What is a republican?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 86
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
Only right wingers can respond to this post.  I'm going to try and ignore left wing responses to the OP because they don't know how right wingers think except for guesses.  This is for right wingers to answer.

The Right: The radical left can't even define what a woman consistently is!

Me: Can you guys define what a republican/conservative/right winger consistently is?

The left is pretty consistently anti-pain and pro comfort.  All of their beliefs they believe are designed to reduce pain.

What about the conservatives?  I don't want to accuse them of being pro pain, but what's the alternative?
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,225
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Which ones? The Lincoln Republicans? The Neocons? The Anti-establishment ones? The nationalistic/isolationist  ones? The globalist/imperialistic ones?

#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,229
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

I'm glad Mike Pence was the first to respond to your post.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,225
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
He is conflicted too. Pence already dropped out of politics.
#5
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,282
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
How many kinds of libertarians are there?

There are so few of them because everyone finds them useless and out in left field. Hardly anyone calls themselves a Libertarian.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The Lincoln Republicans? The Neocons? The Anti-establishment ones? The nationalistic/isolationist  ones? The globalist/imperialistic ones?
There are 2 possabilities.  Either these groups are:

1. Ideologically identical, but prefer to focus in on certain things.  The Libertarian conservatives (ex Rand Paul) and the morality based conservatives (Mike Pence) are both pro life and anti gun control, and even though the Rand Paul types focuses more on gun control and the Mike Pence types focus more on abortion, they are ideologically identical even if they prefer talking about some issues to others.

2. Ideologically different.  If this is the case, they should split up into different parties and rank choice voting prevents a hypothetical unified democrat party from winning by plurality.  Democrats should rename their party to the, 'anti unwanted pain party (AUPP)" because their goal is to reduce pain.  There could be pro Ukraine factions that argue US interventionism in Ukraine is the most anti pain and pro isolationist factions that argue the US staying out reduces pain the most.  The more parties involved in a country with a decent change of winning, the more ideologically consistent each party becomes.



Topic's author
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Greyperrot isn't Mike Pence.
#8
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,025
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
The GOP is America's right-wing party, just as the Democratic Party is America's left-wing party. And yes, America has both a right and a left, as the political spectrum is subjective and varies by country. Europe is not the objective benchmark handed down to us from heaven and much of Asia has mainstream politics which are far more reactionary than the GOP ever was and ever will be. Likewise, there are reactionary parties in Europe itself which have achieved mainstream success as of late, such as the Sweden Democrats and AfD in Sweden and Germany respectively, and more generally in countries like Russia, Belarus, Serbia, and Hungary.

The GOP's name, "Republican Party", comes from the fact that America is a constitutional republic. A republic is a rules-based system of government that balances the need for democratic representation with allowing whatever group is in the majority at a given time to destroy neither stable rules, nor freedom and civil rights, nor political and cultural pluralism. Representation within a republic is as much about the right to veto as it is about the positive right to govern, as even uncomfortable compromises mean that everyone can basically live with the final outcome.
Our republic is a mixture of "novel 18th century political experiment", thousand year old norms and traditions which we inherited from countries like England, and countless innovations made in the past 200+ years.

In the mid-20th century the GOP underwent an ideological synthesis and has since constituted a "three-legged" coalition between proponents of economic liberalism, foreign policy hawks, and Christian conservatives. At the time all of these interests converged in the form of a communist threat, but post-1991 different factions have vied for power. Post-2016 all three of these groups have taken a backseat and a fourth faction, defined by opposition to mass (especially illegal) immigration, backlash against recent gender and racial identitarian movements on the left, and skepticism of left-controlled institutions, has been largely embodied in the person of Donald Trump.

At present the party doesn't have a clear identity. Just about everyone can agree on what they're opposed to, but their next blueprint for how to reform the country has yet to be written. Notably the GOP did not release an official platform in 2020, and it's unclear if they will in 2024 either.
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,229
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

Greyperrot isn't Mike Pence, but Greyparrot could be.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
I doubt it.
Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
@bmdrocks21
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'm going to raise the stakes.  

