#i dont want these people to continue the ideology but we cant stop that without dismantling these systems

[theunconcernedembalmer]

ok i got the aesvic out of my system now time to pick apart the letter n why i wont really be following aesops diary exactly here. literally no one asked but i wanted to get my thoughts down somewhere cos i have. a lot

just gonna put a quick rundown of aesops diary entry as a refresher (mostly for myself so i dont miss anything): he dreamt that he was helping jerry with what was probably a murder n was affirmed n he thinks its a sign congratulating him on carrying out his duty. over the years, he carries out his duties as an undertaker n comes to the manor looking for a “fresh start” aka what sounds like his first victim. according to aesop, said victim should be quiet, n potential victim number 1 is victor. something about badly needing him to become his “silent friend” n he mentions he’ll get to wick n the 2 other survivors in due time, but for now he’s very eager to start his “mission”.

im generally okay with the letter (i have seen so many fights over this aha) cos there is no surprise he wants to kill ppl (ppl who r fighting over this point. did u even read his deductions?? guy happily killed his mentor??). but i didnt quite like the fact that he still looks up to jerry (although. i guess thats valid i just. dont like it). i was also initially kind of confused about the real reason why he would want to kill ppl since as u progress through the letter it sounds less like he kills for duty (cos of the whole dream thing at the start) but more “because i want to :)”, which is an okayish edgy kinda take imo. like not that u cant characterize aesop as Kill Kill Murder Die, but i kinda find that. pretty boring in the long term.

im just gonna put what my original take on aesop was, like all of it. first off, he hates jerry. u cannot tell me a psychotic serial killer like that can raise a child without emotional trauma. like any child, this isnt even counting the extra damage done because hes autistic. (n i also hc that aesop has read his moms letter to him at some point, n he should have come to the conclusion that it was somewhat also jerrys fault, whether through logic or denial that his mom would want to leave him, so that just adds to it.) but as much as he hates him, his teachings are the only ones hes been exposed to, n its been so ingrained in him since young so even if he hates jerry he would still subscribe to whatever twisted ideology jerry was feeding him, which ill get to in a sec.

going through his accessories, he has that origami that he folds for each of his clients, n it shows that underneath it all, aesop is still kind. this isnt expected of him n its definitely not part of his job scope as an embalmer. he (still?) has the heart to wish the best for those that have departed n takes the time n effort to fold one for each n every client he sends off, which is probably a lot. so going off on that, my hc is that jerry, being the manipulative asshole that he is (who probably definitely manipulated his mom into indirect suicide) probably used his kindness against him to make him believe that by murdering ppl he is helping them, framing all of his serial kills as a sort of mercy kill (like his mom). so the thing that aesop takes away from all this is the very twisted logic that by killing ppl he is helping them, therefore being a good embalmer and a good person in general. n everyone wants to be a sort of good person, or at least for aesop that is part of his job description to be a good embalmer. n we all know aesop is very serious about his job.

i also hc that he has killed several ppl between killing jerry n coming to the manor, cos i follow the story that he took the invitation from that poor lady n thats how he ended up at the manor. surely the lady didnt come to him right after jerry died?? but anyway, the way i see it is that he thought he liked to kill. like he finally truly understood why jerry kills so much (which is interesting now that i think about it. guy really just went along with all those murders without truly believing huh), because it felt good to kill. at least thats what he thought, the revelation that killing felt good n is good, but i say its because he hated jerry, n offing someone u kinda hate should probably feel pretty gucci. n its also so much easier to pick clients off the streets than in the manor, so i would think that he has killed ppl like his mentor did, but each time he did the great feeling that came with ending ppls life just. wasnt as good as the first time round. it just became a sort of normal satisfaction of a successful embalming.

this can go two ways: 1. he keeps on killing to try to find that great feeling again, which is cool i guess (n probably what canon would want, except canon states that he hasnt killed since jerry), but id like to go with 2. he just stops because jerry isnt around to enforce it whenever he isnt feeling up to psychoing someone to their death (which is probably how jerry got his victims, n damn if that doesnt take a lot of mind games that i dont think aesop has the mental capacity for since half of it is fighting with his social anxiety n other issues. dealing with alive strangers?? no thanks?? i doubt he would have learnt properly how to lure in clients as efficiently as jerry because of this, mostly cos he was only needed for the murder afterparty aka embalming n funerals). n as much as he stays professional, there is no. professional way of gaslighting someone to their death.

(n also since ppl have pointed out that his twitter replies n other kinda informal stuff have shown that aesop does have reverent respect for life, which also adds to him not being so blindly bloodthirsty as implied in the letter. i dont really see the twitter replies as very canon, but it does make sense that he would come to revere life with his unique take and obsession over death, for one cannot exist without the other)

so this leads me to the motive that aesop brings to the manor, at least how i see it. he isnt exactly coming to the manor to kill per se (like from the very early story, he came to the manor to return the letter to a relative of the deceased lady, something about respecting her last wishes. something like that, its really been a while since i saw that exerpt), so like killing ppl isnt his main purpose of visit. its more of hes always on the lookout for weaker (or at least those that take less mind games to kill) people to mercy kill, n it just so happens that he knows the manor n his mentor almost died from there, so theres a pretty good chance he can find some ppl that fall into this category n so it just so happens that he also has a job to do there. its still counted as a Job for him since no ones gonna tell him that embalmers dont actually. murder. 

so in my version, aesop only tries to sway ppl that he knows he can convince, n these ppl would typically be those very sickly ones like his mom (andrew im looking at u) or those with an actual death wish/ very weak will to live. but here aesop is choosing his “first victim”, and the criteria for that is... quiet? never mind “not evading him” and “not cranky” being on the list too, but that isnt quite what i was expecting from someone so dedicated to their duty of murder. sure he wants an easy first kill, but like. i dont think its consistent if his motive was really to continue jerrys bastard legacy. especially when the next paragraph is essentially him gushing over victor, that... sort of implies something else. or at least in the way i see it, since i believe that canon wants us to think that aesop just really loves to kill.

