The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Republicans -
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 12th, 2014 12:33 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Can anyone explain to me a logical reason for ANY Republican (NOT conservative) position? I understand tea-party style populism and actually commend people who are willing to say that a government program they benefit from should be limited or discontinued. But I don't understand "country club" Republicans at all. Is it basically just a block of randoms who are voting in their own self interest? Is it a religious thing? Is it just that they aren't democrats? I'm really just trying to understand any position, take your pick. Examples: Government should stay the hell out of my life, BUT closely regulate sex ed, education generally, and abortions. Texas has the Texas Enterprise Fund that is basically a slush fund to pay companies to move there (how is this free market, why should they disadvantage businesses already in Texas). Vote and protest against equal protection laws for homosexuals but would never want to be fired because they were Christian. |
 |
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:03 PM Author: heady lake selfie -Not familiar with the Republican position on "closely regulating education generally," I've heard several republicans argue that public schools should be eliminated. Not an expert on this one.
-The republican stance on abortion isn't grounded in regulating women, but in defending children. This is illogical from a demographic standpoint given most victims of abortion are guaranteed future dem voters, but the political angle is that they equate abortion to murder (the latter pretty much universally considered to be rightly illegal) and certainly do not want these operations to be publicly funded as "health" procedures. Not an expert on this one.
-A Texas statehouse trying to stimulate economic growth in Texas: public money is used to lure private businesses which will then employ people privately and contribute to general prosperity in Texas, not to mention more public money in the form of tax revenues. This doesn't disadvantage native Texan businesses, and republicans are nuts about private businesses employing people privately, rather than using that money to subsidize Darnell as it were. Not an expert on this one.
-Republicans are, at least ostensibly, super into the Constitution, which protects religion--incidentally most religions have a huge problem with male anal sex. The Constitution does not protect male anal sex. Pretty much an expert on male anal sex. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:05 PM Author: lilac laser beams last sentence killed it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919273) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:08 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Haha, thank you. These all make sense. This is the type of response I was hoping to get. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919282) |
Date: December 12th, 2014 12:34 PM Author: Maniacal floppy dilemma prole You seem to have a real mastery of these issues. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26916444) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 12:35 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space I'm here to learn so explain it to me. I'm actually trying to give it an honest chance. All the articles on Breitbart, Fox, WSJ, Drudge, etc. are conclusory in that they assume you already agree with the more conservative position. There's nothing wrong with that but it makes it hard if you're trying to understand the logic behind it.
More topical question then: Why include a provision in the new budget allowing banks to trade riskier derivatives through FDIC insured entities (that may be a rough or incorrect generalization)? Who is in favor of this? |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 1:47 PM Author: mint effete menage round eye Classic xo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26916908) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 1:15 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Want to reduce funding to IRS even though $1 of expenses returns $10.60 in revenues, from people who are breaking the law and not paying their full taxes owed, which increases rates for everyone else.
Property tax exemptions to religious entities that waste very valuable land and increase property taxes for everyone else. Texas has a partial property tax exemption for everyone (regardless of income) over the age of 65. Why is this a group that needs reduced taxes? |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 1:20 PM Author: Big-titted locus Re olds, the official argument is that olds tend to live on fixed incomes and will be more adversely affected by prop tax hikes. The real answer is, as in all things, boomers vote en mass to get theirs no matter what. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26916725) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 7:37 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Thanks, yeah that makes sense. I could also see an argument that seniors benefit less from better schools (although it still increases their property value). I guess it's viable but should be either means-tested or capped at a nominal amount. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919111) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:56 PM Author: drab bossy school cafeteria jew If the IRS has enough money to target political groups they have too much. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919507) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 1:43 PM Author: 180 Volcanic Crater Skinny Woman I don't think you have a good grasp on modern conservative philosophy and your attempt to distinguish republicans from conservatives as if the party does not exhibit an ideological strain is ridiculous. While the American right does include a small number of genuine libertarians who are indeed frustrated with some of the inconsistencies you've mentioned, most conservatives are in favor of certain laws and policies that uphold "traditional values" even when they increase the government's reach into our personal lives.
