U.S. Political Parties

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2016, 09:10 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The Supreme Court legalized both nationally. Obama (and Hillary) had the same had the Republican view on gay marriage until supporting it was worth more votes just a view years ago. Many, if not most, of the state that legalized gay marriage before the ruling did so by direct props on a ballot, not through either party.

Why do you keep changing the argument?

There was a clear policy difference between the two parties.  The fact that it was changed by the Supreme CVourt doesn't change that at all.

[fredtoast]

Here is what I am starting to see.

Certain people have certain issues they are passionate about.  Nothing else matters to them except those issues.  so they just don't care if there are huge differences or nnot because they don't think anything matters except the issues that are impoirtant to them.

If they are not gay them same sex marriage is a meaningless issue.  

If they are not female then abortion is a meaningless issue.

If they don't make a million dollars then higher taxes is a meaninless isses.

If their house is not being broken up by earthquakes then fracking is a meaningless issue.

If they don't have a friend or family member in the military then thousands of military deaths and casualties are meaningless to them.

But it doesn't work that way.  You can't just ignore everyone else on earth and claim that your own interests are the only things that matter and the things other people care about are meaningless.

[Bilbo Saggins]

If I'm a billionaire then I can easily afford to fly to another country to marry a man/woman if I want to. I can probably afford to never interact with a homophobe as well.

If I'm a billionaire then I can easily have myself or my significant other fly to another country in order to get an abortion.

If I'm a billionaire then I can safely assume that neither party will affect the tax code to the point where I won't be at the top of the economic ladder, and that there will be opportunities to work the tax code in my favor. I can probably purchase favors from members of either party as well.

If I'm a billionaire then I can move my entire family away from areas that are affected by fracking.

If I'm a billionaire then I can pay anyone in my family/friends circle to work for me instead of joining the military.


I really don't think that anyone with the mentality of a Koch or a Walton really gives two flying farts of a rats butthole about any of the aforementioned issues, and that is why we are allowed to squabble over them. I never said that these issues weren't important, but when you look at issues like climate change or the out of control "defense" industry, it's difficult for me to see them as being on that level of importance.

[6andcounting]

(03-23-2016, 10:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why do you keep changing the argument?

There was a clear policy difference between the two parties.  The fact that it was changed by the Supreme CVourt doesn't change that at all.

The difference between being political against abortion doesn't mean anything if the end result is the same as if Democrats were in power. The difference between being politically for gay marriage means nothing if the end results are the same as if the GOP was in power, save for the Supreme court.

Now with marriage, it's done on a state level, so the president and Congress can't necessary just unban it everywhere. The bigger issue is that Obama and Clinton spend their entire careers as Democrats opposed to gay marriage and only changed when it was worth more votes. At least Cheney had a genuine reason to change his stance and still did so when it would have hurt him more than help him politically.

Also on a state level, some Republicans have passed laws just to make it harder to get abortions without explicitly banning them. In those states, there is something to the differences, but no one is nationally campaigning for overturning Roe vs Wade.

[6andcounting]

(03-23-2016, 10:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is what I am starting to see.

Certain people have certain issues they are passionate about.  Nothing else matters to them except those issues.  so they just don't care if there are huge differences or nnot because they don't think anything matters except the issues that are impoirtant to them.

If they are not gay them same sex marriage is a meaningless issue.  

If they are not female then abortion is a meaningless issue.

If they don't make a million dollars then higher taxes is a meaninless isses.

If their house is not being broken up by earthquakes then fracking is a meaningless issue.

If they don't have a friend or family member in the military then thousands of military deaths and casualties are meaningless to them.

But it doesn't work that way.  You can't just ignore everyone else on earth and claim that your own interests are the only things that matter and the things other people care about are meaningless.

The NAP and idea of liberty cover every one of those things. But unlike left and right squabbling, the NAP and individual liberty calls into question the role of government overall and addressing these issues with a philosophical approach, unlike the parties. Similar to how conservatism and socialism address government (and probably culture to a lesser extent) as a whole with a set of principles and ideas. That's what the NAP and liberty do as well.

[6andcounting]

(03-23-2016, 02:16 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: If I'm a billionaire then I can easily afford to fly to another country to marry a man/woman if I want to. I can probably afford to never interact with a homophobe as well.

