"Republicans" confuse me, contraindications in beliefs.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Apr 14, 2017.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    "Republicans" confuse me, contraindications in beliefs.

    Republicans manta is all about the constitution and its strict limits.
    If it is not EXplicitly written in the Constitutions, the powers reside in state, then local.
    That is one of the chief arguments against parts of ACA (mandate, market place), and environmental laws saying this oversteps the powers written in the Constitution.

    Interesting discussion about Leonard Leo, who picked the last 4 Republican Justices.
    The Gun debate is another example, where despite heinous crimes conservatives refuse to add or modify any law to further hinder anyone from getting a gun citing the 2ed Amendment.

    Discussions in here I see by conservative poster consistently say "stay out" to the Fed Gov, even not getting involved in conflict overseas. Even laws on violent crime are state and local.
    I totally get that, we do not want a Big Brother government.


    HOWEVER there are plenty of issues where the Republicans do everything they can to create Federal Laws for individual decisions, laws I expect should be left to states.

    In North Carolina the HB2 "bathroom bill" was largely reversed, except the right to dictate who has the power to regulate bathroom usage is still held by the state, not local (or even private?). While it is state's decision, why insist on controlling bathroom use, and cause trouble if issues on Porta Potty use comes up? Sounds exactly like Big Gov at state level.

    And of course there is the debate about abortion, something that originated by religions groups. Again Leonard Leo discussion above where on one hand he is strict constitutionalist, strict interpretation, but on other hand does everything he can to forward an anti-abortion agenda.
    Now Leo is being IMplicit, meaning if it is not specified in the law, it is an implied law, which is 180 opposite to what I think is a conservative is.

    Tomi Lahren is a conservative voice on The Blaze, however she recently said abortion should be right of individual, something in line with Libertarians. Yet she was abruptly silenced for saying a debatable point, once again a contradiction between the limits of government but then using the federal government to control actions of specific demographics.


    Also these rifts also about cutting taxes vs cutting spending, which are different focus on budget depending on who you ask.


    So which is it?
     
  2. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #2
    The traditional Republican party is no more. It's time for a rewrite, including their beliefs as a party, and the planks on the platform upon which they stand.
     
  3. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #3
    If there is a single characteristic the GOP gives lip service to it's conservative Christian constituents. Now is the GOP leadership real bible thumpers? I tend to think it's more of a mechanism to hold onto power.
     
  4. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #4
    That is what GOP is holding on to even exist.
    But that is also source of the deep schism between Libertarian and Evangelical, as mentioned in OP.

    It may also be the Evangelicals who support action in Syria, and Libertines don't (half guess)
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    Humans are inherently contradictory in their beliefs. I know I am.

    I'd actually be more baffled by someone who held firmly to a principle such as "state's rights" and never wavered regardless of the circumstances. While that could be interpreted as consistent, it could easily become rigid and dogmatic.

    I personally prefer a little flexibility.
     
  6. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #6
    The sad thing is that neither the Democrats nor the GOP are standing up for liberties (or at least the liberties that don't involve ammunition and weapons) or for the average person. Instead the stand up for special interests and the rich because a large proportion of the US public won't pull their finger out and vote, let alone vote in an educated way.
     
  7. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #7
    You could title this thread "Democrats are easily confused".
     
  8. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #8
    Republicans have a blind eye to their own policies and past statements at times. Which is why they condemn things in Obama that they don't in Trump. Trump himself has these contradictions and hypocrisy too. For things he does now, you can almost always find a tweet in the past that was condemning it earlier.

    It's rather bizarre.
     
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    Trump is another thing altogether. He's turned inconsistency into a way of life. A little inconsistency is the sign of an agile mind, but his level veers into pathology and mental illness.
     
  10. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #10
    If there is any at all, there is not enough punishment and consequence for politicians being hypocrites.

    I'm not against a politician changing their position based on new evidence or persuasive argument, but GOP leaders like McConnel and Ryan are just plain two-faced.

    I would think the punishment is not being re-elected, but for some reason their voters don't care that their representatives do the opposite of what they preach.
     
  11. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #11
    Not all conservatives are in favor of smaller government. Just like not every liberal is in favor of bigger government. It's not that confusing.
     
  12. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #12
    Religion needs to be eviscerated from the party.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    Never happen. You'll just need to get used to it.
     
  14. BoneDaddy Suspended

    BoneDaddy

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    Are you willing to cuff your hands behind your back, every time you leave the house?
     
