What's new
By:
Filters

repub/dem in US politics is a false dichotomy

[486]

[486]

smells things
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
94
Messages
5,227
Loc
pine city MN
Shit becomes a lot more clear when you realize that both parties are collectivist progressives.

"Progressives" in the sense of using the threat of government to push their idea of moral progress upon the governed. Collectivist in that neither has managed to cut down the size or purview of the government at all, and instead only grow the shit bigger to control ever more of everyone's daily life.

The difference between R and D is only which morals are favored when doing the centralized planning.
 
Gbkeith said:
You’re giving them too much credit. They have no morals to favor.
Click to expand...
No you're reading "morals" wrong.

The big hangup with central social planning, economic or otherwise, is that everyone has their own set of morals directing them to elevate particular wants and ideals over other wants and ideals.

Everyone has their idea of what problem society should 'fix' first, and everyone clashes over which cause gets the collectivized money/effort/whatever and in what proportion. For the most part everyone's in agreement about the vast majority of the world's problems, the order and severity of them is where the debate gets especially heated.

This is contrasted to individualist... "lack of planning" Where everyone retains the entirety of the fruit of their labors and attacks whatever problems they see most clearly on their own.
 
Never Monday said:
Statists vs Individualists
Click to expand...
I generally agree with most of what 486 says, and what you've said is another version. I always say something along the lines of Authoritarian/Individualist. The smallest minority is the individual.
RE:, the 486 agreement, "moral" means something totally different now at middle age than it did at 20, growing up in a church and a small community etc. Everyone has their own moral code with ideals rank ordered, mine might just be similar to yours if you were raised in a Judeo/Christian Western setting.
 
[486] said:
Shit becomes a lot more clear when you realize that both parties are collectivist progressives.

"Progressives" in the sense of using the threat of government to push their idea of moral progress upon the governed. Collectivist in that neither has managed to cut down the size or purview of the government at all, and instead only grow the shit bigger to control ever more of everyone's daily life.

The difference between R and D is only which morals are favored when doing the centralized planning.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I dislike both major parties. Too bad so many people are blind to this.
 
[486] said:
No you're reading "morals" wrong.

The big hangup with central social planning, economic or otherwise, is that everyone has their own set of morals directing them to elevate particular wants and ideals over other wants and ideals.

Everyone has their idea of what problem society should 'fix' first, and everyone clashes over which cause gets the collectivized money/effort/whatever and in what proportion. For the most part everyone's in agreement about the vast majority of the world's problems, the order and severity of them is where the debate gets especially heated.

This is contrasted to individualist... "lack of planning" Where everyone retains the entirety of the fruit of their labors and attacks whatever problems they see most clearly on their own.
Click to expand...
Most of them only pretend to care about any of that.

The difference between R’s and D’s is in who they are conning. They all have the same bloated self importance, disregard of anything but their own goals, and preoccupation with power. Everything else is window dressing.
 
Personally, I think it’s all about power. Everyone of them…regardless of the letter that goes before their name craves power. That is the end goal of every single one. This fulfills their bloated egos. Long gone are the days of, for the betterment of the country. Though everyone of them will chant this as to why they are there. Thieves, all of em!
 
Gbkeith said:
Most of them only pretend to care about any of that.

The difference between R’s and D’s is in who they are conning. They all have the same bloated self importance, disregard of anything but their own goals, and preoccupation with power. Everything else is window dressing.
Click to expand...
you're still getting fixated on the "moral" word

read it in my posts as "ideals" or "causes" or "desires"
Not any sort of election promises or commandments or rules or whatever.
 
[486] said:
But the individualists don't have a party.

Both main parties are the statists.
Click to expand...
Oh, the individualists do have a party...

The problem is, it gets votes accurately representing the percentage of individualists in the country, ie, single-digit.

Us rugged individualists love to think we're a silent majority. We're like Jesus-freaks, "Have you heard the good news of Ron Paul?", unaware that everyone already has heard it and DGAF.

Once you eliminate the homophobes and the hoplophobes, your voter base is exceedingly small.

1676018119470.jpeg

Does not make friends.
 
Blacksheep10 said:
I generally agree with most of what 486 says, and what you've said is another version. I always say something along the lines of Authoritarian/Individualist. The smallest minority is the individual.
RE:, the 486 agreement, "moral" means something totally different now at middle age than it did at 20, growing up in a church and a small community etc. Everyone has their own moral code with ideals rank ordered, mine might just be similar to yours if you were raised in a Judeo/Christian Western setting
Click to expand...


