DEMOCRATS should NOMINATE LIZ CHENEY for SPEAKER of the HOUSE TOMORROW

Author: oromagi
oromagi
Congress
Republicans
Jan 6th
liz cheney

Posts

Total: 43
#31
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
Perhaps you have a point. Unless something changes the options seem to be rightwing authoritarianism or some fucked up form of Maoism/Marxism. So at this point it is just aligning with the side you think is less likely to specifically genocide you. I am white, so I lean towards hoping the totalitarians on that side win 
#32
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I think the Democrats, as a whole, are still supporters of liberal democracy. There is the small sect of the most extreme progressives and Bernie Sanders, which are socialists, but I don't think there is any mainstream Maoism, Marxism, or MLM. There are proponents of white replacement theory in the main stream Republican party, being said by Lauren Boebert as a politician and Tucker Carlson as a pundit. I think the Republicans are still supporters of liberal democracy, but they're on the cusp.
#33
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
I think the Democrats, as a whole, are still supporters of liberal democracy.
Democracy maybe, liberalism definitely not. You have companies like Google and Twitter who have shown a hatred for liberalism by attacking it's values of free speech. Those liberal values can't just be enshrined in law but also have to be cultural to actually have stuff like a free market of ideals. 

The university's which are raising the next generation are hiveminds that openly discourages diversity of thought. 

As far as white replacement theory is concerned. My understanding is that it is a theory that whites are slowly and unintentionally being replaced with non whites through things such as immigration to white countries being encouraged while immigration of whites to non predominantly white countries don't happen. Whites choosing to reproduce less etc. Maybe my understanding of the theory is incorrect, but if it is correct and those talking about it seems to just talk about those points, why do you think that whites will retain being the majority in the United States, indefinitely?
#34
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1. Liberalism's core value is that we are inherently rights bearing beings. I agree that you can enshrine it in law and make it a cultural value, and I think the United States, as a byproduct of a less than perfect democracy structure from the get-go, is divided culturally and doesn't have a defined identity. However, John Locke, a key liberal thinker said that everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and property". The issue with this, like all ideology, is that there is tension within these points. Property has, writ-large, taken precedence over liberty, and this isn't a failed application of liberalism, but simply one iteration. 
1a. Your conflation with big tech and the Democrats is also inaccurate, so even if you're right that big tech/corporations writ large are subverting liberal (in the philosophical sense) values, this doesn't indict the Democrats.
2. I'm in university, and there is a huge diversity of thought. Every political science class I've taken (that's my major) begins with multiple theoretical frameworks to every issue and how they all interact with different concepts in class. I had a class literally yesterday where we were debating the effectiveness of police, and everyone got credit for participation that day, despite the fact there was people who think the police are over-regulated and scrutinized in the status quo.
3. I've always heard the theory as an intentional replacement by the WEF, Jews, Democrats, etc. If it was unintentional, then there isn't any replacement, but simply demographic changes. I would argue that even if some individuals don't indict a specific actor, it's still a dog whistle for more sinister intentions.
3a. Even if white populations are declining, is this something that is bad? Why is it such a negative talking point unless there is some racialized attempt to keep America white, which is the precursor to fascist movements.
#35
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
Even if white populations are declining, is this something that is bad? Why is it such a negative talking point unless there is some racialized attempt to keep America white, which is the precursor to fascist movements.
I am on a phone and agree with a lot of what you say, so am limiting my response.

I would argue this is bad. We can see what happens with non white societies. They all basically turn into 3rd world shitholes. I think you can even see the same in the United States. When a community goes from predominantly white to predominantly non white. Well then you have Detroit. 

Some people would blame liberal policies being to blame not racial demographics, but if you look at New Hampshire for example, it's predominantly white and liberal and they haven't faced the same issues as black liberal communities. 

I've always heard the theory as an intentional replacement by the WEF, Jews, Democrats, 
I would say the theory is independent of such conclusions, but I have read quite a bit of Jewish periodicals and they seem to all think making European countries, more diverse helps them.

We can also see that maybe Democrats are to blame for some of it as well. For example they know that non whites respond better to identity politics and can play to that, even when it is self contradictory such as with their alliance with conservative Islam and feminists. 

