What is a republican?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I do not believe the GOP has a consistent definition for what they stand for.

Me: What is a republican?
Republican: We believe in small government.
Me: You guys want to keep ICE, repeal Roe V Wade, and support the government funded police.  Try again.
Republican: We believe in law and order.  Follow the law no matter what.
Me: If the law said guns are banned and COVID boosters are mandated, I wouldn’t expect you to agree with that law.
Republican: Well, we believe in tradition/status quo!
Me: Roe V Wade was an American tradition and the status quo for 50 years.  It got repealed because of you guys.
Republican: We believe in Biblical Law!
Me: The bible says in Matthew 25:35 to welcome illegal immigrants in your home.  I know you don’t agree with that.
Republican: Well, what does the left consistently stand for?
Me: The left is consistently against unwanted pain.  They are Anti Unwanted Pain (AUP).  Either come up with an alternative ideology that is palatable, become independents (which means you are open to voting for a democrat that Trump doesn't like) or join the left.
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,641
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I hope all Republicans will sell everything they own and send the money to Trump.
#3
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,674
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
I hope all Republicans will sell everything they own and send the money to Trump.
He needs it, today's judgement was for over $300 Million....and he can't do business in New York for three years.

Fortunately, he has a Trump Tower in Moscow coming.
#4
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,310
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Someone who, in theory, holds values that compliment our country’s founding as well as Judeo-Christian culture; in practice, they are completely spineless in defending those values.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,711
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
I hope all Republicans will sell everything they own and send the money to Trump.
Then they can live in poverty like Jesus demands them to.

Its a win-win.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Mharman
 Someone who, in theory, holds values that compliment our country’s founding as well as Judeo-Christian culture
So does that mean Theocracy?  Or does it mean Latin American Christain culture is included in that?

There is no such thing as Judeo-Christain Culture.  It's like saying there is such a thing as Islamo-Zoroastrian culture.  Or a Bhuddo-Hindu culture.

No 2 religions have the same culture all to themselves.
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
The republican party is a bigger tent than the democratic party and makes up the following groups.

1. The moderate ones who are close ideologically to the moderate left such as George Bush and Liz Cheney

2. The fundamentalists which include people like Mike Huckabee, and Mike pence. Whoever you can think of named Mike essentially

3. The libertarian group consisting of the entire Freedom caucus and Ron and rand Paul

4. The paleocon populist portion consisting of people like Pat Buchanon orTicker Carlson. 

These 4 groups all have radically different ideologies and often fight for control of the republican party. Until lately though it seemes only moderate portion had what it takes to win national elections due to the country being mostly non ideological pragmatists. For example Barry Goldwater was part of the libertarian portion of the party and was easily defeated on the national level which partially was led by the Romney family. 

We take turns hating parts of the party but uniting with them for elections.  Prior to the current mindset to hate the moderates and after the Goldwater failure the hate was geared towards libertarians. 
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
If there are different types of republicans, then why don't they split up into different parties and rank choice voting helps the American people have what they want?

And there can be overlap.  Like Rand Paul says he's pro life; which is in line with Mike Pence.

Paleo cons are very similar to libertarians in that they don't like the wars.

But rank choice voting allows each faction to be more ideologically consistent and you may even have blue voters who normally vote blue, but would vote for a Rand Paul guy, but would vote blue over Tucker Carlson or George Bush.

If there is no consistent definition for republican, then different parties should form from the GOP and rank choice voting gives people more options for who they want to support.
#9
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
America is practically designed so there is a 2 party system I would argue that there are 4 parties and that we should be divided that way. Here are the actual 4 parties.

1. Socialists such as Bernie Sanders and AOC
2. Moderates such as Hillary Clinton and George Bush
3. Libertarians such as the Paul's
4. Social conservatives

Granted these parties leave paleocons out but they would probably choose who represented them better between 2,3 and 4. 