aesop likes victor. very much so. so much till he wants to kill him. which i guess makes sense cos he likes death, n now he likes victor. so he just. puts the two things he likes together. whats better than victor? dead victor. anyway the rest of the letter is more like “whatever, i technically should kill the others too but my priority is victor” so like. he confuses his (dare i say) yandere tendencies with his duty since the end goal for both is a body in a coffin.

having said that. i know i have aesvic brainrot but i also know this is one sided as hell (at least from the letter alone, not counting the letter shaped cookies in his birthday art that apparently belonged to victors birthday cake aha) n lowkey alarming since. the goal is to kill victor. i kinda want to interpret it as him genuinely wanting to be friends with victor (really wanting him to be a “silent friend”, maybe cos he doesnt actually know how to be friends with living ppl n is better with dead ones? therefore victor should be dead to be friends?) but not knowing how to n throwing in his obsession with death ends up with. this minor disaster waiting to happen. but i uh. dont know if this is valid. its valid to me at least, with my original interpretation of aesop. n again cos of his ingrained professionalism, he also kinda sees this as part of his job to send ppl off, so its another plus. not for victor, tho.

idk if ill add this yandere side in my aesop. i mean my boi has technically tried to kill victor multiple times in the past HAHAHAHA. maybe like sometimes he can be a bit obsessive. as a treat. but generally nah cos thats definitely gonna end up in a murder somewhere somehow n i cant. just kill victors here on the ask blog scene lashjflkjhdlfkjhas

so yeah that kinda takes care of the last part of the letter, as for the first part. as much as aesop hates jerry, i would also think hes pretty starved for affirmation (like i said jerry isnt going to be a good parent figure ever) n i guess it makes sense if the only times jerry has ever complimented him was aiding him in his kills n hiding the evidence, which might (?) add to his desire to kill (but that probably dies with jerry aha). so the way i see it as aesop is getting affirmation n takes it as a good sign instead of. remotely liking jerry. idk if im stretching it a little but i really dont like the take where hes okay with jerry. anyway we are ignoring that he hasnt killed before entering the manor cos that doesnt quite make sense to me (i wasnt dreaming about the letter from a lady stabbed in the face 36 times or so right???? right???????)

im also not like. trying to defend him, im just trying to make sense of his diary. boi has issues n is a little too far gone (not as far as canon tho), in my take very deluded in his way of showing kindness. literally cool motive still murder (or in canon, just murder?), please get therapy. but i just dont really like the direction that the letter was originally trying to imply, with him really just hell bent on murder without like. a clear motive (at least to me it isnt very clear since the last part really doesnt sound consistent with his supposed intentions). i mean i love being edgy with aesop every now n then but i dont think it would make for meaningful characterizations in the long run so. ill still be sticking with my original take on aesop with maybe a bit of yandere for victor cos thats always fun

[dabistits]

im super conflicted abt hawks atm but i was thinking abt his parallels with shigaraki and i was wondering kinda why there's a difference between wanting 'redemption' (i dont think this is the right word but i cant think of a better one 'want better' maybe?) for shigaraki but not for hawks? is it bc he made a permanent decision to kill twice as essentially an agent of the state?

Just to preface, I don’t think I’m objectively right for just wanting Hawks to eat shit immediately in the next chapter. I’m just complaining because a lot of people who “love both Hawks and Twice” and “think Hawks was wrong, but…” are hard to get away from without going in the other direction toward a group of people who have shitty fandom behavior, whose opinions about the Hawks/Twice situation are (unfortunately) much closer to my own. I don’t think there’s necessarily a “correct” way to feel about Hawks, but I feel differently than a lot of people I see around (who, ironically, are the ones insisting that there’s a “correct” way to feel about Hawks), and that’s frustrating. I want to be done with Hawks. I don’t want him to get any more focus in canon, I don’t want to see more posts about how Hawks committing murder is an indication of inner turmoil instead of him choosing a side, I don’t want to keep running into posts that tack on “but Hawks is also sad/a victim” in discussing what’s pretty clearly a tragedy for Jin and the LOV that Hawks was completely and 100% solely responsible for.

But, yeah, sure. I’ll also explain what I think is the difference between Tomura and Hawks:

1. Part of it is emotional and not logical for sure. I love Jin a lot. He embodies the person who has faced incredible adversity, and still comes out on the other side ready to love and open his heart to others, moreover to protect others. I’m not like that at all, but I think it’s very admirable. So in that sense, it hurts on a personal level to lose him over anyone else, and I can’t not associate that with Hawks, since he’s the killer.

2. Jin is a significant death. The nameless minions that Tomura has killed (many of whom were active “Quirk supremacists”) don’t mean anything to me compared to Jin, and?? Through the lens of narrative, I think that makes Tomura more forgivable, because I genuinely have no interest in there being any plot “resolution” with, like, the dead anti-mutant cultists, because I just do not care about them.

3. Tomura, especially early Tomura, has threatened to go places that are unforgivable, like leaving All Might’s students dead and forcibly bringing Bakugou over to their side (whatever terrible procedure that may have entailed). The difference is that the narrative never actually allowed him to cross that line by actually killing the kids, who we do care about as characters, so while the intent in itself is pretty awful, he was never allowed to complete the action that would take him over to the point of no return. Hawks, however, did cross the line by killing someone who we care about and who is narratively established as a “good person,” who even Hawks concedes is a good person.