The issue with this, like all ideology, is that there is tension within these points. Property has, writ-large, taken precedence over liberty, and this isn't a failed application of liberalism, but simply one iteration. 
I think John Locke resolves all of that with his theory of negative and positive rights. 

Your conflation with big tech and the Democrats is also inaccurate, so even if you're right that big tech/corporations writ large are subverting liberal (in the philosophical sense)
I think it's reasonable as they seem to respond to liberal talking points and not conservative ones.  For example conservatives were more likely to think we should value freedom over public health and they would often be removed from platforms for stating so. Also it appears posts like "kill all whites" or "no life matters until black lives matter" would stay up indefinitely but posts that advocated for political violence on the right would be removed quickly. 

It certainly seems like big tech is choosing a side. If you only use the Google search engine, it seems like a very clear liberal bias. Just Google any Democrats name and a bunch of sites making positive statements pop up, do the same with any republican and it's a different story. Even if you aren't leftist enough, they will do it also, as we can see with what happened to Tulsi Gabbard.

It really looks like big tech is picking a side here. 
#36
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,158
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@AleutianTexan
First, let me welcome you to the site! Never fear talking about your opinions here


1. We've crossed a divide point where Republicans (as a party, there are individual exceptions) won't allow another Republican to look bad. January 6th is the proof of that. This means that, to heal the divide, we have to move past things of this nature. To be fair, this can't be the only step, and would require election reform and might even be debatably impossible under current ideological differences, the partisan difference reflecting this ideological one. This also works on the notion that everyone wants to preserve liberal democracy.
The question is why? You have to dig deeper? Why do Republicans protect their own and why do Democrats protect their own? It’s because scandals affect the entire party. Look at Nixon, look at Mark Foley. Both sides want to do it.

2. No. The cover-up justifies further action if the goal of the Republican party (once again, as a party and not the individual goals of certain individuals) is to subvert liberal democracy. If that's the goal, then we're lost no matter what. If that isn't the goal, only a risk ignoring the event doesn't further radicalize the Republicans and allows us to come back to a central point.
Liberal democracy can only be upheld if it is fair. There is proof that the the Democratic media covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story. There are known intelligence officials who knew it wasn’t Russian disinformation but still stated that it was.
#37
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@Wylted
I would argue this is bad. We can see what happens with non white societies. They all basically turn into 3rd world shitholes.
I mean, each country has a unique history and set of circumstances that makes it what it is. The argument that race is what makes nations affective or not ignores 3rd world white nations like the Balkans and Eastern Europe, and 1st world non-white nations, like Japan, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates. My counterpoint that would be a more accurate answer would be colonization and racialized foreign policy. Eastern Europe was colonized by the USSR, and therefore, have had resources extracted for so long that they are now behind on the global economic and human development axis. Same with the Balkans, while Japan was an imperial power and benefitted from that. On top of that, rebuilding efforts after WWII were racialized and colonies were not party to the program.
I have read quite a bit of Jewish periodicals and they seem to all think making European countries, more diverse helps them.
The difference is Jewish cabal or a mostly progressive identity group being progressive. Without a specific example of Jewish writers who are pushing for this, I have no reason to buy there is a global conspiracy.
We can also see that maybe Democrats are to blame for some of it as well.
Yeah, but is there any evidence that they are intentionally trying to kill out the white race and replace them, writ large, or just that they're pro immigration because of progressive politics and trying to win on that voting bloc.
I think John Locke resolves all of that with his theory of negative and positive rights. 
Are you saying that we have negative rights against other individuals/institutions? Is this to be enforced by the state? If someone comes in my home and says something I dislike, am I unable to tell them to stop since it is my property? What about my business? What about my online platform?

Lastly, in regard to big tech, conservatives got 9 billion interactions compared to 5 billion for liberals, and conservatives are much more likely to be amplified by the algorithm. This is because conservatives are much more likely to be controversial on online spaces that is more likely dominated by young people, which leads to them having more interactions, which leads to greater amplification.

#38
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@ILikePie5
Thank you! It's nice to meet you!

1. Both sides obviously try to protect themselves from scandal. I don't think this is the root of growing partisan divide, however. I think the cause is a two-party, race to the bottom, single district, representative democracy. The foundational way our democracy works disincentivizes the moderate/non-conservative or non-progressive politics.