I dont personally have a problem with ranked choice. Many conservatives are against it because it seems to favor democrats. Many are against it because they feel it does leave voices unheard. So so in ranked choice for example it's done in rounds. So the bottom.candidate is dropped and that person's 2nd choice gets their vote instead. My understanding is that the way it works, you can get a lot of instances of issues where somebody with low support would win even though they are hated by a majority of people. I am flaky here. 

I would be willing to debate con on ranked choice as a means to increase my understanding of the popular criticisms of it.  To me it intuitively feels right. I know that I also felt a national popular vote and term limits also feel intuitively correct but changed my mind on it when I did the research. 
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
My understanding is that the way it works, you can get a lot of instances of issues where somebody with low support would win even though they are hated by a majority of people. I am flaky here. 
With Rank choice voting, this is false.  This is true under First Past the Post Voting.

I would be willing to debate con on ranked choice as a means to increase my understanding of the popular criticisms of it. 

Watch this video:


Many conservatives are against it because it seems to favor democrats. 
How?  If it's Biden-DeSantis-Trump, I think DeSantis would win that election with RCV, but with FPTP, it would be Biden since DeSantis would take a lot of votes from Trump.
#11
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Watch this video:

Ranked Choice Voting Explained in Less than One Minute #shorts (youtube.com).
I have read 500 page books on this. Don't insult me with a one minute video lol.

How? If it's Biden-DeSantis-Trump, I think DeSantis would win that election with RCV, but with FPTP, it would be Biden since DeSantis would take a lot of votes from Trump.
I think the issue comes when there are 16 candidates or some similar thing. Some people only vote for one so when the last place is erased their vote is gone forever anyway. Things can get wonky. I guess since you don't want to debate this I will look through my obsidian folder and see what my previous notes were. It's been a like 5 years since I looked into his so I need to update them anyway
Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
I have read 500 page books on this. Don't insult me with a one minute video lol.
Then why did you say:

I would be willing to debate con on ranked choice as a means to increase my understanding of the popular criticisms of it.  
I believe nobody on this site except you read 500 pages on RCV.

I think the issue comes when there are 16 candidates or some similar thing.
Then people should do their research on all 16 and make a decision for who they would support.

But I think it should be you need at least .5% national approval to run (both major parties have 1%; so half of that) and then it's just a RCV session.

 I guess since you don't want to debate this I will look through my obsidian folder and see what my previous notes were.
I only am cool with me doing forum debates.  I don't think I have the time commitment to do formal ones.
#13
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
I believe nobody on this site except you read 500 pages on RCV.
Yes I was downplaying how much I know but the knowledge is fuzzy. I remember my conclusion better than my premises so I would benefit by debating it. 

Look I saw it. I thought this is an excellent ideal. Here is my process. When I first hear an ideal, I fully believe it or keep reading until I fully believe it, maybe I take a different approach and argue against it devils advocate until somebody who believes it brow beats me into also believing it.

On the surface it is a great premise. Finally you can vote for your favorite candidate first and if they lose your vote still counts, nothing can be more fair. 

It really does sound great. Anyway my next step after buying into the ideal.is to now look t the criticisms of that until I fully debunk my own premises. Then usually I see if there are responses to those rebuttals and pursue that. 

Sometimes with topics it can go very deep. I fully dive in one way and then th next and it can go back and forth a few times. I really could benefit from a debate because in this instance I couldn't find great responses to the rebuttals for it or criticisms of ranked choice.  Maybe you can. Maybe I start a new thread tonight about this so you have an opportunity to do so in a more relaxed format
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,492
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
But I think it should be you need at least .5% national approval to run (both major parties have 1%; so half of that) and then it's just a RCV
session
This sounds like a good way to maybe take care of some of my criticisms

Topic's author
#15
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@WyIted
Maybe I start a new thread tonight about this so you have an opportunity to do so in a more relaxed format
If you want to do that, that's fine.