If no republican can attempt to define what a republican consistently stands for in 24 hours, I'm going to assume the democrats are the anti unwanted pain party and the republicans are the pro unwanted pain party (so they would be a sadistic party; a party who has a principled stance for sadisism).

Some right wingers are tagged.
Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
The GOP is America's right-wing party, just as the Democratic Party is America's left-wing party.
But what does it mean to be right wing?  To be left wing is to be against people enduring pain that they don't want to endure.  If the GOP takes the opposite approach, it either means they would support people enduring pain that they don't want to endure either for pure sadism or for a consistent reason (that I'm trying to find out).

 In the mid-20th century the GOP underwent an ideological synthesis and has since constituted a "three-legged" coalition between proponents of economic liberalism, foreign policy hawks, and Christian conservatives. At the time all of these interests converged in the form of a communist threat, but post-1991 different factions have vied for power. Post-2016 all three of these groups have taken a backseat and a fourth faction, defined by opposition to mass (especially illegal) immigration, backlash against recent gender and racial identitarian movements on the left, and skepticism of left-controlled institutions, has been largely embodied in the person of Donald Trump.
All these factions should split up into more ideologically consistent parties.  The Rand Paul types can form the anti-socialist party, the Nikki Haley types can form the Interventionism party, and the Mike Pence types can call themselves the theocrat party.  The Donald Trump types can form the undocuphobic party.

Especially since the following parties:

1. Anti socialism
2. Military interventionism
3. Theocrat party
4. Undocuphobic party

Have contradicting ethoses.  Wanting to deport immigrants for not going through the legalization process treats the foreigner different than the native born (which goes against #3 and the bible).  It harms the free market (so #1 would be anti ICE as well).  Less people in the country means less troops, so #2 would be anti ICE as well.

War costs money for troops are more money for government employees, so even though #2 wants us involved in more wars, #1 certainly does not.  #3 might take an issue with war if the bible is anti war ("Thou shall not murder")

The bible says to sell all you have and give to the poor.  The theocrat could therefore endorse socialism.  #1 certainly wouldn't.  #4 wouldn't if the poor was the undocumented.

All 4 numbers are ideologically distinct, so they should form separate parties so they are more consistent with their values.  They should run their own candidates and Rank choice voting should be used so people can rank their own preferences and so the democrats (aka the anti pain party) won't win by plurality.

Notably the GOP did not release an official platform in 2020, and it's unclear if they will in 2024 either.
They won't because the vast majority of their ideas aren't that popular among the American public.  Wanting tax cuts for the globalists doesn't sound too popular with we the people.
#13
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
If no republican can attempt to define what a republican consistently stands for in 24 hours, I'm going to assume the democrats are the anti unwanted pain party and the republicans are the pro unwanted pain party (so they would be a sadistic party; a party who has a principled stance for sadisism).
Oh no! such high stakes. You might decide to be uncharitable in your views if someone doesn't engage.

A republican is a member of the republican party, a political organization in the United States of America. I'm a registered democrat because several important local positions were likely to be won by democrats and affecting the democratic primary candidates was the only way to influence local policy, so I guess you shouldn't have tagged me if you want republicans to answer.

As for the right-tribe definition, there isn't a precise one because it is an arbitrary alliance formed under the pressure of a winner-takes-all system.

The difference between being unable to precisely define a woman and being unable to precisely define what every single person in a political faction believes is that "woman" used to have a precise definition while it is practically impossible for everyone in a political faction to want the same things for the same reasons or to have the same beliefs.

You're demanding to know the color of "Fruit" and comparing it to someone claiming that apples can be oranges if someone wants them to be.

"Party of sadism" if you can't think your way out of that without help there isn't much anyone can do to help you but I'll try:

It has been noted by several social 'scientists' that the right-tribe's perception of the beliefs and predictions about the left-tribe are far more accurate than the inverse.

Long story short: The right-tribe thinks they are the good guys and knows the left-tribe also thinks they are the good guys. The left-tribe thinks they are the good guys and thinks the right-tribe knows they're the baddies and are lying about it.