2. Sure, accountability in democracy would be nice, but in a two-party system, that is a secondary issue. Both sides will commit scandals,  because a progressive isn't going to shift to the Republican party because of scandal, just as a conservative won't shift to the Democratic party. This means that the greatest way to keep liberal democracy must be keeping both parties sharing similar goals and a joint sense of purpose. 

#39
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Are you saying that we have negative rights against other individuals/institutions? Is this to be enforced by the state? If someone comes in my home and says something I dislike, am I unable to tell them to stop since it is my property? What about my business? What about my online platform?
Yes you mentioned John Locke earlier so I think I am telling you stuff you already know, but they would be enforced by the state. Locke said that the states role was only to protect negative rights. 

Yes to all those questions.

This is because conservatives are much more likely to be controversial on online spaces that is more likely dominated by young people, which leads to them having more interactions, which leads to greater amplification.
Do me a favor. Go on reddit and make 5 clearly right wing posts followed by 5 clearly left posts. You will legitimately be banned on R/politics for example for being a conservative, very downvoted so your opinion is hidden and the echo chamber can stay. 

My experience seems to be very bad on all these big tech platforms. I don't post my opinion usually on them but I certainly see more liberal views in my feed than conservative ones whether that is reddit, Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. I just don't see conservative opinions as much.

Yeah, but is there any evidence that they are intentionally trying to kill out the white race and replace them, writ large, or just that they're pro immigration because of progressive politics and trying to win on that voting bloc.
I wouldn't think it was intentional no. Not in that way anyway. That doesn't remove blame

The difference is Jewish cabal or a mostly progressive identity group being progressive. Without a specific example of Jewish writers who are pushing for this, I have no reason to buy there is a global conspiracy.
I don't see large Jewish publications that lean very conservative or don't feel passionate about being pro immigration. I don't think right wing people are alleging some secret Jewish plot. It's more like just pointing out a particular group is more likely to engage in the particular actions they find harmful to society. 

I mean I am pretty right wing and I don't believe that there is some secret Jewish cabal, but I do see that if you look at the top selling pro immigration books on Amazon, there are a lot of burgs, and witz's and stein's. I don't see white or black academics pushing immigration. 

I spend a lot of time listening to lectures by Rabbis and going on Jewish websites because they often off great commentary on the Christian old testament. It is a popular belief in Jewish communities that they are safer in more diverse countries. I disagree that they are safer, as many are targeted for crimes because they are seen as weak, but they disagree apparently.

My counterpoint that would be a more accurate answer would be colonization and racialized foreign policy.
I guess I would have to learn about those effects to respond. I think South Africa kicked all the white farmers out at some point and all of a sudden the farmers that replaced them were terrible and people were starving and they had to beg white farmers to come back, and it made the news. This is something that sounds simple. You plant seeds and water then, but their culture seems to not be adapted to doing well as farmers or something. 

Again, I would have to see how colonization effected these areas. It would seem to me that there is a lot of evidence that low trust societies just do worse than high trust societies and that these people just don't want to be ethical so they can trust each other and make big things happen.

I would be interested to explore your theory that colonization caused a lot of this if I could be recommended books, documentarues etc. That can get me up to speed 
#40
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,158
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@AleutianTexan
1. Both sides obviously try to protect themselves from scandal. I don't think this is the root of growing partisan divide, however. I think the cause is a two-party, race to the bottom, single district, representative democracy. The foundational way our democracy works disincentivizes the moderate/non-conservative or non-progressive politics.
Couldn’t agree more!

2. Sure, accountability in democracy would be nice, but in a two-party system, that is a secondary issue. Both sides will commit scandals,  because a progressive isn't going to shift to the Republican party because of scandal, just as a conservative won't shift to the Democratic party. This means that the greatest way to keep liberal democracy must be keeping both parties sharing similar goals and a joint sense of purpose. 
Well maybe not scandals, but political realignments have been fairly common throughout the history of our nation
#41
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@ILikePie5
What do you think causes political realignments?
#42
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,158
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@AleutianTexan
What do you think causes political realignments?
Major issues on the ballot, wars, and many other things. Slavery, Civil Rights Act, Vietnam come to mind right away
#43
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you think we're on track for another major realignment?