If I'm a billionaire then I can easily have myself or my significant other fly to another country in order to get an abortion.

If I'm a billionaire then I can safely assume that neither party will affect the tax code to the point where I won't be at the top of the economic ladder, and that there will be opportunities to work the tax code in my favor. I can probably purchase favors from members of either party as well.

If I'm a billionaire then I can move my entire family away from areas that are affected by tracking.

If I'm a billionaire then I can pay anyone in my family/friends circle to work for me instead of joining the military.


I really don't think that anyone with the mentality of a Koch or a Walton really gives two flying farts of a rats butthole about any of the aforementioned issues, and that is why we are allowed to squabble over them. I never said that these issues weren't important, but when you look at issues like climate change or the out of control "defense" industry, it's difficult for me to see them as being on that level of importance.

This is a great way to put it.

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 03:41 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The difference between being political against abortion doesn't mean anything if the end result is the same as if Democrats were in power. The difference between being politically for gay marriage means nothing if the end results are the same as if the GOP was in power, save for the Supreme court.

So if the parties are exactly the same why are they fighting tothe dreath over the Supreme Court appointment.

The issue of the Supreme Court just proves my point more.

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 02:16 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: I really don't think that anyone with the mentality of a Koch or a Walton really gives two flying farts of a rats butthole about any of the aforementioned issues, and that is why we are allowed to squabble over them. I never said that these issues weren't important, but when you look at issues like climate change or the out of control "defense" industry, it's difficult for me to see them as being on that level of importance

Thank you for proving my point.  If you were not allowed to marry the person you loved then same sex marriage would be more important than military spending.  If you lost your child in a meaningless invasion then avoiding meaningless invasions would be more important to you than climate change.

You have certain priorities that you think are important, but that does not mean you can just define reality based on what you think is important and say everything else is meaningless.

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 03:51 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The NAP and idea of liberty cover every one of those things. But unlike left and right squabbling, the NAP and individual liberty calls into question the role of government overall and addressing these issues with a philosophical approach, unlike the parties. Similar to how conservatism and socialism address government (and probably culture to a lesser extent) as a whole with a set of principles and ideas. That's what the NAP and liberty do as well.

What is the NAP?

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 03:41 PM)6andcounting Wrote:  The bigger issue is that Obama and Clinton spend their entire careers as Democrats opposed to gay marriage and only changed when it was worth more votes.

Actually that is not an issue at all.

How is a democracy supposed to work?  When the will of the people changes then the government is supposed to adapt.

How is an elected official doing what the people want a bad thing?

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2016, 09:12 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Well, is this the tax bracket you were asking about or not? I was asking because I didn't know and therefore couldn't discuss it without clarification.

Then this is a perfect example of "confirmation bias".

You didn't know what I was talking about, but when you did your "research" the only source you could find provided nothing but propaganda specifically designed to fit your opinion that the tax bracket changes were "meaningless".

Perhaps if you broadened your mind (and sources of information) a bit you would see that there are plenty of major differences between the parties.

[fredtoast]

Let me make it clear that I also understand the power and influence wielded by money and large corporations. but that is compleetly different from saying "there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties"

[Bilbo Saggins]

I don't appreciate being made into a straw man. Never once did I say that the issues on which Republicans and Democrats disagree were meaningless, nor did I ever say that they were exactly the same. What I did say was that there are a host of extremely important issues(more than just pet causes-verifiably important issues) where both parties have identical or seemingly very similar stances. For instance, neither party seems to want to take action on the archaic electoral college system that allowed George W. to be elected, counter to the will of the people. I listed out a host of other issues on which the two parties seem to be comfortable ignoring in my first post. I don't see how wanting a greater variety of opinions being expressed in the American political scene has anything to do with re-defining reality or declaring anything else to be "meaningless." I feel that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree about how significant the policy differences between the two parties are at this point, but I don't see how anyone can completely deny that both parties share certain traits such as hawkishness, subservience to business, and anti-democratic traditions(see: Democrat super delegates and the GOP methodology for selecting a candidate).

[fredtoast]

(03-23-2016, 05:31 PM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: I don't appreciate being made into a straw man. Never once did I say that the issues on which Republicans and Democrats disagree were meaningless, nor did I ever say that they were exactly the same.

Sorry Bilbo.  I just lumped you and 6andcounting together.