This asymmetry has been closing for a few years now, as exemplified by the attitudes of several commentators and the rise of the pedophile paranoia. In other words, the left-tribe has been rather consistently Alex-Jones-like while the right-tribe has not been but is becoming more so.

So you are right the left-tribe would happily claim the title of "anti-pain faction", but only the ignorant would assume that anyone who refused to join the left-tribe must want the opposite of whatever the left-tribe claimed to want. Everybody thinks they're right, it's a tautology. Anyone who hasn't taken that for granted as truly ancient news is an intellectual infant.
#14
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
The bible says to sell all you have and give to the poor.  The theocrat could therefore endorse socialism.
Not a christian (anymore) and not the one you were talking to, but couldn't help but point out the blindingly obvious: Socialism is government taking your money, not giving money to the poor. If governments could be trusted to help the poor then a hundred million people wouldn't have starved to death in countries trying to implement socialism.

#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 273
Posts: 7,913
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If governments could be trusted to help the poor then a hundred million people wouldn't have starved to death in countries trying to implement socialism.
Well, governments usually try to help the poor. It doesnt always turn out well.

So who, according to you, can better help the poor?
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
If governments could be trusted to help the poor then a hundred million people wouldn't have starved to death in countries trying to implement socialism.
Well, governments usually try to help the poor.
They usually say they want to help the poor when reelection is an issue.


It doesnt always turn out well.
It never turns out well when failure is rewarded and the person spending the money knows he/she has nothing to lose if the money is wasted. Some organizational methods in government work better than others, none are efficient compared to self-interest, and those ones which are slightly efficient are not useful to the corrupt.


So who, according to you, can better help the poor?
1.) I reject the hidden premise "Whatever helps the poor (or any other contextually suffering person) the best is the correct course of action"

The error with this principle (even as personal morality) is that it doesn't qualify the harm done. If you can buy a poor man a sandwich by stealing a $1000 from a rich man you shouldn't do it. Even if you had the right (which you don't) and even if you think a rich man can afford to live without a $1000 it is a bad idea because as soon as you tolerate such waste you create a point of infection for corruption.

Even goodwill and charity must yield to the cold hard facts. It isn't the thought that counts. It's the outcome that counts. Walking into  a homeless shelter and scattering money around is more likely to do good than paying taxes which end up in the pockets of people who own companies dedicated to navigating government bureaucracy (up to and including essential bribery).

2.) The best help for the poor is the best help for the sick: Stay healthy. Attack the cause of the problem, not the symptoms. Ask not how to help the poor. Ask how to increase production, because if you increase production enough there will be no more poor. There have been several periods in recent history where there were so few in true poverty in certain places that there were essentially "no poor". We (the western world) are wrecking it and corrupt governments and their proxies in the corporate world (including big tech and media) are doing their utmost to hide how poor they're making everyone and all the multifaceted ways they're doing it.

They love to quote a statistic about how the rich are getting richer, what they don't tell you is that they're being paid by those people getting richer because they want anyone who might question how they're getting rich to have a very red(orange) herring to chase.

2.) From another angle: The best help for "the poor" is themselves, on average the best person to look after John Doe's interests is John Doe. People rarely need help wanting better for themselves, they need opportunities. Opportunities are not just job openings and education. Those can be traps and the promised money may be stolen or become useless.

Millions of people have been cheated by lies about higher education and would be even more impoverished than they currently are if that debt was collected <- FALSE, well somewhat true, but this is where the heart of the deception is. You see they are paying for it, we all are. When you steal money (by printing) and loan it to students who gain nothing productive from it that's wasted value. It pays for useless buildings and useless administrators. Any entity public or private who is rewarded for failing will fail harder next time. That is why Universities (despite being private) are failing horribly. When they fail the government guarantees loans (steals money to pay them) and they fail harder. That is why the health care system is failing horribly (despite being private). When they fail the government guarantees insurance (steals money to pay them). That is why the housing market is failing horribly (despite being private). When it fails the government guarantees loans and bails out banks.

If there wasn't mountainous waste growing exponentially around us the poor would fix their own problems. The things the poor need would be more affordable, which means the living wage would be lower, which means there would be more jobs available.
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A republican is a member of the republican party, a political organization in the United States of America.
What does that political organization consistently stand for?