3. a. I don’t like the MLA ideologically and I don’t like the decision to have the LOV team up with them. But, again, their takeover plan has been stopped in its tracks, which I’m actually fine with to prevent the LOV from crossing the moral event horizon, but that’s, like… completely irrelevant to me thinking Hawks shouldn’t have killed Jin.

3. b. Though there’s still a chance for Tomura to cross the moral event horizon, and I’m not going to convince myself that it won’t happen. If it’s going to happen, I think it’s highly possible that it might happen in this arc, because now Jin is dead and we know how Tomura and the LOV have historically responded to their friends getting hurt. I, and many others, have called Jin the “heart” of the LOV (his name is also literally written with the kanji for “benevolence”), and now without him, there is no remaining heart nor goodwill.

4. Although both Tomura and Hawks are, on one level, fighting on behalf of the ideals that they were “raised into,” their fights happen in very different ways. The MLA arc in particular made clear that the villains are, in part, fighting for their very survival in ways heroes just aren’t. The threat that the LOV were living under was constant—when it wasn’t heroes or other villain groups, it was trying to find money and shelter and essential upkeep. Hawks may not be “free” from the HPSC or the occasional villain attack, but he’s free from those constant material struggles. He’s not an “underdog.” 

4. a. Tomura is also, in part, fighting to protect his marginalized friends. It’s for sure not on behalf of every marginalized person, but it’s certainly more than we’ve seen any pro hero fight for. The people Tomura is surrounded with are people who have never been protected nor cared for before, because they were not deemed “innocent” enough to deserve that care and protection, and Tomura continued to care for them even when it was troublesome for him to do so, when they disagreed with him, when they threatened him, and when they fucked up very, very badly. 

4. a. i. Eri is an example of a victim who the heroes fought for, but she’s an easy case to want to love and protect: Overhaul was inarguably an abuser who wanted to elevate the yakuza, she was being used in extended torture-experiment sessions, she killed her father on accident, she’s a child, she’s innocent, she’s selfless, she’s well-behaved. It’s basically not even a question whether or not she “deserves” help.

4. b. It’s people who are difficult who get overlooked. Hawks and hero society are completely unprepared to protect and care for people who don’t behave as they’re supposed to. Hawks did not care for the LOV who didn’t personally befriend him. For the one he did, when Jin didn’t cooperate the way Hawks wanted, he went for the kill. It’s either being easy and “manageable,” or die.

4. b. i. Tomura has specifically spared two people who tried to kill him or actually succeeded in killing his ally, people who he explicitly hated or did not care for. So make of that what you will, I guess.

5. From a leftist perspective, it’s just impossible not to account for the fact that Hawks helps maintain a social structure that creates so much suffering. The question isn’t really whether AFO’s teachings to Tomura are better (they’re not, and I want Tomura to break away from them), but it can’t really be ignored that Hawks is enforcing an ideal that’s wildly popular. Why this matters is that Tomura doing the wrong things will be roundly condemned, and he’ll probably be “punished” for them; but heroes are very unlikely to be punished or held accountable for committing murder, especially if it’s “justified.” 

5. a. This is problematic because it allows heroes, and the state, to define what a justified “emergency situation” is, and who can die in those emergencies. The people who are deemed killable “in an emergency” are usually those who are already marginalized; hence heroes can wait until those marginalized people get desperate enough to commit villainous acts, and then they can swoop in to arrest or kill them to widespread public acclaim.

5. b. Heroes (and law enforcement IRL) don’t address the roots of crime that lie in overarching oppressive structures like misogyny and capitalism. They don’t prevent theft by bringing people financial stability; they arrest people who were desperate enough to steal, and use those people to send a message to poor people everywhere. They make these conditions of desperation more permanent by punishing the most vulnerable people when they slip up, while doing absolutely nothing until the slip-up happens.

5. c. Heroes are punching down, and villains are punching up. That may not be the case with AFO, but I believe it with the LOV specifically, and I believe this matters because it’s exemplified between Hawks and Twice. Hawks targets someone who reached out to him, despite being hurt over and over again by types like him, who has dealt with poverty and fantasy mentally illness completely on his own, and kills him in defense of the very society that allowed all those things to happen to Jin. Hawks was given a choice: sympathize and relate to Jin, and acknowledge his well-founded grievances toward a dysfunctional society, or prioritize the safety and security of that dysfunctional society by permanently removing Jin from the equation. The choice he believes in is the choice he made.

5. d. In order for Tomura to make the same choice with the same implications, they’d have to be living in an alternate universe, in the Kingdom of AFO, where Tomura is a respected noble who infiltrates a rebel group who were going to “commit atrocities,” kills the one person who offered him a way out of AFO’s control, and possibly screws the rebels altogether, but everyone is happy that the rebels are gone. Even if you think Tomura is capable of that, it’s irrelevant because canon!BNHA has completely different power dynamics. Because Tomura’s violence will always be unpopular and persecuted, rather than justified and glorified by the state, he physically cannot replicate a choice like Hawks’. Tomura can approximate it, but even if he does, he’ll be hunted down by heroes for doing so. The circumstances and consequences for making such a choice are totally different.

So. That’s why I don’t think Tomura and Hawks can be equated. Suggesting that this is a level playing field is essentially believing that criminals and law enforcement exist on level playing fields, and they absolutely do not at all. Hawks is particularly abhorrent because he’s already followed through with his choice. He holds power by being part of the policing class, and regardless of how he came into it, he behaves exactly the same as everyone else who “freely” joined, and in his position of power he made the choice to eliminate someone who was socially powerless.

[gunnerpalace]

I belonged to another heated (but no longer debatable imho) ship were I've known a lot to be IH. And ofc I feel bad they have to bear witness to people so salty about the ending and hated Ino. I hate Ino too with burning passion, and that kinda made me feel guilty. But the psychology major in me was baffled as to how they conclude immediately w/ no analysis she was hated not only because of ships but because either she was written terribly, or she was written to be terrible. Or probably both.

