PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on February 11, 2020, 06:51:58 PM
-
https://news.yahoo.com/former-cnbc-anchor-challenge-alexandria-204254285.html (https://news.yahoo.com/former-cnbc-anchor-challenge-alexandria-204254285.html)
Quoting:
“Former CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera announced on Tuesday she will run in the Democratic House primary in New York against freshman representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
In a statement, Ms Caruso-Cabrera said: "I am the daughter and granddaughter of working class Italian and Cuban immigrants. I am so lucky to have had such a wonderful career and I want everybody to have the opportunity that I've had. That's why I'm running."
The anchor worked with CNBC for more than two decades before moving into a contributor role in September 2018. She will not work for the network during her campaign, a CNBC representative said.
Besides her work as an anchor and contributor, Ms Caruso-Cabrera wrote a book in 2010 titled "You Know I'm Right: More Prosperity, Less Government." She has registered as a Democrat in the last several years while advocating for less government involvement and supporting free markets.”
I did not know there were any free-market, less government moles embedded in the Democratic party.
-
Well the communists infiltrated the Democrat party, maybe now it’s time for the capitalists to do so.
-
I don’t know if she’ll do well, now that I know more about her, but after a bit of research she seems to me to be a libertarian mole in the Democratic party. I went ahead and bought the Kindle edition of the book that was mentioned in the article I linked to. I think she could use the $15 the ebook cost. Start of chapter 1 seems to establish her views:
I want a government that stays out of my pocketbook and stays out of my private life. I find it frustrating that the Democrats think I want to keep paying for their big government and endless spending projects. But I am equally annoyed that the Republicans turned their backs on a voter like me and now think it’s okay to run my personal affairs at the expense of fiscal issues. So as a voter, I’m partyless. I’m left out in the cold. And frankly, I’m feeling a little unwanted—unwanted from a philosophical, political standpoint, that is. I’m not alone. There’s a major problem with the political system in the United States today: neither party truly represents a growing number of middle-class Americans.
Where does a fiscal conservative and a social liberal go? For me, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent my values and beliefs. Neither envisions reduced spending and less government involvement in the private lives of the American people.
I am part of a new and growing crowd of “sort-of” Republicans. I am far too fiscally responsible to want to reach out and hug the Democrats. Their social spending will keep the next several generations laden with debt. At the same time, I am too fiercely independent to embrace the Republican Party, because I want people to be free to make their own choices about their personal lives. I don’t want Washington insiders to tell me what to think and how to behave in the privacy of my home.
There are a lot of us that don’t like the tax-and-spend approach to budgeting but also believe in, for example, a woman’s right to choose. Michael Petrilli at the Hoover Institution said it best when he used the term “Whole Foods Republican”—someone who embraces a progressive lifestyle, but not progressive politics. It’s not a great place to be. No matter where I turn to for leadership, I have to compromise. Over the past decade, both parties seem to have been hijacked by social issues such as abortion, the environment, and gay marriage. These issues don’t define us as a nation, so why do they define our two political parties?
Here’s the thing: I believe in low taxes, and a small, nonintrusive government. I don’t really care if gays want to get married or not. I don’t smoke pot, but frankly, I don’t care if you do. Of course I want us to live in a healthy environment. But that doesn’t mean we stop drilling for oil. I believe in God, but I don’t think everyone else must accept my God. In fact, I don’t think religion should have anything to do with governing at all. I also know we can be good neighbors even when the family next door looks different.
I bought her book here: https://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Right-Prosperity-Government-ebook/dp/B003UYUSB4 (https://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Right-Prosperity-Government-ebook/dp/B003UYUSB4)
-
Yep, that there is a libertarian.
“Whole Foods Republican” LOL!!!!!
-
Based on Jim's post, I'd vote for her,
pending further evaluation.
-
I keep hearing that the Republican party wants to run the personal lives of people... "I don’t want Washington insiders to tell me what to think and how to behave in the privacy of my home."