I'm a registered democrat because several important local positions were likely to be won by democrats and affecting the democratic primary candidates was the only way to influence local policy, so I guess you shouldn't have tagged me if you want republicans to answer.
What issue(s) make you a democrat?  If AOC decided to identify as a republican, she's obviously a RINO and if Matt Gaetz decided to identify as a democrat tomorrow, he's a DINO (assuming neither changes ideology).

As for the right-tribe definition, there isn't a precise one because it is an arbitrary alliance formed under the pressure of a winner-takes-all system.
It is an arbitrary alliance, and it's why we need rank choice voting.

while it is practically impossible for everyone in a political faction to want the same things for the same reasons or to have the same beliefs.
Then split up the factions!  Why would an anti war anti government libertarian want to be in the same faction as a Neo con that wants more money for the military?  They have different interests, so they should split up.

It has been noted by several social 'scientists' that the right-tribe's perception of the beliefs and predictions about the left-tribe are far more accurate than the inverse.
Which ones?

The right-tribe thinks they are the good guys and knows the left-tribe also thinks they are the good guys. The left-tribe thinks they are the good guys and thinks the right-tribe knows they're the baddies and are lying about it.
People on the left don't think the right is lying about their beliefs.

So you are right the left-tribe would happily claim the title of "anti-pain faction", but only the ignorant would assume that anyone who refused to join the left-tribe must want the opposite of whatever the left-tribe claimed to want. 
I'm asking what the right wing tribe wants.

Like with abortion, the left wants to legalize abortion due to anti pain.  The right wants to ban abortion.  Is the reason they are pro pain?  No.  The reason is they think abortion kills a zygote (which they believe is a human being).  That would be the rationale.  The left is women's rights activists and the hardcore anti abortion people are zygote's rights activists.  I'm not mad at it, but I would prefer honesty.

But not every issue is abortion, and not all issues (very few actually) does the right takes the pro life position on (whereas the left takes the anti pain position about as frequently as the libertarians take the small government position)

So if the left is going to be anti pain consistently because unwanted pain is bad, what would be the right's justification for supporting pain in the instances that they do?  There are 2 sides to every coin.

Socialism is government taking your money, not giving money to the poor. If governments could be trusted to help the poor then a hundred million people wouldn't have starved to death in countries trying to implement socialism.
Consistent theocrats want the government to force people to live religious lives and if that means high taxes to help the poor, so be it.  Whether or not it helps the poor is irrelevant; the goal of a theocrat is to cause people to go to heaven since heaven is eternal, and if that means making life horrible on earth for 80 years out of the billions of years of eternity, so be it.  A consistent theocrat couldn't campaign on that because people don't really value the afterlife compared to their life on earth even if they claim to.


#18
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 273
Posts: 7,913
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I can understand that rewarding failure produces more failure, but wealth redistribution is a common government practice. It can be improved in many ways, but to say that we shouldnt have any kind of government help for the poor is a bit strange. I am not sure how that would work out.
#19
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
I can understand that rewarding failure produces more failure, but wealth redistribution is a common government practice.
X produces failure, but it is a common practice.

So the question to ask, to see if my concepts are valid is this: Is failure a common outcome? (The answer is yes, I see them begging every time I go through the city that has voted democrat for 40 years straight)


It can be improved in many ways, but to say that we shouldnt have any kind of government help for the poor is a bit strange.
That is an understatement. It is so ineffective and susceptible to corruption and petty tyranny that reform is madness. All existing apparatus must be destroyed, the foundation re-poured, and then public charity and infrastructure can be built upon the correct paradigm.

Ultimately morality is practical. First do justice, then do good; because if you think you can do good through injustice you're wrong.

The fact governments steal is intrinsically linked to government corruption. If they could not steal their corruption and failure would cause people to stop paying. That choice is the foundation of a proper government that could be improved upon in many ways.


I am not sure how that would work out.
For fifty years after the civil war the federal government barely did anything (by today's standards). We know the world doesn't fall apart, in fact buying power goes up exponentially. If not interrupted (by government action at the turn of the century which caused the great depression) it is plausible we would be post-scarcity in several sectors instead of regressing.