Why cant Ichigo and Rukia be married to someone we could *infer* (because duh it’s not canon they will argue) they are in love with? Someone they have shown to share bond with? “Oh well, its becoming commonplace that the hero doesnt end up w/ main heroine, it���s revolutionary!” Bullshit. Sadly that is logic fallacy you dumbasses. Where’s the progress? Kubo tried, barely even. And again, it’s not even about the ships, its the entire work that has become an anomaly–Bleach as became Bleauuughch.

Again, I feel bad they have to bear the weight of evert criticism, the insult, and the salt of basically a majority of bleach fandom. But I hope they can tell that majority (like 99.99999999998%) of the criticisms are valid and not just hate. If they couldnt bear to actual do analysis of why people hated it, then dont bother plead or guilt trip or go to ppl inboxes why should we just move on. Well, majority already did that’s why all was left were ppl who couldnt be bothered with actual quality.

Here’s the ugly truth about people: they can’t read.

Or they don’t want to.

We have this holdover idea from the Enlightenment that if you can gather enough evidence in fine and exacting enough detail, that you can not only discern some kind of truth, but convince other people of it through the preponderance of evidence. And we have structured our society around that idea, from politics to law to science to academia in general.

The trouble is that that idea is bullshit outside of academia.

That is not at all how regular people approach the world.

And the more we rely upon an idea that people are rational, the more we will be lost at and disappointed by the actuality that people are irrational and emotional.

Consider climate change. The scientific community has had roughly 97% consensus that climate change is being anthropomorphically driven (that is to say, somewhere between overwhelmingly and entirely caused by human activity) since at least the very early 2000s, if not back much earlier. Indeed, we know that the oil companies were aware of it at least as early as 1981! And here we are in 2020, with some 31% of the population either unsure of or disbelieving in it.

Whenever the matter is debated politically, scientists will trot out their facts and drop them on the table and point. The facts are self-evident, they feel. And then the conservative politicians will shrug and say, “I don’t believe you.”

And the scientists have no idea what to do about that. Because to their minds, facts are indisputable. You cannot argue with them.

But you can, as the conservatives illustrate. You just choose not to believe in them.

We are witnessing something very similar with COVID-19 at the moment, with large swathes of the (American) population simply not believing it to be a threat, in spite of all available evidence to the contrary.

We see the same thing with political leadership debating the question of whether to prioritize health or economics, and our media treating this as if it is a legitimate policy debate, when we already know the answer to that question from the Spanish Flu of 1918: towns and cities that were locked down and quarantined suffered fewer casualties and had much faster economic rebounds.

People generally do not read.

People generally do not process.

People generally do not analyze.

People generally do not learn.

And if they can’t do those things for very large-scale existential threats that can threaten anything from tens to hundreds of millions of people worldwide, to the entire ecosphere of the planet, why would one expect them do so for a piece of fiction?

If people cannot handle cold, hard statistical facts, or simple arithmetic, then they certainly cannot handle something as “subjective” as facial expressions or dialogue. I have written recently about how the attitude toward non-fandom things (e.g., politics) increasingly resembles that of fandom, of approaching everything as though it is merely an aesthetic exercise.

That is really what we are dealing with here: ignorance. And not merely ordinary ignorance, not even willful ignorance, but an ignorance so deliberate and cultivated that its goal is nothing less than the total erasure of the facts. (The problem here, in this particular example, are of course the people who say unequivocally, “Ichigo always loved Orihime,” in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Someone who says, “It is clear to me this wasn’t a thing, but I like IH aesthetically,” is a non-issue.)

(Demanding or trying to force this former perspective does, as you suggest in the third ask, indicate a certain insecurity and a tacit admission that the perspective being advanced is illegitimate or poorly substantiated. However, for the people so enthralled to openly admit that is a psychological admission of defeat so severe that most would literally rather die than own up to being wrong to such an extent, and to suffer the attendant internal loss of face. So they seek continual external validation of it to shore it up.)

There is, in essence, no point in communicating with this kind of fan whatsoever. They are functionally like how Kyle Resse describes the Terminator in The Terminator:

Listen, and understand! That Terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!

There is a lot of tepid discussion out there in political circles that the degree of polarization in society today is unprecedented and that a way to bridge that gap could be through shared interests and values. But in my opinion, fandom proves exactly the opposite is true: the reasons people like things that are nominally “shared interests,” and their view of those things and why they are good, are completely and utterly irreconcilable. There is, essentially, virtually zero overlap in a Venn diagram of the perspectives. Shared interests divide as much as they will ever unite.

In that regard, Bleach should be treated as both a warning and a grim assessment of our world as a whole. It is not really an aberration.

It is the future.

This community (among others) has simply been living in it a few years in advance of other people. Everyone else has gotten their first big taste of it with Trump. (The Republicans have been constructing an alternate reality since 1964, but comparatively few people were aware of how deep the rabbit hole went.)

In my estimation, it is not worth engaging with people over a shared interest with sincerity, let alone in good faith, unless you have done some degree of vetting of their perspective. Most likely observing them or their works for a time. Without that, you simply open yourself up to these people who show a total lack of discernment or rationality.

And that is a large part of why social media is such an absolute garbage fire, because as platforms they are built around precisely the opposite notion. (And largely in defiance of the idea that people might want to curate their experiences or might not want to have “healthy debate,” which is almost never healthy and seldom ever debate). Some would argue this leads to echo chambers and hug boxes, but it’s not like the alternative that these companies have produced (for profit, of course, rather than for of any ideological mission) is any better.

