Can someone define to me what a republican consistently stands for?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,383
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
I don't believe the GOP has a consistent definition for what they believe.

Freedom
Then how do you justify your position on ICE, Qualified immunity, and weed?

Protecting innocent life (abortion)
Then how do you justify your position on Universal Healthcare?

Nationalism/Western Civilization
Western Civilization (compared to the 3rd world) is pro choice, pro massive government spending, pro LGB, pro transgenderism, and not religious.  Try again.

Personal responsibility (don't make others suffer for your poor decisions)
This argument absolves parents of any jail time for their crime, because then their kids would suffer.

Law and Order (but also rebel pride at the same time)
This is contradictory.

The constitution

Trump said, "Terminate the constitution"

Whatever Trump says we believe

Trump is pro booster and most of your party didn't get the booster.  Try again.


The GOP doesn't believe in anything and should either form a consistent ethos or concede all elections and stop contesting the democrats for power and as a result, every state would become D+100 since there would be no GOP opposition.  Stop defending a party you can't define the consistent ethos of.  Convert to the democrat side [which their consistent ethos is being AUP (anti unwanted pain)], or form a consistent ethos to define your party.

My ethos is LUSHOOK; so I have a consistent ethos and I stick to it religiously.  So do the democrats (the AUP ethos).  The GOP has no consistent ethos so they should cease to stay a party and they should be replaced nationwide.  Any republican/conservative on this site that can't define their consistent ethos should stop being republican/conservative.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 274
Posts: 7,994
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
My ethos is LUSHOOK
What is that?

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,302
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Short answer: whatever the donors want.

Long answer: whatever the deep state approves of and the donor class wants.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 592
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
So do the democrats (the AUP ethos)
I'm not sure how such a major party could have a consistent ethos when its members disagree regularly. Also, most Democrats are not antinatalists, despite that being an AUP proposal.

Libertarians are probably the most consistent, particularly anarcho-capitalists. Probably communists as well, or really any kind of extremist.
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
That is very true. The republicans are a mess.

I would not go democrat though as they go against certain values that I hold.

I would opt for a third party.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,383
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Check my profile.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 274
Posts: 7,994
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
LUSHOOK (Liberty Unless Significantly Harming Others Or Kid) Advocate.
That sounds good.

Personally, I dont follow any moral standard.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,383
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Not having kids but wanting them produces some amount of pain for parents who want them, not to mention you ask 100 people if they want to be dead (aka suicidal) and over 98 of them would say no, implying life is not all too painful given the pleasure it brings in addition to the pain.

But most people that don't want kids are democrats; especially most people who don't want kids due to the belief that life is painful being democrats.  I don't want kids, but it's because they are an expense and they take too much work.  I want other people to have kids so my social security gets paid for.

Libertarians are probably the most consistent, particularly anarcho-capitalists. Probably communists as well, or really any kind of extremist.
Anybody that is against free healthcare for normal people but supports free healthcare for those in jail for murder (due to an anti death penalty belief) is inconsistent, and this describes a lot of the libertarian party, although they do a pretty good job and it's easy to convince a libertarian to support killing murderers in the name of cutting government spending.  Harder to do that for a democrat though due to their AUP moral code.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,383
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@MAV99
Have you considered the LUSHOOK or the ANDE (Anti Death) ethos?  LUSHOOK is very common, but since you are Catholic, the ANDE ethos might apply to you as well.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,383
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Personally, I dont follow any moral standard.
That's fine.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 592
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
not all too painful given the pleasure it brings in addition to the pain
Doesn't AUP not care about pleasure? Or is it just utilitarianism by another name?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,943
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Both parties stand for the same thing, The financial destruction of western civilization. The Republican Party is just controlled opposition for the Democrat party.  Look at just about every vote when it comes to spending the country into oblivion. 100% Democrat and  just a tiny few Republicans, just enough to make the spending pass by 1 or 2 votes. This is called "bipartisan support".  Same shit every single time.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,383
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Doesn't AUP not care about pleasure? 
Pleasure is negative pain, so yes.

Or is it just utilitarianism by another name?
I believe that's the case.  The left is consistently utilitarian.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 592
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left is consistently utilitarian.
Doesn't really explain their position on abortion. They'd probably be using population utilitarianism to justify having children, and at that point increasing the number of people born by one probably outweighs bodily autonomy. The analogy I see commonly used on the left for abortion is that individuals shouldn't be forced to donate a kidney, but the utilitarian solution would be that they should be forced to donate a kidney. And personhood wouldn't matter because creating a person per population utilitarianism is just as good as saving someone. Average utilitarianism leads to its own set of odd conclusions that I don't think most Democrats would support.

I also think Republicans tend to be more utilitarian on the draft and warfare in general than Democrats. If you're utilitarian, personal liberty doesn't matter and you should draft people because it can lead to long-term benefits for the country. Same with harsh policing tactics and racial profiling which use utilitarian justifications for violating personal liberty.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,383
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
The analogy I see commonly used on the left for abortion is that individuals shouldn't be forced to donate a kidney, but the utilitarian solution would be that they should be forced to donate a kidney.
Fair; the left is not utilitarian; they are just AUP; and the fear of losing your kidney produces a lot of pain for people.  Like when I was younger, I had a fear of being an organ donor because I would have had some fear that I would need the organs after I died.  I overcame that fear, but many people still retain it.
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Have you considered the LUSHOOK or the ANDE (Anti Death) ethos?  LUSHOOK is very common, but since you are Catholic, the ANDE ethos might apply to you as well.
I have considered it in my course of studying history. LUSHOOK that is.

I tend more to a distributist political idea, which can really only work in a Catholic society.

Obviously if someone does not want to be Catholic that is their choice and distributism is not a viable option for them. Nor do I think it is a viable option in the United States due to the Constitution.

Because of that, I tend more to a political ideology that focuses on morality as coming from a things purpose, its effects on the common good, etc.

The ANDE ethos I do not have a problem with, except in cases where a person is a grave threat to society. I.E. He is determined to kill everyone. I think in those cases capitol punishment or at least heavy imprisonment for the rest of his life is a better option.

The problem I have with LUSHOOK is that I do think it is immoral to harm gravely ones body and the established authority should interfere in those cases. With discretion, and all due to privacy of course. I do think certain drugs are exceptionally harmful to the body and the authority should ban those drugs. As an example.