The GQP Thread: I'm even sick of that ****** number and, anyway, he's gone (for now)

[Kepler]

Haven't read it, but I see it's on the shelf at our city library, so I'll pick it up.

All of Ionesco is amazing.

[Kepler]

Another principled conservative.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

What always gets me are the otherwise-moderates (you know, like me) who don't see Trump and Trumpism for what it is and just dig in further to that side.

I've learned over the years that a majority of people who call themselves "moderate" don't necessarily hold moderate views (not saying this is you). They might be moderate within the spectrum of their circle of friends, but let's say they attend a very conservative church or they are ex-military. In that case they are probably solidly conservative and some of their friends are full-on nutso. Such people just don't want to identify as conservative to strangers and acquaintances because they (rightfully) fear confrontation, mocking, and retaliation from people they don't know very well. It's kind of like how the definition of "libertarian" has been twisted over the decades as the far-right has adopted the terms "conservative-libertarian" and "conservatarian" as a way of distorting language to temper and thinly veil their fascist bullsh*t.

Self-Proclaimed Moderate: "I'm a moderate - I don't believe in shoving gays back into the closet (though I wish they'd tone their parades down), and I think there should be rape/incest exceptions for abortion restrictions. Fck those lazy welfare queens though, they should get a job and stop living off my tax dollars!"

[Kepler]

I think most moderates are just longing for consensus. The actual policy matters less to them than that we cool it on the demonization of neighbors over small differences. In normal times, that is laudable and helps hold society together.

The bug is: what happens when one side actually is a demon? Then you get false equivalency, and so-called "moderation" becomes tacit consent for the side which keeps on becoming more and more extreme. Right now our two major parties are the Eisenhower Republicans vs the Dump Fascists. The "moderate" position is a shade to the left of the former.

[RaceBoarder]

The problem is that true "moderates" get attacked from both sides in the current political climate. So they just keep quiet.

[Swansong]

One of my issues - as a self-described moderate and (small "l") libertarian has been that I don't have meek views on most things, in fact I have pretty strong opinions on most things (imagine that!). They just don't necessarily line up with the binary liberal/conservative mode. And as others have mentioned, the right has taken libertarianism hostage and bastardized it into something it absolutely isn't (liberty for me, not for you).

My general views on low taxation and smaller government require fewer laws but vigorous enforcement - and sadly that simply is impossible in a realpolitik way.

[Kepler]

The problem is that true "moderates" get attacked from both sides in the current political climate. So they just keep quiet.

Maybe, but:

(1) political involvement means you are going to be attacked, and
(2) moderation is not the average of the two parties. If one party favors lynching black people and the other favors crucifiying them but only after a trial, the moderate position is still "don't kill black people."

[Kepler]

My general views on low taxation and smaller government require fewer laws but vigorous enforcement - and sadly that simply is impossible in a realpolitik way.

That was my view before I transformed into a menacing, glowering socialist. What turned the trick for me was the realization that to have true equality of opportunity requires high taxation, at least on the rich, and large government. With low taxation and small government you have an amusement park for people who win the birth lottery and a prison for those who don't. That unfairness was too much for me.

[burd]

I've learned over the years that a majority of people who call themselves "moderate" don't necessarily hold moderate views (not saying this is you). They might be moderate within the spectrum of their circle of friends, but let's say they attend a very conservative church or they are ex-military. In that case they are probably solidly conservative and some of their friends are full-on nutso. Such people just don't want to identify as conservative to strangers and acquaintances because they (rightfully) fear confrontation, mocking, and retaliation from people they don't know very well. It's kind of like how the definition of "libertarian" has been twisted over the decades as the far-right has adopted the terms "conservative-libertarian" and "conservatarian" as a way of distorting language to temper and thinly veil their fascist bullsh*t.

Self-Proclaimed Moderate: "I'm a moderate - I don't believe in shoving gays back into the closet (though I wish they'd tone their parades down), and I think there should be rape/incest exceptions for abortion restrictions. Fck those lazy welfare queens though, they should get a job and stop living off my tax dollars!"

Labels like that are useful for identifying adversaries in times of conflict, but not for much else, for at least two reasons: They are usually overbroad, and they perspective-driven and we are subject to biases when we apply them.

That's why people who put labels on other groups are morons.

[Kepler]

That's why people who put labels on other groups are morons.

I see what you did there.

[Kepler]

Many Nazis would have a non-Nazi friend, but more non-Nazis would not have a Nazi friend.

Go figure.

[French Rage]

Many Nazis would have a non-Nazi friend, but more non-Nazis would not have a Nazi friend.

Go figure.

It's almost like one of the sides is more capable of good judgement.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Many Nazis would have a non-Nazi friend, but more non-Nazis would not have a Nazi friend.

Go figure.

So much for the "tolerant" left! ;-)

[MichVandal]

My general views on low taxation and smaller government require fewer laws but vigorous enforcement - and sadly that simply is impossible in a realpolitik way.

In an more ideal world, that would be awesome.

But history has shown that corporations are not capable of looking out for anyone but themselves, which is the source for the gross majority of all laws and regulations. Actually, the same can be said of individuals- where the rich don't actually pay their fair share of taxes, especially when you look at how much of their fortune is based on the United States of America (defense, infrastructure, education, etc.).

And when you look at actual enforcement of the laws is hardly balanced- both from a racial and monetary standpoint, well....

I appreciate your ideal look at the country, though.

[Slap Shot]

https://twitter.com/RightWingCope/st...214789637?s=20

Right Wing Cope @RightWingCope ? 26m
Tucker Carlson wants a camera to be installed in every classroom so people can make sure critical race theory isn’t being taught. Very creepy.

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/stat...777425920?s=20

Bill Kristol @BillKristol ? 16m
“Republicans don't want to help Biden succeed; they want to make every effort to ensure his failure. They don't want to govern; they're desperate to stop Democrats from governing. With Biden in office, the GOP has a guiding principle: Failure is the goal.”

The actual story.