  15. Strider64 macrumors regular

    Strider64

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Location:
    Suburb of Detroit
    #15
    I'm a conservative who has a lot of centralist views that is why I would love to embrace the Libertarian Party, but they keep on nominating whack-a-doodles like Gary Johnson. The Republican party in my opinion is being ruined by what I call bible thumpers and before anyone gets on my case I'll state I have nothing against religion. What I'm against is someone else trying to force their beliefs down my throat. An that is what these Republican Bible thumpers do. I notice a lot of top notch Republicans (not all) have to get their blessing (endorsement) before they can do anything.
     
  16. statik13 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    #16
    What does that mean? b/c the wayI read it you just proved PracticalMac's point.
     
  17. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #17
    The American political system distributes power in various manners, but provides significant rewards to any group which can attract the support of the majority of voters. Therefore, it creates a paradox: people holding the strongest political philosophies have the greatest drive to enter government and get things done; but voters have any number of differing political philosophies. A party that holds fast to one specific philosophy necessarily must give up the support of the majority of voters. A party that attempts to support multiple philosophies at once can attract more voters, providing a majority (and therefore, power); but the inconsistencies between the philosophies can stymie forward progress on any one particular philosophy (and eventually rip the party apart).

    The Democrats famously gained significant power during the Clinton era thanks to "triangulation", which explicitly melded multiple philosophies together. Republicans in recent years have effectively tried to become a "big tent" party themselves, by combining far-right elements (e.g., the Tea Party) and populist elements (e.g., Trump) into their base of support. This has been extremely successful, handing real power to the Republicans for the first time in a very long time.

    However, the party is now fracturing, due to the natural inconsistencies between the beliefs of the different elements of the party. Thus, their "agenda" is not making it through the Congress, because they haven't been able to settle on a single (compromise) agenda. Whether they manage to forge an internal alliance or eventually break apart has yet to be seen.

    Ultimately, I think this system works fairly well. People tend to focus all their attention on the actual members of Congress or the President, but the real work in American politics takes place in the various political parties. If a party can (a) support a wide range of political philosophies and (b) find a workable compromise agenda between those philosophies, real progress can be made. And finding a workable compromise between the citizens of a nation is how that nation survives.
     
  18. BoneDaddy Suspended

    BoneDaddy

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    It means that more people are killed with hands, than guns. If you have a principal, you have to go full on with that principal. You can't just abandon the principal when the logic breaks down.

    You want to make it harder for me to get a gun and have an equal footing in defending my family against someone ELSE with a gun, well than you have to cuff your hands behind your back in public, to make it harder for YOU, since you believe in making it hard for people to defend themselves, because other people misuse that mode of self defense.
     
  19. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #19
    As much garbage as BoneDaddy is known for posting, he makes a solid point. Gun laws, regardless of how strict they are or rather overreaching, will never ever stop someone hellbent on killing or maiming others. If people honestly believe criminals use their own guns that they purchased and registered, then they're very clueless about how these things work.

    That said, in terms of domestic violence, I would not be surprised to learn that physical abuse that results in individuals killed or severely maimed is in greater number than gun related crimes where one or more individual suffer physically.
     
  20. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #20
    Well according to the NRA you are more likely to get hit by lightening so I will buy you a grounded helmet. Now I want to know where in the bible is it OK to go around armed?
     
  21. BoneDaddy Suspended

    BoneDaddy

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    I thumbed up your post, but I can't find the middle finger emoji.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 16, 2017 ---
    The fact that you have to ASK "where in the bible", goes to show that you haven't bothered to LOOK. It's in there numerous times and I've posted it on this forum. Seeing as though I didn't make that claim, in this thread, I am not bound by the rules to do the work FOR you and answer your question. However, you are MORE than welcome to educate yourself. Will you?
     
  22. Zenithal Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #22
    How feisty of you.
     
  23. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #23
    Hmm. I seem to recall a certain "David" shot a certain "Goliath" in the head using a projectile weapon. Also, there was an anecdote about when Jesus was being arrested, his apostle Peter used a sword to slice off the ear of one of the men taking Jesus away.

    I haven't really studied the bible myself, but to my knowledge it is pretty jam-packed with blood & guts stories. From angels of death to plagues to giant man-eating whales to torture devices where you nail people to two planks of wood. Very very violent book.
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    The logic and the science is that there'd be fewer people killed with hands than killed with guns.

    You're not going to have the same number of people killed by hands.
     
  25. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #25
    actually I have. of course the old testament but Jesus? there is a lot of debate on that. but I don't think anywhere in the new testament it talks about walking around with a sore strapped to your back at all times now does it? it is an American thing.
     

Share This Page