To boil it all down, what we are really forced to rely on (quite sadly) is a free market approach: no matter how much that side rages and waves their “canon” status around, they simply do not produce much content. They will starve long before our side does, regardless of any other factors. (Their “canon” status did not help them any in the past four years.) And the people who are agnostic (e.g., the “I’m Still Bleach” crowd that is for some reason vaguely invested in the series as a whole) will lose interest and move on to the next shiny thing.

The only thing that is necessary in the face of all this is really patience. In the meantime, the best thing is simply to ignore the existence of such parties utterly.

[minecraftoworymode]

picked a whole bouquet of whoopsie-daisies the other day reading some Very badfeel content so to cheer myself up here’s some super self-indulgent ramblings about romeo recovery post-s2

“YOU CAN DANCE IF YOU WANT TO YOU CAN LEAVE YOUR INTERNALIZED MISOGYNY BEHIND” or how romeo learned to stop worrying and indulge in the ““feminine”“ shit in life

when romeo transitioned he scrubbed everything that could be potentially viewed as feminine from his appearance and behaviour. while he did everything he could about the former (hairstyle, clothing, body language, voice), it didn’t feel like enough bc he couldn’t change some things that ppl used to be jerks- his frame (short and lithe), his family, his being trans- so he made up for it by trying to “act” like a “real man”. this unfortunately meant he was super vulnerable to manipulative alt-right indoctrination tactics (”we will validate you as a man as long as you endorse our assholery and share our shitty beliefs about what it means to be a man”) and he was on the verge of getting sucked into gamergate ideology when [THIS LORE IS ANOTHER POST] and hey, now the world is minecraft. u dont gotta perform gender roles for villagers they dont care. xara will not only actually eat ur liver for pulling The Bullshit but when you are kind she smiles, so bright and warm, and it is very very nice so maybe you should keep on doing that. n fred? fred is chill with their Everything in a way uve only ever Dreamed of. romeo marinates in this sauce for a couple centuries and comes the closest to being comfortable in his own skin he’s ever been.

however,

after the Incident he slam-dunked himself back into the hypermasculinity juice bc it was a mindset “safe” from feeling pain, whether his or others’. n since the worlds the admins created dont have the same ideas of gender as the world they came from, once he’s been dethroned romeo has a particularly hard time adjusting wrt That on top of all the other 2750347502730 issues he has to face

anyway flash forward a couple months of being incredibly volatile bc he now has to confront all the terrible things he did and how Dare u make him do that and maybe if hes nasty enough he can provoke someone into killing him and saving him from having to unpack All Of That- (note from @simple-mooshroom-herder​: Xara and Jesse at least grasp that Romeo will probably burn himself out on this bullshit eventually and the best thing to do is interact with him with a certain level of healthy detachment. Eventually he'll see that theres no "getting out of this" and he'll start to do the Work but until then its very frustrating to see that tactic take him nowhere.)

- one day petra notices how he’s constantly staring at all the ppl wearing cute dresses in beacontown and at first she thinks he's being creepy but then realizes that he's not being creepy and actually she knows exactly how he feels bc she also used to look at ppl wearing clothes super not suited for combat like that, like she wished she could wear them too, like if she just didnt have to keep up this image of the Warrior who is Not Soft Ever-

n ok. listen. these worlds have been specifically engineered to be better and kinder than the one the admins came from, and when people mess up- even REALLY mess up- people are generally not only willing to forgive you but support you as you try and get better. it’s instinctual for communities to respond to misdeeds with rehabilitation and reconciliation, rather than retaliation and renunciation (tho its not an overnight thing and it generally takes 1-3 people to spearhead the process, esp if the actions have affected a large group of people). like. ivor created something that almost destroyed the entire world, not just beacontown, yet by the end of season one he’s grown to be a part of the team- n its not just jesse & co being forgiving here, bc when ivor made his s1 build with 3 lava source blocks people objected to it, but by s2 he not only has lava in his build but a giant lake of it. (im assuming the fences around said lake are coming eventually, bc safety is still important, but the implications im choosing to take from this are a) despite almost ending the world people let him into their lives anyway and b) the community not only grew to accept but encourage his self-expression.)

BUT ANYWAY before i go off on that even more one day petra and romeo basically put on an impromptu fashion show in jesse’s house (bc their house is huge and, kind of perfect for a fashion show, and also right next to the order hall’s armory whence they stole a bunch of fancy swords to match the outfits) n theyre having a blast until the hero in residence , returns to their residence (and with COMPANY) n romeo is absolutely Mortified- caught red-handed showing feelings of an almost human nature, oh my god, this will NOT do- n this whole grand soliluquy of shame and excuses and apologies grabs the steering wheel of his tongue but he cant even spit a single syllable out bc jesse and lukas almost immediately dip leaving romeo panicking for a second before they come back with their inventories FULL of cute outfits, including a billion skirts and dresses, some of them are even enchanted so theyre like. super shiny or constantly flowing or things like that.

this actually ends up spiralling into a town-wide... not quite fashion show bc there's no runway or anything, everyone just shows up in their cutest/coolest outfits .. fashion convention?? Anyway several people come up to him and compliment him on his outfit casually before continuing along, not recognizing him not only bc of how hes done his hair and makeup n what hes wearing but he just seems... so happy (he might be wearing something on his head? like a headpiece or hat or something? but also maybe not hmm)- whoever this is, he's not hunched over like he's got several centuries' worth of sins crawling on his back he’s not trying to shrink and make small a human-shaped apology for the simple fact of his existence not dragging his feet like hes ready for, dreading, a hundred mile trek through the desert repenting hes just. hes literally just Vibing

anyway he's mostly been silent or just providing very quiet "thank you"s but when it turns out that some people showed up ready to play music and there's a song that he knows he literally cant help but start jamming out its the GOod Stim everyones a-dancing and a-jiving and some people start to sing and so of course he does too (the healing power of dancing and singing in cute outfits.... unfathomable) but. ppl recognize his voice

