Why My Friend "S." Is A Republican

[Sapiens]

Please provide a list of Democrats that defected to the Republican party over this issue, because I personally am only aware of only one. That sounds like an anomaly rather than a pattern, Democrats propagate this lie ad nauseum, but it is a lie. The past context of the Republican Party is also irrelevant in now that it is taking a largely center-right disposition because it is courting those voters that the Dems and the Libertarian Party are disinterested in them - I doubt this pattern will change drastically because it is a winning strategy. The Republican Party of _now_ is basically under new management, with new ideas, and is far more tolerant than say twenty years ago. Thinking that there is some tie in is like drawing a line from slavery to the Democratic party and not paying attention to the 100+years since.

As far as who would be what now issues, we can play that game forever. It's just disingenuous to some degree to assert we'd have any freaking clue what they'd be into in a modern context. I prefer to instead simply respect their values in the context of their time, and worry about my own.

You're way out of line. Here's a start of a list of Dixiecrats who went Republican whom you did not know about ... I'm sure there are more:

• Orval Fabus

• Benjamin Travis Laney

• John Stennis

• James Eastland

• Allen Ellender

• Russell Long

• John Sparkman

• John McClellan

• Richard Russell

• Herman Talmadge

• George Wallace

• Lester Maddox

• John Rarick

• Robert Byrd

• Al Gore, Sr.

• Bull Connor

• Strom Thurmon

• Jesse Helms

• Mills Godwin

 

[Curious George]

My friend is not a "conservative". And I was not implying that his view of reality is conservative.

His view of reality is Darwinian. Not conservative. He believes that the rich and powerful have always, and will always, take what they want, and do whatever suits them to the rest of us. Therefor, wherever one is in the socio-economic pecking order, they'd better learn to serve the criminals over them if they don't want to become their next victim.

I think there is a miscommunication here. Why do you believe that I was talking about your friend?

 

[dfnj]

How does this relate to my very specific point?

It probably doesn't. I'm just grinding my axes.

 

[dfnj]

You're way out of line. Here's a start of a list of Dixiecrats who went Republican

A Republican form New Jersey is further to the left than a Democrat from North Carolina. Parties exist to prevent change of the status quo.

 

[Enoch07]

This is exactly what my friend believes.

If you observe the situation objectively you would see both sides have corruption and acknowledge it. But both sides seem to want to play this tribalist game of "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys".

 

[PureX]

If you observe the situation objectively you would see both sides have corruption and acknowledge it. But both sides seem to want to play this tribalist game of "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys".

You seem to want to debate something that I didn't post for debate. I simply made an observation about someone I know. And I have added that this observation seems to hold true for a few other republican supporters I know: namely that they were abused growing up by people who had power over them, and who were supposed to be taking care of them, and so they have adopted a very amoral, Darwinian view of the world, as a result. And this is why they support the republican party no matter how bad their candidates, and why they despise the democratic party no matter how good their candidates. They see the democrats as fools, and liars. While they see the republicans as representing the reality of the world: boundless greed, lust for power, the abuse of power, blatant selfishness, and so on.

 

[Enoch07]

You seem to want to debate something that I didn't post for debate. I simply made an observation about someone I know. And I have added that this observation seems to hold true for a few other republican supporters I know: namely that they were abused growing up by people who had power over them, and who were supposed to be taking care of them, and so they have adopted a very amoral, Darwinian view of the world, as a result. And this is why they support the republican party no matter how bad their candidates, and why they despise the democratic party no matter how good their candidates. They see the democrats as fools, and liars. While they see the republicans as representing the reality of the world: boundless greed, lust for power, the abuse of power, blatant selfishness, and so on.

No debate to be had. Just as you made an observation, so have I. The only difference is my observation is objective, because I examine both sides and apply the same scrutiny.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you observe the situation objectively you would see both sides have corruption and acknowledge it. But both sides seem to want to play this tribalist game of "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys".

One really can't reason with them.
The best they can do is...
"But they're worse!"

 

[PureX]

A Republican form New Jersey is further to the left than a Democrat from North Carolina. Parties exist to prevent change of the status quo.