Can someone articulate the RNC party platform positions that support such a claim?
-
Yep, that there is a libertarian.
“Whole Foods Republican” LOL!!!!!
That's a great quote. When I lived in the suburbs of Denver, the only place I trusted the fresh seafood was Whole Foods. It was the only reason I went there. So, upscale suburb, soccer moms, well to do liberals, progressives abound. I was CCW'ing my CZ-75 in an OWB holster with an old sweater covering it. I reached up to unlatch the soft top on my Jeep, my sweater rode up and a youngish woman spotted my gun. We locked eyes, and to my surprise she just smiled at me. LOL!
Is Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Progressive an oxymoron? Does Socially Progressive mean you are OK with LGBT, abortion, want the proposed fixes for Man Made Climate Change, social programs for all the Identities? What does it mean?
I'm a live an let live Libertarian in many ways, but I don't like government getting involved in everything, and stealing money. That's why I describe myself as a "Conservatarian".
-
I keep hearing that the Republican party wants to run the personal lives of people... "I don’t want Washington insiders to tell me what to think and how to behave in the privacy of my home."
Can someone articulate the RNC party platform positions that support such a claim?
Great question. The Left wants to make it seem we want to force LGBT to not happen, like that is even a possibility. The always point to the "Religious Right" wanting to dictate to us in the bedroom. I don't see it. I think it is just more Media propaganda.
-
Is Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Progressive an oxymoron? Does Socially Progressive mean you are OK with LGBT, abortion, want the proposed fixes for Man Made Climate Change, social programs for all the Identities? What does it mean?
I'm a live an let live Libertarian in many ways, but I don't like government getting involved in everything, and stealing money. That's why I describe myself as a "Conservatarian".
I'd consider myself fiscally conservative and socially neutral to liberal. I'm fine with LBGT, and folks can live however they want as long as it doesn't impact me. And impact me includes reaching into MY wallet to further THEIR agenda. THAT is where I draw the line. Sorry, not paying for your fetish...
-
I keep hearing that the Republican party wants to run the personal lives of people... "I don’t want Washington insiders to tell me what to think and how to behave in the privacy of my home."
Can someone articulate the RNC party platform positions that support such a claim?
Promoting anti-abortion laws, not supporting gay marriage, and not supporting decriminalizing drugs are the big three. Not so much what to think but trying to control your private behavior.
Not saying I support all of the following but explaining where they are coming from, although these are not necessarily RNC platforms right now. I’ll investigate later. Certainly they traditionally are but I don’t know offhand if these are the current official positions of the RNC:
Abortion: the choice whether to carry a baby to term of course deeply affects your entire life.
Gay marriage: PA inheritance tax is one example that comes to mind.
Does a marriage or civil union by a same-sex couple translate to the same rights in Pennsylvania, particularly for inheritance taxes? According to a recent article in Forbes magazine and a recent case in Pennsylvania, the answer is no.
Although more states have added civil unions or marriage for same sex couples in recent years, Pennsylvania has not and still has their own Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
For estate tax and inheritance tax purposes, that means you're treated in PA as not being married. If you're married in Pennsylvania, you can transfer all of your assets to your spouse inheritance tax free. However, if Pennsylvania doesn't recognize the marriage or civil union, the inheritance tax is 15% of the assets transferred. For a $1 Million estate, the difference between marriage recognition or not is $150,000!
https://jawatlaw.com/lawyer/2012/06/26/Estate-Planning/PA-Courts-Dont-Recognize-NJ-Same-Sex-Civil-Unions-for-Inheritance-Tax_bl4486.htm
Drugs: Obviously having recreational drug use in your own home illegal is messing with your private life.
-
Promoting anti-abortion laws, not supporting gay marriage, and not supporting decriminalizing drugs are the big three.
Yep. Those are the big three. And as long as the Rs stay on that hypocritical path, they will not be taken seriously by half the country. (I'm not in that half)
It doesn't bother me if anyone believes in those three things or not. I just don't think your personal beliefs should be translated into Federal laws.