and after a few seconds he notices how quiet it's gotten all of a sudden n everyones looking at him like "oh shit thats the admin" and honestly his heart breaks. visibly

but

then someone starts singing, so quiet it takes a moment for him to hear over the sound of an encroaching panic attack (oh god he has airpods in), but when he looks over theyre smiling - theyre smiling at hiM???? AND IT DOESNT EVEN LOOK MEAN??- and doing this very simple step, that he catches onto just as easily as he matches their singing (its a fairly common little tune n dance)

theyre like standing like a good few meters away but as they take turns with lines in the song they slowly inch closer

and he thinks hes starting to recognize the dance that the steps theyre doing is from but at the part in the song thats coming up ur supposed to allemande left and even tho theyre like, less than a meter away now literally no one has really wanted to get close to him, let alone actually touch him, so hes totally expecting them to be like 'psych' and humiliate him in front of the entire crowd-

BUT THEN THEY ACTUALLY GO FOR IT???

he completes the step without even thinking about it n continues onto the next in this state of dull bewilderment where there is but one braincell active in his head and it is just going, in a very tiny voice, "danser?"

- when they linked arms the person briefly seemed surprised that he didn't like, chew their arm off or anything (he had. kind of snapped at people a few times during the past few weeks), but then their shock turned into a wide smile and they sort of- nodded? at someone over his shoulder like 'come and join us, it doesn't look like he's going to kill me after all you guys can put the eulogy writing on hold'

what rly makes his heart do the confused and hopeful conga is that this isnt even anyone romeo knows, its a total stranger. or- like- he saw them while he was pretending to be jesse he just didnt care to get to know them beyond ‘name and gimmick’- its not even someone who has any reason to think he'd be cool to befriend its literally jsut someone taking a chance on him (tkae a chance take a chance take a chance take a cha)

afterwards hes like "i should thank jesse for putting you up to that, it was fun" and theyre like "what? jesse didn't "put me up to" anything, dude, you just looked super choked. * something something surfer lingo who would i be if i just left someone to feel bad when they could be having fun dancing you know?*"

he H

[unwelcome-ozian]

.Why do you equate mass shootings with white supremacy? A few have been, sure. Not every shooting is purported by white supremacists. And not every shooting is a choice either. It can result from bullying, abusive parenting, suppressing of gender identity and all kinds of things that eat at them until they are mentally scattered and unhinged.

2 Programming can sometimes contribute. Schizophrenia and dehumanization can contribute. Being forced to live in a society that doesnt accept, having everything monitored to the point of breaking, programming like being drugged out can contribute. It’s not even like all mass shooters are even white. I cant believe you are minimizing trauma and abuse to simply White Supremacy. Yes not all mentally I’ll are violent, no, it’s not all an act of racial violence, even if a few are.

Is there no abuse in society? Is it always simply white supremacy when someone breaks and is very irrational due to not even being able to think with everyone breathing down their damn neck and cant even think without being policed? Is it white supremacy to be abused to the point they are a potential danger to society, maybe they feel like they’ll never be productive or he feels like a defective female and male because he was raised to be that way?Utterly callous and insensitive Nice gaslighting

Also maybe I am completely out of the loop on these things but how is shooting a bunch of other white people an act of white supremacy? How is someone who shoots people he perceives to be bullies an act of white supremacy?

What it is like to almost reach mass shooter status is where you arent allowed to do any physical activity or rough house with anyone and people put shackles on you by abusing neglecting and raping you and potentially even drugging you until your brain breaks and words and actions become like daggers and bats. And that’s because you havent been allowed sleep or adequate portions of food and because you cant let your anger and emotions out they start giving you rashes and in your brain as

as a person with DID you can only see yourself as having scars and black eyes and broken fingers and of you speak someone will cut out your tongue and.. you through windows and criticizing everything and setting traps and.. I’m not looking to get unhinged from this further so Ill stop. Its insensitive to look at an issue that intersects with abuse and bullying as only white supremacy. Maybe it just hit a soft spot from a much rougher time for us Is it not abuse if it occurs in a school setting?

I’m not even finishing my rant because you don’t deserve to hear my story. I’m a strong beautiful survivor who is worth much more than that And my story is much more genuine and importance then you will ever understand. Its not some nazi wet dream. I doubt you care but I wont follow a blog who minimizes abuse of children because its in a school setting instead of a home setting. It’s gross. My healing journey doesnt need ppl like this anywhere near it. I hope you mature one day.

Itsnot because of my RA or because I was abused as an autistic or had my gender identity suppressed and had another beaten into me its because Im a white supremacist and all my pains are invalid and I should quit whining and try to push it down when I cant and doing that makes me break out in rashes and become irrational because I’m so used to doing it. Grow up. No one wants to help eliminate child abuse in schools stop systematic child torture And you are no different. I chose this. Okay.

Okay this is my last message but just to clarify white supremacy as well as banning guns ends all the violence (although it would stop a lot of it) are scapegoats. One shifts the blame away from RA, from our current school issues, the other doesnt address why ppl are turning out the way they are. Anyway. I wont look at this blog anymore. I dont have to, and the content you post is your choice I understand. Its better to speak up than stay quiet though.

Here is the post you are referring to.

Why do you equate mass shootings with white supremacy? 

 Because there is an association.

In the two weeks since a gunman killed 22 people in El Paso law enforcement officials say they have thwarted at least seven separate mass shootings or white supremacist attacks across the US.

At least four of the alleged foiled plots also appeared to involve men espousing far-right viewpoints and racist ideologies, with echoes of the Texas massacre. Aug 22, 2019

April 2019

1 killed in mass shooting targeting a synagogue in Poway, California, US.