Reverting to that is much more rational than trying communism out for the 20th time.
#20
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,584
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Neither parties identify themselves around pain
#21
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
A republican is a member of the republican party, a political organization in the United States of America.
What does that political organization consistently stand for?
Opposing the democrat party.


What issue(s) make you a democrat? 
The issue of wanting exert political power to bring about my agenda.


Why would an anti war anti government libertarian want to be in the same faction as a Neo con that wants more money for the military?
They (the libertarian) sees that the deep state is currently puppeting the democrat party. That the deep state also wants more money for the military. That's not quite right, they want more money for military contractors.

I sometimes laugh at my younger self. I actually thought "we couldn't be in Iraq to steal oil, we're not actually taking the oil".... FYI the republican party was the deep state puppet at that time.

No, what the deep state was mining in Iraq and Afghanistan was not oil, it was US dollars (via inflation and taxes). Turns out Ukraine has reserves too. In fact anywhere in the world with war is very good for a certain subset of very wealthy and influential people who happen to be running that mainstream media you accused me of being programmed by. They really like it when terrorism is defined as "political violence other than ours".

What a coincidence that wars just happen to start as soon as the democrat party controls the executive branch...


They have different interests, so they should split up.
That isn't the game.


People on the left don't think the right is lying about their beliefs.
Yes they do, specifically they think the right is racist and lying when thy say they aren't, misogynist and lying when they say they aren't, bigoted against sexual deviancy and lying when they say they aren't.

The right tribe attacks ideas and policy, not character (on average over the past 20 years, again changing for the worse).

It important to note there is a distinction between what either side thinks of opposing leadership vs the general voting bloc. They have always despised each other's leaders and it is currently at the "execute them for treason" level. I am talking about what the average X-triber thinks of the average Y-triber.


I'm asking what the right wing tribe wants.
To defeat the left-tribe.


So if the left is going to be anti pain consistently because unwanted pain is bad, what would be the right's justification for supporting pain in the instances that they do?  There are 2 sides to every coin.
The right-tribe doesn't need to be pro-pain to oppose the left-tribe. They need only believe the left-tribe is wrong about what causes the greater pain over the longest period.

Even if they agreed on that the tribes could disagree on the grounds of honesty, such as the value of democracy. Both tribes claim to be fighting for it. When a left-triber says "we have to save our democracy" the right-triber says "Yea, that's why you need to be stopped". They agree democracy is good, and they agree on the definition of democracy; they just no longer trust each other.

The right-tribe thinks the left-tribe works to leave election vulnerable to fraud and then other elements commit the fraud (and other cheating). The left-tribe thinks the right-tribe will end elections and start with arrests and kangaroo courts if they get in power again (ironically the left-tribe is arresting  and using kangaroo courts to prevent this).


Consistent theocrats want the government to force people to live religious lives and if that means high taxes to help the poor, so be it.  Whether or not it helps the poor is irrelevant; the goal of a theocrat is to cause people to go to heaven since heaven is eternal, and if that means making life horrible on earth for 80 years out of the billions of years of eternity, so be it.  A consistent theocrat couldn't campaign on that because people don't really value the afterlife compared to their life on earth even if they claim to.
When your foundation is riddled with contradictions there is no such thing as a correct version of christian theocracy. You advancing one particular interpretation as if it is the only one is silly.

There is nothing in the bible that unequivocally requires or supports socialism. The opposite, if it's the soul that matters and grace save souls then there are (better) reasons in the bible to assume that government force pollutes the purity of compassion. Jesus asked a man to sell everything, he didn't force him. If the man could be saved be being forced, then why do we supposedly have free will?


Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But the democratic ethos is anti pain, even if they don't realize it.

But name me one democrat policy they believe in that increases unwanted pain undeniably.
#23
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
But name me one democrat policy they believe in that increases unwanted pain undeniably.
Name one republican one that does. No one is going to admit that.

#24
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,584
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Trans surgeries
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Opposing the democrat party.
Why would they oppose the democrat party on all the issues that they do?

