I just may vote Republican in 2020

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Le Chef, Mar 12, 2019.

  1. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    8,183
    Likes Received:
    2,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been voting Libertarian of late but may vote Republican in 2020. (Voting Dem/socialist is not even on my menu).

    The only thing that stopped me voting for Trump in 2016 was my fear that his tax cuts and spending increases on the military would worsen the national debt. And here we are. But ...

    He is finally, finally, proposing concrete and reasonable measures to cut spending snd place conditions on "entitlements". The proposals won't work with the nuts controlling the House of Representatives, but at least he's trying.

    On abortion, immigration, defense, NK, second and first amendments, Supreme Court appointments and foreign policy, I'm with him all the way.

    Am I right as usual?
     
  2. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,122
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are right. Welcome to the Republican Party.
     
    roorooroo and Le Chef like this.
  3. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are not in any way an actual libertarian.
     
  4. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,081
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no real classical liberal option in the U.S. political parties if one wants one's vote to be at all meaningful. Voting "anti Democrat" is the closest one can get.
     
    modernpaladin, roorooroo and Lil Mike like this.
  5. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing as a “classical liberal”. Any historical example you can point to of “classical liberalism” would have social conservative racial, gender, and religious discriminatory laws that obliterate any idea it was “small government”.

    When people say they want to return to “small government classic liberalism” what they are really saying is that they want the government to have special priveleges for white males while letting those same people rule over everyone else.
     
  6. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,081
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes there is. You are wrong as usual, and not worth wasting my time further.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Give an example of a “classic liberal” government.
     
  8. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Get use to it, any time after a Democrat has been President, you have to increase military spending to repair the damages that were inflicted.
     
    ArchStanton likes this.
  9. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,081
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The government of the U.S. pre Wilsonian progressive cancer.

    To preempt, "classical liberal" means a small central sovereign with strictly enumerated powers in line with Locke and other Enlightenment principles, rule of law instead of men, strong private property rights, etc., and that's all it means, not whatever SJW abstract arglebargle you are going to propose next.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
    roorooroo, AltLightPride and Le Chef like this.
  10. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How “strong” were the private property rights of non-whites or women during that era? How strong were they for homosexuals? How about for non-Christians (or for Christians other Christians didn’t like a la Mormons)? How small was the government for Native Americans?
     
  11. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,081
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dealt with, nonresponsive. "Classical liberalism" especially the first practical, large scale iteration of it in history, needn't be some ideologically perfect system in the hidebound hindsight of LW SJWs of the present.

    Yeah, pre CE Rome was a "Republic" also despite participating in slavery.

    Next.
     
  12. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rome was a republic because it was an oligarchy that wasn’t a monarchy. So was America at its founding. That’s was all historical republics have in common.

    ”Not ideologically perfect” doesn’t even begin to cut it. When a “small” government is only small for a tiny minority of the population, then it isn’t really a small government.
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes you are right. Trump will defeat the Democrats.
     
  14. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    4,917
    Likes Received:
    1,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    you might as well just chnge your title to "I might just vote Facist"

    Because that is all the republican party is these days. A party for old white facists.
     
  15. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think if you check into this, blacks and women who managed to obtain property were allowed to vote and to play a role. I believe that the married women that did not vote only followed that due to at one least vote per property was what was asked for at the time. Later people attached the vote not to property but to the individual. This is open to discussion should I be wrong. It is my opinion.
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We fight for the return to you of rights, privilege and taking the law off your back that your honored Democrats insist on laying onto your back. Why can't you see that?
     
    Le Chef likes this.
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Time for you to get your copies of the books called the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
     
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am in complete agreement with the above.
     
  19. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And because a handful fought passed the massive discrimination and could vote that somehow means that massive legal discrimination didn’t exist?
     
  20. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Was Rome still a Republic when it was an Empire? Answer that question then realize why your post is dumb.
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not in agreement. As Sanskrit commented, pre Wilson this country had far more freedom.

    And the issues you have were local to the population. They were never federal. You never saw Jim Crow laws at the Federal level. Most states did not have them either.

    This will give you the example to show Democrats love to keep pounding us with laws.

     
    roorooroo likes this.
  22. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seeking for you to read those famous books is dumb? Damn, that is the first time a Democrat ripped me over suggesting books to read.
     
  23. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    66,945
    Likes Received:
    16,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Primarily confined to several states. Well, let's speak of FDR. He practiced discrimination during WW2 against the blacks. But ask them to despise the man and they say nope.

    FDR discriminated vs the Jews. Even today you read many Democrats say despicable things about Jews. But they do adore the hell out of Muslims. I don't get that.
     
  24. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pre Wilson the country has far more free *for white male Christians, especially if they were rich*.

    Fixed it for you.

    Jim Crow and other discriminatory policies were backed by Supreme Court decisions that reinforced them.
     
  25. Le Chef

    Le Chef Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    8,183
    Likes Received:
    2,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't know what fascism is. Read up on it and I'll debate the issue. Elements include:

    1) Fascism requires a militaristic society. One of the reactions to World War I was the extreme militarization of several countries. Nations such as Germany and Italy believed there was a great need for having the ability to quickly mobilize millions of people very quickly in order to fight wars and for various means of economic support.

    (Trump is anti-war. We are getting out of Afghanistan and Syria. He would never have gone into Iraq)

    2) Fascists reject democracy. They do not believe in governments where the general population is allowed to select government


    (If you believe that Trump will ensconce himself with a few generals and reject future election results, you're insane.)

    3) Fascists prefer a totalitarian rule of one-partywith a strong sole leader (a dictator). They believe that this configuration allows for the country to enjoy an unparalleled national unity of purpose, to have a much more ordered society, and to maximize readiness for any armed conflict.

    (Trump is narcissistic, and probably fantasized about being King, as I would I, but that's as far as it goes.)

    4) Fascism is not solely a left-wing or right-wing society. It can actually have elements from both sides of the political spectrum. Even Mussolini described the fascist movement as one that will strike “against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left”.

    (Republicans? Seriously?)


    5) Fascism causes people to freely give up their ideals out of great fear for their safety. Nations who got the short end of the stick after World War I were quite ripe for a fascist movement because many of them greatly feared the rest of the world. This is a very important element of fascism as people are required to give up their rights in exchange for safety and security.

    (The only rights being given up are the right to speak freely out of fear of leftist thugs committing violence, as against Ben Shapiro, Milo, Bill Maher, Condi Rice, and many others. Fox News has more leftists on its show than MSNBC has rightists.)

    I would add as other elements the violent suppression of labor unions and news outlets by the police and military, which we are not witnessing and which no Republican supports. Not a single one

    You were saying?
     
    mtlhdtodd and AltLightPride like this.

Share This Page