Thus, they are all "conservative". Because that's the definition of a "conservative": one who seeks to maintain and protect (conserve) the status quo.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've seen people from abusive families swing both ways. I think there's more correlation with conservatism and rural poverty, and silicon valley bros for republicans who want to smoke pot (aka libertarians) around here.
The most conservative friend I have is a gay woman from a tiny tiny town in Eastern Oregon. She rooted for Bernie then for Trump. Pretty much the only thing that differentiated her from tea partiers is her stance on gay marriage.
She also is the worst kind of gun nut. The sort that says she needs a gun for personal safety but doesn't practice a lick of gun safety. But that's for another thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thus, they are all "conservative". Because that's the definition of a "conservative": one who seeks to maintain and protect (conserve) the status quo.

That's only one definition among several.
And when the status quo is something like Obamacare, liberals are the "conservative" ones.
But liberals aren't so "liberal" when they want more restrictions on behavior.
So tis best to use the most appropriate definition for the context.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've seen people from abusive families swing both ways. I think there's more correlation with conservatism and rural poverty, and silicon valley bros for republicans who want to smoke pot (aka libertarians) around here.
The most conservative friend I have is a gay woman from a tiny tiny town in Eastern Oregon. She rooted for Bernie then for Trump. Pretty much the only thing that differentiated her from tea partiers is her stance on gay marriage.
She also is the worst kind of gun nut. The sort that says she needs a gun for personal safety but doesn't practice a lick of gun safety. But that's for another thread.

You might be surprised how many Tea Partiers are pro gay marriage.
Every single one I know is. Might just be where I live, eh?

 

[YmirGF]

My friend is not an odious person, though he thinks and behaves despicably, politically. He has a great sense of humor, is generous to his friends, and is an exceptionally honest person. And we have been friends for more than 20 years.

What is amusing is that he likely sees your political stance as equally toxic. You can almost imagine his post on another forum describing you! LOLz.

 

[PureX]

That's only one definition among several.

Yes, words morph with use. What's being called "conservative" in America these days is actually a radicalized form social darwinism. Which is why it attracts the racists and fascist extremists. The "might/white-makes-right" crowd.

And when the status quo is something like Obamacare, liberals are the "conservative" ones.

Obama was a very conservative president. That's true. And "Obamacare" (the ACA) was just a bandaid that corrupt democrats came up with when they couldn't summon the courage to defy their corporate lobbyist masters and set up a real national healthcare system.

But liberals aren't so "liberal" when they want more restrictions on behavior.

What behavior do you see "liberals" wanting to be restricted?

So tis best to use the most appropriate definition for the context.

Well, now that we've had over 30 years of deliberate linguistic abuse and misrepresentation by both politicians and the media, that has become a fairly difficult task. The term "obamacare" being used to describe a 25 year old republican idea of health care reform, intent on forcing us all to buy private health insurance from their cronies in the insurance industry, for example.

 

[PureX]

What is amusing is that he likely sees your political stance as equally toxic. You can almost imagine his post on another forum describing you! LOLz.

He would describe me as a "bleeding heart" liberal fool. Someone who's too idealistic for the world I'm living in. Someone who can't accept that we humans are pathologically selfish and greedy. And that we're capable of sacrificing each other's well-being to serve our own, without a second thought.

 

[Revoltingest]

What behavior do you see "liberals" wanting to be restricted?

Referring to modern liberals (N Americastanian usage), a great many of them would restrict speech, limit who can speak in public venues, impose compulsory service, etc.

 

[Sunstone]

....a great many of them...

Hyperbole.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hyperbole.

A "great many" is more realistic than saying "all" or "majority"...
...or "rabid" (a common hyperbole applied to conservatives).

I like the word, "fervent".....it's descriptive without being so judgmental.

 

[Revoltingest]

The term "obamacare" being used to describe a 25 year old republican idea of health care reform, intent on forcing us all to buy private health insurance from their cronies in the insurance industry, for example.

Since you broached the subject....if Obama had actually
implemented a Republican plan, it's still his fault for doing it.

 

[Sunstone]

I like the word, "fervent".....it's descriptive without being so judgmental.

Perhaps, but "rabid" is more precise and accurate. Not all judgmental language is off the mark.