allows a person to express fully who they are because they are no longer restrained by social consequences and punishments. I don't think power corrupts, but instead it reveals.

I accidentally learned this in personal dynamics. When I want to learn quickly who a person is, I give them power and then they show me.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, pluralism is absolutely the best idea and democracy will falter without it.

As will any of the other pre-requisites to democracy themselves. Pluralism and diversity is just great.

Yeah, but you must also be careful not to have too much pluralism and diversity. Because with that you are basically destroying the social tissue of a society. Since once people can't even agree about the basics anymore the society will start to crack and with it democracy and tolerance as well (US is great example of this). What is then quite likely to boost the ones that want more strict order. Therefore in this scenario it is possible to switch one extreme for another fairly quickly. This is exactly why I have certain reservations about western liberalism/individualism, since this can quickly backfire if you are not careful. What can actually be seen in the field if you observe close enough. Since pluralism and just about everything is ok aren't really the same thing. Not to mention that the culture based deficits of knowledge or personal responsibility can make things quite difficult for sustaining various social programs and maintaining global competitiveness. What will on the long run blow up the democracy if the trend isn't addressed.


Therefore dosage and the balance is the key.

 

[anticlimatic]

There's really nothing that can be said of Republicans that can't be said of Democrats; nothing you can say about some people that you can't say about other people.

There is this interesting commonality between both the left and the right where they feel like the moral voices of reason and logic, and if only they could bring reason and logic to the deplorables and the baby killers, then like magic the stars and humanity would align. However, the irreconcilable values on both sides are both rooted in logic and reasoning, so neither can be an objective remedy to serve one side or the other.

And is there anyone alive who doesn't feel like they are "good," and "right?"

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There's really nothing that can be said of Republicans that can't be said of Democrats; nothing you can say about some people that you can't say about other people.

There is this interesting commonality between both the left and the right where they feel like the moral voices of reason and logic, and if only they could bring reason and logic to the deplorables and the baby killers, then like magic the stars and humanity would align. However, the irreconcilable values on both sides are both rooted in logic and reasoning, so neither can be an objective remedy to serve one side or the other.

I'd argue that it's more people being gamed for the benefit of the ruling class. Really "mainstream" politics is between people who think the 60s fixed everything and people who wish the 60s didn't happen; it has nothing to do with actually addressing the problems we face today, and that suits the people who benefit from the status quo just fine.

 

[anticlimatic]

I'd argue that it's more people being gamed for the benefit of the ruling class. Really "mainstream" politics is between people who think the 60s fixed everything and people who wish the 60s didn't happen; it has nothing to do with actually addressing the problems we face today, and that suits the people who benefit from the status quo just fine.

I've heard the meaning of life is to pay off debt that the political elites create.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I've heard the meaning of life is to pay off debt that the political elites create.

Debt in what sense? Not sure I catch your meaning.