March 2019

51 killed in mass shootings targeting two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

October 2018

11 killed in a mass shooting targeting the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US.

October 2018

Man attempted to enter black church before allegedly killing two black people in a supermarket in Kentucky, US.

January 2017

Six people killed during evening prayers at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada.

For a comprehensive list go here: LINK

Not every shooting is purported by white supremacists. And not every shooting is a choice either.

Nowhere in that post did it say EVERY shooting. So you are correct.  In the context of the post yes EVERY shooting is a choice.

Careful using absolutes like; always, all, every, and never. Things rarely are 100 percent, that’s the reason things must be kept in context.  So, throughout this reply, I’m going to continually place things back in context for you by referring to the post that you are upset about.

It’s not even like all mass shooters are even white. I cant believe you are minimizing trauma and abuse to simply White Supremacy. 

Again, out of context, nowhere in that post did it say ALL are white. It says ‘being a white supremacist is not a mental illness, it’s a choice.’

Do you know what a choice is in the context of the post? I’ll explain in this context, it means someone choosing, willfully saying, ‘I choose to hate someone solely based on their race, country of origin, ethnicity, religion and for no other reason.’  That is a choice. 

And again, in the context of the post: White supremacy isn’t a mental health issue. 

Itsnot because of my RA or because I was abused as an autistic or had my gender identity suppressed and had another beaten into me its because Im a white supremacist and all my pains are invalid and I should quit whining and try to push it down when I cant 

For clarification, are you saying you’re a white supremacist? Or….

 Anyway. I wont look at this blog anymore. I dont have to, and the content you post is your choice I understand. Its better to speak up than stay quiet though.

That’s fine, you don’t have to look at this Tumblr, it is your choice. Like being a white supremacist is a choice.

Mental health issues however are not a choice. Depression, not a choice.  Schizophrenia, not a choice.  DID, not a choice. Bi-polar, you guessed it, not a choice. BPD, not a choice. EDs, not a choice. The mental health issues people live with absolutely not a choice. We agree there.

Oz

[thatjwguy]

Bullet For My Valentine - Tears don't fall (Lyrics)

Well, not really a better title for this sorta post... i personally have been making amends with my past and or present. This song indirectly says everything that i would like to say in this post to be honest. still i feel i should elaborate to some extent as to not leave people in the dark, i feel like that much is owed to the person who decides to read this post. so before we go further, just know im not a hardcore emo fan, just like this particular song since it speaks volumes to my current situation. Nothing against people who love this style, i see the appeal.

This is going to border on the lines of insanity but its really more of a spiritual issue. How shall i start this trip down my rabbit hole of weirdness. Lets go back 3 or so years ago. This is about the time i had my first breakdown, it was induced by weed but not the cause of it. I was already predisposed to this disorder from the get go, iv done some research on this already. Look up how marijuana does not cause symptoms of schizophrenia but that it can induce it depending upon the individual who uses the substance. just wanted to point these things out in case someone trys to label me a anti-pot advocate or something to that effect.

Im gonna lay this all out as clear as possible but without pointing fingers or making anyone feel bad. This was all my own doing, my mind took a break and decided to go on vacation. I was in this trance-like state for quite awhile after the initial break. I started to see hallucinations, visions, apparitions, hear voices and so on and so forth. Mental illness should never be taken lightly, neither do the spiritual elements to this world we currently live in. Sorry for leaving ya hang for a bit, i just feel these sorta things should be put up front so the reader has and idea of where im coming from. So, lets continue i promise not to go on too long of tangents, at least i hope not. 

Three years is a while to be dealing with stuff like this, it takes a major toll on you as a person. People tend to shrug off stuff like this as if can be as simple as just flipping a switch, let me tell ya, nothing could be further from the truth. While i was in the midst of this mental delusion or breakdown i was also dabbling with the occult to some extent, well i was trying to expose things in the world related to the occult. I listened to people like Alex Jones and other truthers out there on the interwebs. Perhaps i had the break for a reason, since opening your eyes to the world around you really does have a deep impact on you as a human. I guess some people arent ready to be awakened to the matrix, i feel like i fit the bill for that one. 

I was also deep into certain forms of entertainment, which may or may not be within the realm of the occult to some degree. I won't say they are, just that spiritually speaking, we are all exposed to this world, spiritual darkness/light does exist so we must come to terms with this idea right now. These forms of entertainment were that of heavy metal music, horror movies, video games etc. etc. So you could begin to see how this might play a role in someone's environment not being so healthy, not to mention genetic predispositions or trauma experienced during childhood.  So no blame is being put anywhere here, just need to lay it all out there so people can fully understand what could possibly make situations worse for people suffering from these illnesses. 

Again, i must apologize since i do babble, i am laying out the groundwork for how all of this happened and help others understand it better. So in this day we live in people believe in many ideologies. Too many to name right off but i will mention that i did try to do the New Age thing at one point during all this. Since the voices kept insisting this was some form of ascending or something to that effect. You hear terms like this often with New Age beliefs, ascended masters, 3rd eye-opening, gods/goddess, soulmates/twinflames. All sorts of interesting perspectives to the things that are actually happening. I say that since i come from a biblical background, i believe this is just a deception from the Devil, not some form of spiritual awakening (False Awakening). 

I mention the twin flame thing since that seemed to be something they wanted me to know about, they wanted to lead me in a direction that i was somehow spiritually connected to people i was never actually connected to. I fell into a trap in my mind, thinking it was real and that i was somehow connected to celebrities or public figures iv never even met. Just cause my mind was gone, and also since with this belief, people do actually think they are all connected to one another universally or something like that. Like some sort of cosmic beehive that we are all apart of, we can tap into that only if we go through the ranks and reach Christ consciousness. Again i don't believe these things, its just what i see out there. I would encourage you to investigate this for yourself. 