-
Yep. Those are the big three. And as long as the Rs stay on that hypocritical path, they will not be taken seriously by half the country. (I'm not in that half)
It doesn't bother me if anyone believes in those three things or not. I just don't think your personal beliefs should be translated into Federal laws.
I’m like you except my stand on abortion. It’s very complex, I think both sides are wrong. It IS killing a human life. But when it’s illegal there are a lot of bad consequences. But still, it’s killing an innocent human. But sometimes it is morally correct to do so, pretty much only to save the child from horrific suffering or maybe the life of the mother. The right outlawing late term abortion for ANY reason I disagree because if the reason is my baby will suffer horribly I don’t want the government making that decision for me. Fetuses in the womb can suffer horribly. Malformations incompatible with life outside the womb yet creating pain while it is alive in the womb. I am well educated in obstetrics and can tell you that happens (I’m a licensed childbirth educator.)
But the only rally I ever marched in was pro-life, because abortion for convenience is unconscionable. I can not grasp how a mother can murder her unborn child (for any reason other than that listed above). And to force taxpayers to pay for it is even worse. I’m totally against the left on the funding and I think RvW should be overturned.
It’s a state issue. It’s so complex each state should decide through its people what laws if any should address abortion.
-
To Abortion, legalizing drugs, and Gay marriage, I'd add opposing yet more Gun Control laws. The Left is obsessed with removing legally owned guns only from the Law Abiding Citizen.
Abortion - I think it is wrong, but willing to go along with the status quo as it is so polarizing.
Legalizing drugs - I'm ok with some exceptions.
Gay marriage - I don't care.
Legally owned Guns - This is the hill I AM willing to die on.
-
Promoting anti-abortion laws, not supporting gay marriage, and not supporting decriminalizing drugs are the big three. Not so much what to think but trying to control your private behavior.
hmmm.
Not supporting gay marriage isn't controling your private behavior. Are any Republicans looking to make it illegal to be gay?
People want to knock Republicans for not supporting drug use? Really? okay, then, bring it.
Abortion. hmmmm. Killing a baby is something liberals want to support?
bottomline: I completely reject the notion that Republicans are trying to control behavior if they aren't giving full-throated support of said behavior.
-
I keep hearing that the Republican party wants to run the personal lives of people... "I don’t want Washington insiders to tell me what to think and how to behave in the privacy of my home."
Can someone articulate the RNC party platform positions that support such a claim?
Looks like Rush mentioned some of the GOP positions that insist on inserting government into private lives, so I don’t have to repeat them. In addition, conservatives do use government force to promote religion. Specifically:
South Dakota, a deeply red state, passed a law requiring schools to display the motto “In God We Trust”. Several other states have similar laws. Atheists, agnostics, and non-theistic religions are disregarded.
-
hmmm.
Not supporting gay marriage isn't controling your private behavior. Are any Republicans looking to make it illegal to be gay?
People want to knock Republicans for not supporting drug use? Really? okay, then, bring it.
Abortion. hmmmm. Killing a baby is something liberals want to support?
bottomline: I completely reject the notion that Republicans are trying to control behavior if they aren't giving full-throated support of said behavior.
Excellent point!!! The Left DEMANDS we not only accept what they want but promote, glorify, maybe even participate, but certainly support with our votes, money, and voice. Look at the demonization of Chik Fil A for just donating to a Christian charity.
No, just because we don't like something doesn't mean we won't allow YOU to have it or do it. That's the difference. If the Left doesn't like something they want to ban it or at least not let you have it or do it. The Left are the true control freaks, and want you to submit to their will.
-
Not supporting gay marriage isn't controling your private behavior. Are any Republicans looking to make it illegal to be gay?