The issue of wanting exert political power to bring about my agenda.
So are you a democrat in name only?

They (the libertarian) sees that the deep state is currently puppeting the democrat party. 
What is the deep state?  Is it Congress (half of which are democrats and the other half republicans) puppeting just the democrat party?

Yes they do, specifically they think the right is racist and lying when thy say they aren't, misogynist and lying when they say they aren't, bigoted against sexual deviancy and lying when they say they aren't.
It's different definitions of being bigoted on RSG issues (Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender).  To the left, being anti BLM and pro life is being racist and misogynistic.  To the right, being anti BLM and pro life is not being racist and misogynistic.  The right definitely is anti BLM and pro life, but the parties disagree on if this counts as bigoted or not.

I'm asking what the right wing tribe wants.
To defeat the left-tribe.
I'm talking about in terms of morality.  Like if I asked the goal of the pro life tribe, the response I would expect wouldn't be, "to defeat the pro choice tribe", but instead, it would be, "to prevent the homicide of unborn babies".  That's what the pro lifers want.

What does the right tribe want in terms of morality?

The right-tribe doesn't need to be pro-pain to oppose the left-tribe. They need only believe the left-tribe is wrong about what causes the greater pain over the longest period.
So your argument is that the right is consistently anti-long term pain whereas the democrats are consistently anti short term pain?

 Jesus asked a man to sell everything, he didn't force him. If the man could be saved be being forced, then why do we supposedly have free will?
I'm not religious, but that would be up to the Christain theocrats to answer because they believe in God and the afterlife.
#26
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Trans surgeries
That is a strong example but there are many who would deny it.

#27
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Opposing the democrat party.
Why would they oppose the democrat party on all the issues that they do?
Confusing cause and effect, everyone who happened to oppose the people in the other tribe joined this tribe (and vice versa). Evolving through time with no overriding principle.


What is the deep state?
A more meaningful label for what I oppose than "democrats".  It is a monster whose body is the colossus of government corruption and whose head are war mongering CIA types who what USA to become and remain the hegemon. Motivations and connections are unclear and may never be proven, but as gas can be inferred by wind there is something that moves these institutions that does not come from the obvious democratic pressures.

No voting bloc told them to lie about WMDs, arm the Taliban, arm cartels, stage a false flag at Tonkin, back Pakistan over India, engineer a conspiracy to kidnap a governor, be unable to account for billions in spending, send lists of people to censor to social media companies, blow up the Baltic Pipeline, and the list just goes on and on and on.


Is it Congress
There are many beneficiaries in congress. It's easier to point out the ones who are above suspicion.


I'm talking about in terms of morality.
Most people haven't had a concise moral thought in their lives. They just absorb a long list of dos and don't and then follow their emotions.

People have contradictory moralities, if there is any overarching pattern in any large group it is extremely vague and has many exceptions. Even with agreed upon values conflict can occur through difference is pursuit and over issues of trust (as I said).


Like if I asked the goal of the pro life tribe, the response I would expect wouldn't be, "to defeat the pro choice tribe", but instead, it would be, "to prevent the homicide of unborn babies".  That's what the pro lifers want.
You give a category defined by the moral belief. It is tautological that they have a consistent moral belief, but they aren't a tribe and they know as well as everyone else that you can't make a tribe around a single issue without becoming irrelevant. At least not in this system. Even if you could very few people have only one controversial issue of interest.


What does the right tribe want in terms of morality?
There is no valid generalization other than the obvious and therefore trite. They want peace, love, and all the good things in life same as anyone else. Or even more generally they want to lead lives of significance free from unnecessary suffering.


The right-tribe doesn't need to be pro-pain to oppose the left-tribe. They need only believe the left-tribe is wrong about what causes the greater pain over the longest period.
So your argument is that the right is consistently anti-long term pain whereas the democrats are consistently anti short term pain?
No, I pointed out that there were more possibilities than taking the inverse position just because their opponents say they are for something (or you say they are for something).

Neither faction is consistently about anything. There is no cohesive moral framework. If there was the world wouldn't be a mess and debating wouldn't be relegated to a tiny number of people in dwindling communities online.