The common thread or theme in conservative thinking is nationalism, christian traditionalism, and American/white exceptionalism, all of which arguably favor the policies you think are at odds with conservative thinking. I'd argue that they are "soft fascists" but that term is admittedly harsh and of course loaded. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 7:40 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Thanks for the response. I completely agree with everything you say and that's my general mindset. But I'm very left-wing. I guess I just assumed that someone who consistently votes Republican would have a more legitimate way of describing it or have a different impression. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919126) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 7:42 PM Author: Duck-like ticket booth This is so stupid and you seem completely dumb. The mainstream Republican party is in line with classical liberalism, not "christian traditionalism" or "nationalism" or "American/white exceptionalism" you utter idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919143) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 7:56 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space So, please explain any current policy debate in terms of classical liberalism and why the Republican position is correct given these principles. Choose any position you want. I won't argue with any of your points; I just am curious what the ideas are. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919226) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:12 PM Author: 180 Volcanic Crater Skinny Woman Haha. They are not classical liberals. There are factions within the GOP that deviate from what I described (moderates, libertarians). Sometimes the party will throw these factions a bone for various reasons, but they are nowhere near a dominant force within the party. Only what's left of the conservative intelligentsia would describe themselves as classical liberals. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919298) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 9:03 PM Author: Fragrant public bath dragon You're seriously understating the influence of classical liberals like Milton Friedman on the modern right/modern Republicans. Most Republican economic advisers (at least the ones who are actual economists) would probably consider themselves classical liberals.
It's too simplistic to just call all Republicans classical liberals, but the influence is there. There are plenty of people at influential places like AEI and other right wing think tanks that are classical liberals and nothing else. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 7:58 PM Author: lilac laser beams i'll bite. pick a topic faggot and lets go (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919245) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:05 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Well, I don't understand why this generated any hostility. But okay.
D.C. votes to legalize marijuana possession. Republicans claim to value self-determination, federalism, not to mention freedom from government interference. But Andy Harris (R-MD) inserted a rider, backed by House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) which aims to thwart the legalization. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:08 PM Author: lilac laser beams Republicans tend to support rights. DC is not a state. Not how the GOP congress isn't putting pressure on CO? Congress runs DC. Simple If the city of Austin decided to legalize pot or something, but the Republican TX state senate and stuff came down on it, would that be inconsistent with being Republican? No, because we need local government to make our laws and the state is the level we have decided based on the constitution. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:21 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Right, but then isn't it even more contrary to conservative ideals? Then, it isn't just that a drug shouldn't be legalized. It's that even though D.C. residents pay taxes to support the federal government [insert joke here] they shouldn't get any representation or say in how that money is spent.
And conservatives hate this and in theory fight against it. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/03/dc-voting-rights-no-representation-no-taxation. But it just seems messed up to use it to your advantage to crush a policy that you don't agree with. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:29 PM Author: lilac laser beams No its not.
Should DC get federal voting rights? Well statehood pro makes sense. Haven't seen anyone really pushing for it though on either side. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:25 PM Author: 180 Volcanic Crater Skinny Woman "If the city of Austin decided to legalize pot or something, but the Republican TX state senate and stuff came down on it, would that be inconsistent with being Republican? No, because we need local government to make our laws and the state is the level we have decided based on the constitution."
This is incomprehensible and I hope, for the sake of this board, poorly conceived flame. The reality is that the GOP is ok with devolution of authority to local powers when it means that their tax dollars won't pay for things given to "others" or when it means less regulation of their favored industries. Of course they deviate from the message of devolution and less government when it conflicts with their traditionalist and nationalist philosophy. This is what explains the vote on marijuana in DC and their desire to see drug laws strictly enforced, even where the people have voted for legalization.
|
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:30 PM Author: lilac laser beams Its a state thing. At what level do you give the power to make rules? Some are federal, the rest of state and if the state wants to give more leeway to a city, its up to the state. Not sure what you can't follow (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919371) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:33 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Interesting example of this issue (not advocating for either side): http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20141105-denton-fracking-ban-passed-in-landslide1.ece
TL;DR - Denton, city in North Texas, outlaws hydraulic fracturing within city limits via citizen's proposition. State of Texas is suing arguing, among other things, they have the authority to determine the development of state mineral assets. |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:35 PM Author: lilac laser beams state> all except if the constitution says it is a federal power.
simple |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 9:19 PM Author: Mentally Impaired Motley Space Not disputing you are right in the sense of current law, politics, policy, etc. However, to me, it seems to cut against broader conservative ideals. At the very least, it seems odd to me that Greg Abbott can talk about fighting and suing against federal overreach constantly (and lose all 32 times) and then turn around and sue Denton for passing this ban. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919622) |
|
Date: December 12th, 2014 8:08 PM Author: beady-eyed ivory range stain You're a good bro. I don't have the energy to engage this shitlib personally right now, but I want you to know I'm here rooting for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2754558&forum_id=2#26919280) |