And your views are what traditionally make up the social fabric of the United States. Less and less things these days unite us as a country.

I think the important question is are you willing to use political power to conserve the morals that maintain the society you were raised in and that you agree with or are you content with giving it away to the radical left? And yes that means imposing your beliefs on others.
 
I dont know where the notion of being a ruff and tuff individualist took the form of laying down and taking it in the ass by people that are content with forcing their beliefs on you and refusing to stand up for your own beliefs.

We are supposed to be a nation that self governs. That generally means we have to use the government to serve our ideals and maintain the type of society we want, that doesnt mean no government or all gov is bad.

I do not understand the live and let live mentality that has swept conservatives. How do people refuse to engage in politics and then go on to complain about how the system and our political leaders are broken.
 
Animalmother said:
We are supposed to be a nation that self governs. That generally means we have to use the government to serve our ideals and maintain the type of society we want, that doesnt mean no government or all gov is bad.
Click to expand...
First third doesn't fit with the rest.

By building a governmental framework which allows you to impose your set of ideals upon others, you build the very tool that is used to turn public school kids into trannies.

Same toolset, slightly differing moral values.
 
[486] said:
First third doesn't fit with the rest.

By building a governmental framework which allows you to impose your set of ideals upon others, you build the very tool that is used to turn public school kids into trannies.

Same toolset, slightly differing moral values.
Click to expand...

So how are we to govern ourselves through law and order without posing a set of ideals on someone? Pretty much any law on the books is an ideal that is imposed on you.

I think that is pretty much impossible not to do unless you are an advocating for anarchy.
 
Gbkeith said:
You’re giving them too much credit. They have no morals to favor.
Click to expand...
YEP,

People don't take into account AMBITION.

Politicians aren't there to represent their constituents. They are there because they are the most ambitious people you will meet in your life.

It's not about what they can do for you, it's about how they can use their vote to make themselves more powerful.
 
Animalmother said:
So how are we to govern ourselves through law and order without posing a set of ideals on someone? Pretty much any law on the books is an ideal that is imposed on you.

I think that is pretty much impossible not to do unless you are an advocating for anarchy.
Click to expand...
Simple, law should be restricted to things an extreme majority can agree upon.
Rape, murder, theft, etc

Trying to make a law about what to teach kids, or how to build a house is just going to result in power drunk dictators being delegated far too much power.
 
[486] said:
Simple, law should be restricted to things an extreme majority can agree upon.
Rape, murder, theft, etc

Trying to make a law about what to teach kids, or how to build a house is just going to result in power drunk dictators being delegated far too much power.
Click to expand...

Desantis introduced legislation that prevents Florida schools from teaching CRT and prevents Doctors from performing gender transforming surgery to kids. That is imposing ideals on others.


By your logic you are against that.
 
We went from this in the 60s protest song


the generation who sang the above brought us this

 
Animalmother said:
Desantis introduced legislation that prevents Florida schools from teaching CRT and prevents Doctors from performing gender transforming surgery to kids. That is imposing ideals on others.


By your logic you are against that.
Click to expand...
Yup.
Schools shouldn't be regulated by anything but the parents of the kids enrolled in that specific school. They want to pay someone to handicap their kids with gender studies bullshit, who am I to tell them otherwise?

Anything related to sexuality and minors gets complicated quickly. Dependents are defacto slaves to their providers. Consent cannot be given without a sufficiently developed mind, so that responsibility gets left to whoever cares enough about that animal to feed and house it.

Who are you to say that I can't decide to strike it out on my own and seek a job at the cannery when I'm 7?
 
[486] said:
Yup.
Schools shouldn't be regulated by anything but the parents of the kids enrolled in that specific school. They want to pay someone to handicap their kids with gender studies bullshit, who am I to tell them otherwise?

Anything related to sexuality and minors gets complicated quickly. Dependents are defacto slaves to their providers. Consent cannot be given without a sufficiently developed mind, so that responsibility gets left to whoever cares enough about that animal to feed and house it.

Who are you to say that I can't decide to strike it out on my own and seek a job at the cannery when I'm 7?
Click to expand...

Its a public school and the citizens of Florida elected Desantis…sooooooooo

Not seeing the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh