CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
You asked about the fact the DNC was too right for me. I pointed out the fact it was a major part of the election with them sabotaging Bernie and losing those voters to Trump.
Trump wins
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Carbon Dated and Proud
You asked about the fact the DNC was too right for me. I pointed out the fact it was a major part of the election with them sabotaging Bernie and losing those voters to Trump.
Ah, well. Still better than Clinton, amirite?
And what does that have to do with the DNC being right wing?
Ragemage
Wept for Zion
First of all, I'm a bisexual and I voted for Trump/Pence. Pence has nothing to do with "electro-gay-conversion therapy". http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/ He lets his state have the right on whether they're going to keep it or not. I'm okay with that. If we let women freely abort babies now, why can't we also let people decide whether they want to be converted out of being gay or not? It's only fair. It's about choice. Now of course what isn't okay is when parents can force their kids into gay-conversion therapy, but Pence didn't support that either.
So you want Anarchy (as you said in a previous thread), but you also want Bernie, the Socialist, aka the type of government that gets MOST involved with peoples' lives? Yeah, that makes sense. Top notch.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
He was the Bernie Sanders of the GOP, period. That was why a great many people voted for him. Progressives might have voted for him just to stick it to Hillary who knows.
Instead of free shit, he was antii-illegal immigration with a touch of anti-legal immigration. Instead of liberal PC, he was a say anything candidate. Instead of playing fair like Hill wants, he wants economic warfare, like protectionism and tariffs.
Bernie Sanders free shit pandering opened the floodgates and brought the dems a HYUGE influx of potential voters. This kind of cheap shit play did not go un-noticed by the right, who were desperate and willing to do anything to keep the oval office out of democratic hands. Desperate enough, in the end, to fight fire with fire and force the resignation of rational minds in favor of an equally powerful, populist demagogue.
Last edited:
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I'll take your word on Pence, @Ragemage. Lord knows I could use some good news, though I'm not a doom and gloomer--I don't think Trump is inherently worse than George W. Bush and I voted for him in the first election.
I'm a believer in Anarchist Law, which basically is the view of creating the maximized amount of freedom requires, ironically a regulatory body to prevent a power vacuum being created which will result in the disappearance of those freedoms. I believe government services are no worse than privatized ones and can be regulated better. I also believe in tearing down existing government structures to build ones which function better for modern voters. Anarchy is a tool rather than a goal. Maximized freedom and prosperity for all is the goal.
Which I should note has resulted in me being labeled a Leftist Socialist (Theistic) versus a Anarchist but I'm uncomfortable with that label given its history of abuse by authoritarian regimes and totalitarian apologists. My view is the government should be able to provide services but be very weak and let people decide for themselves on how they treat themselves, believe, or live.
I'm a believer in Anarchist Law, which basically is the view of creating the maximized amount of freedom requires, ironically a regulatory body to prevent a power vacuum being created which will result in the disappearance of those freedoms. I believe government services are no worse than privatized ones and can be regulated better. I also believe in tearing down existing government structures to build ones which function better for modern voters. Anarchy is a tool rather than a goal. Maximized freedom and prosperity for all is the goal.
Which I should note has resulted in me being labeled a Leftist Socialist (Theistic) versus a Anarchist but I'm uncomfortable with that label given its history of abuse by authoritarian regimes and totalitarian apologists. My view is the government should be able to provide services but be very weak and let people decide for themselves on how they treat themselves, believe, or live.
Yea I'm a believer in unlimited free market communism ;^)
You believe in a fucking oxymoron. You're literally sounding like you're advocating either A: A paradoxical system taht destroys itself or B: literal old school marxist revolutionary shit which you just gotta look at every single country that did that to find out how shit it is.
Ragemage
Wept for Zion
That sounds more like a Confederacy to me. Central government that has to supply support to all members of the Confederacy, but it's very very weak, and states hold most of the power, . Hm..
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
To give you the same arguments I have with many of my fellow anarchist associates (which gets me growls or insults), you can't be free unless basic needs and protections are guaranteed. Freedom is up the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, not at the bottom.
Probably because what you're desciribing is the opposite of anarchy.
And so there needs to be a government to provide those needs and protections?
an·ar·chism
ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
- belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Actually, the State is kind of the annoying branch of the government since if the government is going to interfere in your lives, it's almost certainly going to be the State which does that. The State vs. Federal government conflict is one which I think is a false dichotomy because I don't think people realize that state government is still the size of most nations in the world and has a massive amount of power to screw with you.
How to weaken the state and guarantee protections for people from it is, is one of the holes in American government that is ironically best handled by the Supreme Court. For example, their overturning of the ban on homosexual marriage--which is a classic example of the State sticking their nose into matters which don't concern it.
To use a Bioshock example, I'd have loved to live in Rapture but for the fact the lack of a safety net and focus on unlimited economic "freedom" (plus Ryan's repression of religious freedom) laid the foundation for a tyranny of the state arising as well as a revolution which would only destroy what had been built.
Last edited:
What the fuck are you even talking about now? Of course the state is going to effect your lives more IF YOU LIVE IN THE FUCKING STATE. The point is people aren't the same in every single state so states should be able to pick and chose certain things that suit them instead of the federal government butting in and forcing something on them they don't want and might not work for them. It's not a fucking false dichotomy (do you even know what that means?). The Federal government is taking away certain rights and decisions from the States and forcing others on them. Seriously I have never met someone who had no fucking clue about what they were talking about than you. It's Goddamn embarrassing.
Now you're just being fucking stupid. You just admited teh State effects the average persons life more. You know why? BECAUSE ITS EASIER TO VOTE AT A STATE LEVEL FOR SPECIFIC THINGS YOU WANT IN YOUR STATE. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was the one sticking it's nose into matters which don't concern it by FORCING every
single state to automatically follow a law on an issue that's very decisive and is a moral issue for a lot of people even if the majority of people there didn't want it.
Ragemage
Wept for Zion
Except that gay marriage does concern the state. If we were in an actual Confederacy the state would have full rights to decide on whether gay marriage should be legal or not. That's a state right, whether you agree with it or not. In a Confederacy there would be no federal government to overturn the law like that.
For that matter a Confederacy is the only type of government that's actually close to organized anarchy, you can't get any closer than that. There's one small, very very weak central government represented by all members of the Confederacy but it basically has no power unless all of the confederate members decide on it unanimously. But while the Federal government may be weak in a Confederacy, it's the individual states/provinces/what have you that get to decide how they're going to run things and each one will come with its very own set of rules. It's practically like seperate countries, just united under a single roof. They still provide for themselves however.
And who said I was talking about the United States' Confederacy? There's plenty other examples in history to choose from.
Yes, your extreme retardation and lack of basic knowledge on anything is mind warping.
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
MMMmmmmmmsoooooosaaaaaltyyyyy
SALT
SALT
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
That's the problem, basically, yeah and why I can't support Confederacy. Checks and balances are the primary tools to keeping the Federal government in place and the FG is necessary (however weak) to keeping the States to themselves. The Constitution is great but adding to it to make sure more states can't interfere in local matters of freedom would be better, IMHO.
It's not perfect but it seems like the best solution I can come up with.
Basically, I believe you need the Federal government and C&B to keep from states turning into smaller countries.