I'm not religious, but that would be up to the Christain theocrats to answer because they believe in God and the afterlife.
Ok.... and they may very well decide that socialism is bad because A) it doesn't help the poor, and B) doesn't grant grace.
Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
But name me one democrat policy they believe in that increases unwanted pain undeniably.
Name one republican one that does. No one is going to admit that.
Here are some GOP policies that undeniably increase unwanted pain:

  1. Abortion bans
  2. Legalized AR 15s (which creates more mass shootings)
  3. Not supporting Medicare for all (including for the undocumented)
  4. Separating families with at least one undocumented parent
  5. Not supporting government paid for college

Now, sometimes, pain is justified.  Like, most of these bullet points I agree with.  But it's not because of a pro pain ethos.  It's because I'm merely not an anti pain absolutist.  Sometimes I think there are things that matter more than reducing pain.  But that's not the case with every controversial issue.


A more meaningful label for what I oppose than "democrats". 
Then just say you don't like left wing politicians then.

 but they aren't a tribe and they know as well as everyone else that you can't make a tribe around a single issue without becoming irrelevant.
Pro lifers being pro lifers isn't a tribe.  Pro 2A people being pro 2A people isn't a tribe.

Pro lifers being more likely to be pro 2A than pro choicers and pro 2A people being more likely to be pro life than anti 2A people because of a party connection is being a tribe.

Even if you could very few people have only one controversial issue of interest.
I would say a lot of people (maybe half) are one issue voters.

Neither faction is consistently about anything. 
How are the democrats not anti pain?  Many democrats are against young kids getting gender surgeries; but there are also some democrats who disagree about that being the best way to reduce pain.

A) it doesn't help the poor, and B) doesn't grant grace.
Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".  If a theocrat claimed Jesus was being metaphorical, they could make that argument about any bible verse that they agree with.

If they initially agreed with the bible, they claim it's God's will.  If they disagree with it, they claim God is using a metaphor.  Left and right wing preachers do this.

A Christian theocrat party would be consistently literalist, and if that means stoning people to death for adultery and selling all you have and giving to the poor, so be it.

Topic's author
#29
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,333
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I said unwanted pain.  Everyone that got a gender surgery wanted it.  Just like looking like The Rock requires working out and a lot of pain, if you are willing to go through that pain to look like the Rock or John Cena, you are allowed to workout in all 50 states, it's very common, no party is advocating against it because people who work out are enduring consensual pain.  With forcing kids to work out, the goal is to reduce long term pain that the kids won't want (like obesity).
#30
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,990
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
But name me one democrat policy they believe in that increases unwanted pain undeniably.
Name one republican one that does. No one is going to admit that.
Here are some GOP policies that undeniably increase unwanted pain:

  1. Abortion bans
  2. Legalized AR 15s (which creates more mass shootings)
  3. Not supporting Medicare for all (including for the undocumented)
  4. Separating families with at least one undocumented parent
  5. Not supporting government paid for college
All of those would be denied.

I would personally deny #5, which is not to imply I have nothing to say about the others; but anyone who believes failing to pay for someone else's higher education constitutes an "undeniable" increase in "unwanted pain" is a lunatic.

Every dollar the government steals could have averted unwanted pain.


A more meaningful label for what I oppose than "democrats". 
Then just say you don't like left wing politicians then.
I wouldn't use the term "deep state" if it was identical to "left wing politicians".

There are honest left-wingers, but they don't seem to make it to DC. AOC and Rashida Tlaib are probably examples. Dangerously misinformed, yes; but not deep state. RFK, definitely not deep state.


Pro lifers being pro lifers isn't a tribe. 
Yet you said:
Like if I asked the goal of the pro life tribe


Neither faction is consistently about anything. 
How are the democrats not anti pain? 
They supported slavery. They are now pro-war and their leaders have cut off any attempt at a negotiated peace in Ukraine. Your pain theory fails to explain this. My deep state theory explains it easily.


A Christian theocrat party would be consistently literalist, and if that means stoning people to death for adultery
and yet Jesus explicitly stopped that from happening...?