Yes there are. You seem unaware that many Republicans continue to support laws against sodomy. Examples:
https://www.queerty.com/republicans-refuse-repeal-unconstitutional-sodomy-law-think-gay-sex-icky-20181218 (https://www.queerty.com/republicans-refuse-repeal-unconstitutional-sodomy-law-think-gay-sex-icky-20181218)
https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/news/louisiana-republicans-fight-keep-unenforceable-anti-sodomy-law (https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/news/louisiana-republicans-fight-keep-unenforceable-anti-sodomy-law)
People want to knock Republicans for not supporting drug use? Really? okay, then, bring it.
No argument if they don’t want to support drug use. The problem is they want to use government force against anyone privately using drugs they don’t approve of.
Abortion. hmmmm. Killing a baby is something liberals want to support?
If more religious conservatives were willing to support the use of contraceptives, this would be less of an issue. But if abstinence is the only acceptable action, then yeah, expect pushback.
bottomline: I completely reject the notion that Republicans are trying to control behavior if they aren't giving full-throated support of said behavior.
When I find more time later today, I’ll be happy to post recent laws and proposed legislation of red states that show Republicans are using government to actively suppress behaviors. It goes beyond lack of support.
-
My wife and I are members of the Methodist church. There is likely to be a big split in the church coming this year over the LGBT issue. There are now many "woke" members of clergy that believe all of this stuff, including abortion, are okay.
At our church, we had a young lady that was going to Emory, local college, to become a minister. Along the way she got married and her husband proceeded down the same route. They are both FB friends. The other day they posted a selfie with him in his Mayor Pete t-shirt.
-
I reached up to unlatch the soft top on my Jeep, my sweater rode up and a youngish woman spotted my gun. We locked eyes, and to my surprise she just smiled at me. LOL!
Did you get her number? ;)
In some jurisdictions they'll arrest you for "brandishing."
-
I think there is some confusion wrt what I was asking, and perhaps I wasn't clear (I don't think so, but...).
While any group of people will have a spectrum of views, I was asking about the Republican party and the RNC's stated position on issues.
Talking about how some conservatives want this or don't want that isn't a response to my query regarding the RNC positions.
-
Yes there are. You seem unaware that many Republicans continue to support laws against sodomy. Examples:
https://www.queerty.com/republicans-refuse-repeal-unconstitutional-sodomy-law-think-gay-sex-icky-20181218 (https://www.queerty.com/republicans-refuse-repeal-unconstitutional-sodomy-law-think-gay-sex-icky-20181218)
https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/news/louisiana-republicans-fight-keep-unenforceable-anti-sodomy-law (https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/news/louisiana-republicans-fight-keep-unenforceable-anti-sodomy-law)
No argument if they don’t want to support drug use. The problem is they want to use government force against anyone privately using drugs they don’t approve of.
If more religious conservatives were willing to support the use of contraceptives, this would be less of an issue. But if abstinence is the only acceptable action, then yeah, expect pushback.
When I find more time later today, I’ll be happy to post recent laws and proposed legislation of red states that show Republicans are using government to actively suppress behaviors. It goes beyond lack of support.
What sheer bullshit.
Why is it that conservatives are expected to think and act in lockstep with whatever utter bullshit the left is promoting, but the left never consider any other viewpoint than their’s?
Because liberals are close minded, bigots, that’s why.
-
I think there is some confusion wrt what I was asking, and perhaps I wasn't clear (I don't think so, but...).
While any group of people will have a spectrum of views, I was asking about the Republican party and the RNC's stated position on issues.
Talking about how some conservatives want this or don't want that isn't a response to my query regarding the RNC positions.
You are right and I recognized I was articulating general right wing views and not the official RNC stance. I don’t have time to look it up right now but I will later.
-
Excellent point!!! The Left DEMANDS we not only accept what they want but promote, glorify, maybe even participate, but certainly support with our votes, money, and voice. Look at the demonization of Chik Fil A for just donating to a Christian charity.
No, just because we don't like something doesn't mean we won't allow YOU to have it or do it. That's the difference. If the Left doesn't like something they want to ban it or at least not let you have it or do it. The Left are the true control freaks, and want you to submit to their will.
