A Philosophical Debate.....the GOP's ideology

[sirs]

Professor xo claims "I totally disagree with the basic premise of the GOP, it is not just the individuals they tend to run, it is their ideology that sucks because it is undemocratic, unfair and unAmerican."

I'd seriously love to know what exactly in the GOP, is
- Undemocratic
- Unfair
and my favorire
- UnAmerican

Keeping in mind that the GOP is more a party more than an ideological movement, like Conservativism or the Tea Party.  Just would like to know how these dots supposedly connect

(Will get to the left's laundry list of unfair & unamerican at a latter time)

[Xavier_Onassis]

Undemocratic: people are prevented from voting by any trick they can devise.

Unfair:some people like mutual fund managers at a paltry 15% rate while  others are taxed at up to 30%. People are told to educate themselves, but state governments have increased tuition at public colleges huge amounts. If not for Obamacare, people could be denied insurance based on pre existing conditions, causing them to to choose bankruptcy or death,and sometimes they got both.

UnAmerican because this is supposed to be a country with great social mobility, but in the last 30 years, European social mobility has been far greater. University education is free of charge in much of Western and Northern Europe.

This country was built on the principle that there should be no privileged nobility when in fact no one can run for office without making deals with an entrenched class of 1%ers that can, and do,  buy elections.

If you start ranting about how the "left" is unfair, you will be straying from the topic. This is not about why anyone should favor the left, but why they should not favor the GOP.

[Plane]

Undemocratic: people are prevented from voting by any trick they can devise.

Calumny sheer calumny.

When Georgia began making the voter ID requirement stick, they caught a few thousand trying to vote improperly.

But never found one with standing to sue.

The distressing lack of victims is handicapping the Democratic complaint process.

Luckily ,  it can be run with no evidence at all for quite a while.

[Plane]

This country was built on the principle that there should be no privileged nobility when in fact no one can run for office without making deals with an entrenched class of 1%ers that can, and do,  buy elections.

   This is bugging me too, but I don't consider it a feature of the Republican platform.

     I hope Dr. Carson does well, this would flummox a lot of big spenders.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The voter prevention stuff I was referring to is the part where people who have changed their addresses were turned away from the precincts in which they were registered, the cutting of early voting facilities and hours, and the lack of adequate staff.

I do not think that Ben Carson has any chance whatever of getting the nomination. He does not have the money, and he says annoying things to get attention, just like Ted Cruz, who also will fall by the wayside. People do not want an annoying president.

[Plane]

The voter prevention stuff I was referring to is the part where people who have changed their addresses were turned away from the precincts in which they were registered, the cutting of early voting facilities and hours, and the lack of adequate staff.

I do not think that Ben Carson has any chance whatever of getting the nomination. He does not have the money, and he says annoying things to get attention, just like Ted Cruz, who also will fall by the wayside. People do not want an annoying president.

     A president that annoys someone is inevitable, any effective politician is going to annoy a lot of people.

    The basic principle is that annoying you is alright, annoying me is not.


      People do not know that the voting registers require a current address?
      If this is not common enough knowledge then it behooves the Democratic party to pass this knowledge along.
       Not Republican party though, for some reason , every feature or requirement of the voting process that gives advantage to energy, knowledge, common sense or intelligence is supposed to be giving advantage to the Republican side. 

      It can be hard to find better compliments than that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The difficulty it not that people do not know that voting requires a current address, it is that people move and do not change their address on their ID cards and then are entirely disqualified from voting at all. People who own their homes are more prosperous and move much less often. Poorer people rent and move much more frequently. That also temd to have the sort of jobs where they cannot take time off to change their address,

[Plane]

       

      Now you are insulting Republican voters by claiming that they are more successful at jobs, finance and homeownership.

       Stop,,, stop,,,, these insults are so hard to hear,

[Xavier_Onassis]

I get to insult anyone I damned well choose.

Of course any politician is bound to annoy people. But Carson and Cruz say things to DELIBERATELY annoy people. That's different.
It is the difference between Johny Carson and  Don Rickels. Carson and Cruz are more like Rickles. Or take the Queen of Annoyance, Ann Coulter.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I own my own modest home free and clear, I attained three college degrees with only minor help from the government, and   have figured out how to use the stock market to generate income most of the time without much effort, and I have enjoyed good health and not addicted to anything. This probably describes many Republican voters. The difference between me and them is that I realize that I have accomplished what I have done because I was lucky, and I recognize that many Americans are NOT so lucky. All it would have taken is one bad decision about what to major in, one catastrophic accident, one of many degenerative diseases and I would have none of what I have attained.  Republicans as a group tend to think that their good fortune is due exclusively to hard work, clever decisions and Jeezus, and that if everyone were like them, they would also enjoy the same benefits. They believe this because they do not recognize reality.

[Plane]

  Have you ever thought that perhaps one fewer Republican administration might have prevented some of your good luck?

     Speculation is fun , but proof is not expected.

      All we can do is explain some of the foundations of some of our opinions, which is even more interesting when it is very different.

     It is my opinion that a President McGovern or a President Mondale or a President Edwards would have been a fully fledged disaster and nest eggs small and large would be reduced across the board.

        When the Democrats are in power they seem to accelerate the central planning aspect of our economy, rope more of the economy into the government and handicap entrepreneurship more than Republicans do.

         Not to say that I haven't been disappointed in a Republican now and then. They do a bit of the same even when they promise less.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not think that presidents have much to do with the sort of investment that I make in the market. Perhaps it might have influenced my newsletter to suggest that I buy this mutual fund instead of that one, but the market will always run on fear and greed. I vote my beliefs and a invest as my newsletter suggests. I have had three years out of thirty in which I ended up on Dec 31 with less than the preceding Jan. 1st.

Capitalism is a tool and the only one that I have for investing money, so I use it the best that I can. I did fine during the Clinton years. Condi's poor performance as National Security Adviser caused me to have a really bad 2001.

I would REALLY have preferred a President McGovern. But that was before I started investing in serious. I started my present system in 1983.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The one of the worst parts of the Republican "philosophy" is that somehow lowering taxes on the very rich results in higher tax collections.
Then there is the part that says that people who contract expensive diseases or injured in accidents are irresponsible for going broke because they did not buy more insurance. Not that most of them had that option.

[Plane]

The one of the worst parts of the Republican "philosophy" is that somehow lowering taxes on the very rich results in higher tax collections.

I don't know why you would say somehow , this has worked and is well understood.

Could you explain how the government is supposed to run better by exempting 50% of us from its cost?

[Plane]

   Then there is the part that says that people who contract expensive diseases or injured in accidents are irresponsible for going broke because they did not buy more insurance. Not that most of them had that option.

    Actually, shouldn't adults in a free country have the option of buying more or less or none as they see fit?
     Is there sufficient gain in security, to be worthy of the loss of freedom?