Agree. While I 100% support gay marriage, I hate the way the left glorifies LBGTQRXYZ and shoves it in the public’s face. They’ve wrecked the matter. I come from the gay subculture, not gay myself but when young hung out with gays and trannies went to more gay bars than straight ones, had more gay friends than straight ones, had gay friends die from AIDS, always been more comfortable around gay people for some reason so don’t tell me I’m homophobic because I vote Republican, I don’t boycott Chic Fil A or want my tax dollars to pay for your sex change operation or approve of transgender males competing in women’s sports. Right is right and wrong is wrong and the LEFT has appropriated the very real tragedy of persecution of gays and turned it into an overblown monster in service to their sociopathic drive for power. Society was moving toward acceptance of gays all on its own without Kommunist help thankyouverymuch. Forcing their agenda in stupid vengeful ways, like making female athletes compete against biologically congenital males only causes backlash and hurts them in the long run.
-
Did you get her number? ;)
In some jurisdictions they'll arrest you for "brandishing."
Well, I was married at the time so didn't even think about that. She was quite attractive though.
That was my concern. In Colorado they can get you for brandishing if someone sees your gun. In PA, they can not, but you have to be careful anyway. Some people feel "threatened" by the sight of a legally carried gun, but I think that's the only time that ever happened to me.
-
To Abortion, legalizing drugs, and Gay marriage, I'd add opposing yet more Gun Control laws. The Left is obsessed with removing legally owned guns only from the Law Abiding Citizen.
Abortion - I think it is wrong, but willing to go along with the status quo as it is so polarizing.
Legalizing drugs - I'm ok with some exceptions.
Gay marriage - I don't care.
Legally owned Guns - This is the hill I AM willing to die on.
I pretty much agree with all you said. My thing on abortion is. You want it? You pay for it. No taxpayer money at any level of government to pay for it. Gay marriage. I'm all for it. Our country is supposed to treat everybody equally. Let them be miserable like the rest of us :D
-
I pretty much agree with all you said. My thing on abortion is. You want it? You pay for it. No taxpayer money at any level of government to pay for it. Gay marriage. I'm all for it. Our country is supposed to treat everybody equally. Let them be miserable like the rest of us :D
Yep. My position on drugs is, legalize them all. Do what you want inside your home. But do not drive under the influence (heavy penalties) and no tax dollars to pay for your drugs or any consequence of your drug use. No welfare if you don’t have a job because of drug use etc. etc.
-
Yep. My position on drugs is, legalize them all. Do what you want inside your home. But do not drive under the influence (heavy penalties) and no tax dollars to pay for your drugs or any consequence of your drug use. No welfare if you don’t have a job because of drug use etc. etc.
What about health care to pay for issues related to drug use? Should health insurance providers pay for treating a patient that has developed some health problem as a result of drug use?
(careful, it's a trap)
-
What about health care to pay for issues related to drug use? Should health insurance providers pay for treating a patient that has developed some health problem as a result of drug use?
(careful, it's a trap)
Don't want to answer for Rush, but that assumes drug addiction and over use/abuse will go up by making it legal. Look at alcohol. I don't know if alcohol use changed when it was made illegal, then legal again. People get drugs illegally now and we've wasted Billions maybe Trillions on the war on drugs.
-
Don't want to answer for Rush, but that assumes drug addiction and over use/abuse will go up by making it legal. Look at alcohol. I don't know if alcohol use changed when it was made illegal, then legal again. People get drugs illegally now and we've wasted Billions maybe Trillions on the war on drugs.
actually, no. My question doesn't make any assumption about use increasing or decreasing. And changes in usage wasn't of interest wrt the question.
-
What about health care to pay for issues related to drug use? Should health insurance providers pay for treating a patient that has developed some health problem as a result of drug use?
(careful, it's a trap)
No. Health insurance should not be forced to pay for anything. They should offer an assortment of plans and people should pick the plan they can afford. If I want to do drugs, or get pregnant, or engage in hazardous activities, like flying, then I should pick a plan that will cover me and I should be billed according to what the actuaries think would be appropriate. If I think they are charging too much, I can go to another insurance plan, possibly in a different state, and find one that fits my needs that I can afford. If I don't want to pay for injuries received while flying, then I can forgo that coverage and hope that I don't get injured, or not fly.
-
What about health care to pay for issues related to drug use? Should health insurance providers pay for treating a patient that has developed some health problem as a result of drug use?
(careful, it's a trap)
YES. Private health insurance you pay for yourself, no taxpayers. But no government regulations mandating what they cover. Let the insurance company vet your ass, or adjust premiums based on your habits. They already do that with smoking.
Medicare will pay for your liver transplant after you drank yourself into liver failure, and all you have to do is not drink for 6 lousy months “to prove you are serious about staying sober”. That’s taxpayer footing the bill. NO!
Private insurance unregulated, that’s free market economics and your freedom to abuse your body. Go for it, more power to you. Don’t make me pay for your mistakes.
-
Medicare will pay for your liver transplant after you drank yourself into liver failure,
Whew! that's a relief.
and all you have to do is not drink for 6 lousy months “to prove you are serious about staying sober”.
Oh shit! There's always a damn catch.
-
Damn! I stopped drinking!
-
So, appropriate to ask this question in the bartender thread, no?
Is a drink a day bad for me? I’ve grown rather fond of gin and tonics, nothing really strong, maybe a margarita, or some other drink I concoct, which is really fun. I stop at one. Sometimes we’ll have a sherry. I’m trying to keep alcohol to three times a week, but the Democrats are really stressing me.
When should I start to worry about addiction?
-
Damn! I stopped drinking!
You want a liver transplant?
-
So, appropriate to ask this question in the bartender thread, no?
Is a drink a day bad for me? I’ve grown rather fond of gin and tonics, nothing really strong, maybe a margarita, or some other drink i concoct, which is really fun. I stop at one. Sometimes we’ll have a sherry. I’m trying to keep alcohol to three times a week, but the Democrats are really stressing me.
When should I start to worry about addiction?
Worry is overrated.
-
(https://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/Well+once+again+i+hate+to+be+that+guy+but+_9cb85b2b4853aa7d726f3dc1752dc8a3.jpg)
-
You want a liver transplant?
I want all the benefits in which I'm entitled! ;D
-
I want all the benefits in which I'm entitled! ;D
When you look at it that way, I need to take up drinking too.
-
I think there is some confusion wrt what I was asking, and perhaps I wasn't clear (I don't think so, but...).
While any group of people will have a spectrum of views, I was asking about the Republican party and the RNC's stated position on issues.
Talking about how some conservatives want this or don't want that isn't a response to my query regarding the RNC positions.
OK. My reference will be to the RNC platform, last updated 2016: https://www.gop.com/platform/ (https://www.gop.com/platform/)
For comparison I'll use this is the link to the LP platform, last updated 2018: https://www.lp.org/platform/ (https://www.lp.org/platform/)
I could not find anything in the GOP platform that said anything at all either way with regard to laws about sexual freedoms. (The GOP platform of 2000, elsewhere on the net, did say "We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," but the 2016 one no longer does.) Absent any such position, any member of the GOP who promotes laws such as outlawing sodomy or prostitution would not be out of compliance with the platform. Compare that with the explicit mention of such freedoms in section 1.4 of the LP platform.
The GOP platform states "We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage," and also states "Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society."
The first four commandments are unequivocally religious dictates, so there is that strike against Republicans with regard to religious neutrality in government. And laws to "actively promote married family life" appears to be a call for government regulation of private activity and personal associations.
Lastly, the GOP platform, IMHO, is overly verbose and manages to convey fewer principles protecting freedoms compared to the much shorter and concise LP platform which manages to cover freedoms not mentioned by the GOP.
-
OK. My reference will be to the RNC platform, last updated 2016: https://www.gop.com/platform/ (https://www.gop.com/platform/)
...
I could not find anything in the GOP platform that said anything at all either way with regard to laws about sexual freedoms. ...
in other words, no, the GOP doesn't look to regulate your private life.
... Absent any such position, any member of the GOP who promotes laws such as outlawing sodomy or prostitution would not be out of compliance with the platform. ...
<sigh>
...
The first four commandments are unequivocally religious dictates, so there is that strike against Republicans with regard to religious neutrality in government. And laws to "actively promote married family life" appears to be a call for government regulation of private activity and personal associations.
The US Constitution expressly forbids Congress from establishing a religion.
"promote" is "regulating"?
"appears"
hmmmm
Lastly, the GOP platform, IMHO, is overly verbose and manages to convey fewer principles protecting freedoms compared to the much shorter and concise LP platform which manages to cover freedoms not mentioned by the GOP.
well, the GOP platform is overly verbose. Well, that is certainly a strike against the GOP... ::)
-
Thanks, Jim, for digging into the RNC platform. Now I don’t have to. ;D
I found this fascinating video of Dave Rubin, who flipped from liberal to conservative. He gives a great overview of what is happening to the Democrat party, and also a good summary of the Republican position. He says basically, the far left is about the collective group while the right, AND - be very clear - the traditional Democrat, is about the individual. This is all spot on wrt economics.
But on the social freedoms it’s a bit muddier. You can’t deny that the right can tend to control private behavior for the alleged good of the group. “No, you can’t smoke marijuana to ease your cancer symptoms because then everyone else will use it as a gateway drug and end up homeless heroin addicts.” Incidentally, if I’m going to bash the right for this, how much worse is the left for banning soda machines from high schools and banning salt shakers from restaurant tables?
But he is forgiven this omission because the right tries to control behavior over circumscribed particulars where the far left is about control over our very means of survival. (Jobs, money, food, energy, healthcare etc.) The far left slides into totalitarianism (as my soda and salt example shows, it can’t help but try to control private behavior too eventually despite it screaming about “freedom to do what you want” gawd they are such hypocrites) and that wing has taken over the Democrat party, whereas what radical far right wing there is on the Republican side is quite neutered, despite all the “racist!” rhetoric from the left.
-
OK. My reference will be to the RNC platform, last updated 2016: https://www.gop.com/platform/ (https://www.gop.com/platform/)
For comparison I'll use this is the link to the LP platform, last updated 2018: https://www.lp.org/platform/ (https://www.lp.org/platform/)
I could not find anything in the GOP platform that said anything at all either way with regard to laws about sexual freedoms. (The GOP platform of 2000, elsewhere on the net, did say "We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," but the 2016 one no longer does.) Absent any such position, any member of the GOP who promotes laws such as outlawing sodomy or prostitution would not be out of compliance with the platform. Compare that with the explicit mention of such freedoms in section 1.4 of the LP platform.
The GOP platform states "We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage," and also states "Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society."
The first four commandments are unequivocally religious dictates, so there is that strike against Republicans with regard to religious neutrality in government. And laws to "actively promote married family life" appears to be a call for government regulation of private activity and personal associations.
Lastly, the GOP platform, IMHO, is overly verbose and manages to convey fewer principles protecting freedoms compared to the much shorter and concise LP platform which manages to cover freedoms not mentioned by the GOP.
What a crock of baby shit.
Seriously, you whine about the GOP maybe, possibly, if you stretch credulity enough, you can complain that someone, not the party platform might have suggested something to trigger your progressive sensibilities (because you sure as shit are no libertarian, no matter how hard you try and sell it).
Then you fail to make a serious connection of any kind, and completely ignore the thousands of invasions into our lives pushed thru by fucking democrats (communists).
The hypocrisy is shattering. I am surprised you can stand to be in the same room with yourself.