Everyone has the desire to know more about their existence, so thats what i was trying to do. To figure out where i came from or how everything came to be. The problem was my heart/mind was not in the right place. I was doing things for selfish reasons. I not only wanted to be apart of something more than myself, i also wanted to have things i could not have. So perhaps this was that outlet for me, to live out a fantasy of sorts but in a spiritual way since in reality, i knew something like this could not be. I wanted to believe i could connect with people on a conscious leavel, like a telephone call or something like that. With the new age, they say you can tap into that christ like consciousness and experience something along the lines of telepathy.

So, that's how i thought for a while, that the voices were like a telepathic line to some of these people. I fell in love with that idea until i found out it was a deception. Why wouldn't you want to believe you had some sort of ability to talk to people using only your mind. Since my heart was in the wrong place tho, i ended up abusing what i thought was power. I used it to try indirectly message people. Thinking i was actually talking to the people in my head, even though that was never the case. This is why i called it insanity in the beginning, you cant make this stuff up folks, i thought i was talking to people in my head in real life. Not only that but i also had lucid dreams involving those people. So in my reality, this was happening, no matter how you explained it to me. 

This is how the trap was laid out for me, i fell for it hook line and sinker. I also developed an obsession with some of the celebrities associated with the voices in my head. Thinking they knew about all of it too, just not really coming right out and saying it since they don't want to damage their image or make things public you know. I mean really, who would come out and make something like this public, they would look pretty insane just like i am right now. So, let me be clear, iv had psych help and meds help me to come back to reality since all of this happened. I no longer believe any of this, i just think i had a really wild fantasy that turned out to be a spiritual and psychological problem. 

As wild as it may appear, i think many out there do believe these sorta things. Look up youtube videos. People do believe they can have astral sex or spiritual sex with spirits or other people. So, im not that crazy for believing these things. Many people fall into these traps wanting to believe in something more, which isn't all bad, just misguided thats all. My main issue tho is that i was torn between two different women in my head, even more if i wanted to be completely honest with myself. I had talked myself into believing i was telepathically connected to women i would never have a chance with in real life. That they even wanted me at one point... yeah, pretty bizarre thinking pattern i know. So, kids dont do drugs or dabble in the occult cause you might get sucked into thinking you have godlike powers lol. 

I suppose my heart was just torn on the people i admired or had a crush on, perhaps at one point i even considered polyamory as an option. I was so selfish in thinking i could have these things and never really stopping to think, well what do they think about this, or i don't even deserve this at all. Just the gull in that line of thinking alone is enough to make me almost hate myself for even trying to make these fantasy women love me, all of them. I was basically being a player in the spiritual sense. So, yeah, you can guess how all of that played out. Many fights inside my head about beliefs and even with the women in my head. You wanna know what insanity is, try having imaginary voices of pissed off women in your head every day for 3 years. 

You may ask yourself, do i still hear them. Yes to some degree i do, but medications and therapy have helped me cope with all of this. Do i still love the people who are in my head, yes on a human level i still love them very much. Despite it all being just in my head, i just want them to be alright and know i was never trying to hurt them, just wanted to be loved by someone. Yes, it does appear to me that i needed to fix the wrong i had done, even if it was just in my head, the voices are still very real and do get mad when you act out or are a jerk, just like in real life. So i have used that as a tool to help me grow as a person, knowing we are all flawed and make mistakes. I needed to mend my mind and make peace with them. So this is also how im doing that, trying to make peace. 

In the end i was completely off the deep end in all this thinking, now i must live with the choices iv made. Even if iv never really hurt anyone in the real world, i still need to make this right, just on a personal level. Also even in Gods eyes, this could be something very real to him, doing things of that nature. Imagine, people do actually do things of that nature in the real world, play games with people and make them feel like they are the only one. When i reality they are cheating around every corner with some other person, either just because or for other unknown reasons. Maybe they just never see eye to eye or people just want to live that rock n roll style life and bed multiple partners just for the sake of saying they did. For me tho, i really want just one woman, just one who i know will be there for me and will stick with me no matter how hard it gets, Even with my mental illness she sees im a good man, trying to make it work. 

I know a woman like that still exists out there despite all the BS you hear from other men or even women for that matter. Perhaps i will find her in my faith, which is the thing Jehovah God would want, or maybe in the world. Some things are better left unknown. Just know that when the time is right, it will happen, not by force, but just because we are both ready to be in a committed relationship, not matter what gets in our way, we will have faith. Yes, this just turned into a post about me having women trouble, not entirely but yeah, i am pretty caught up in these things in my head so i must be honest with you. So now i guess you have a bit more insight into the way my mind works. Never again will i go into this much detail about my psych break. So consider yourself blessed or cursed with more knowledge of this random dude on the internet. 

Im about done here, so thanks for dropping by to go down this deep pit of my mind. I love you for doing that, just for caring enough to sit through this long and drawn out post about a guy having women problems in his head, its much more than just that but yeah. That's just the overly simplified version of this mess so that i don't get people too confused. Even though im betting you stil are, even i find myself still questioning these things from time to time. Well, that about does it, i have to get going, the voices are telling me i need to go play the new spiderman game that just came out, yes it is very awesome, i would definitely recommend you try it. 

[statetalks]

What Do Republicans Stand For Today

Poverty Must Solve Itself

Republicans believe that poor people are usually poor for a reason, be it laziness, choice or whatever. Unless we demand that people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and solve their own problems, people will not be motivated to do things. Therefore, the issue of poverty cannot be solved by the government. Charity should be the choice of individuals.

Republicans Cant Understand Democrats

Only one in four Republican voters felt that most or almost all Democratic voters sincerely believed they were voting in the best interests of the country.  Rather, many Republicans told us that Democratic voters were brainwashed by the propaganda of the mainstream media, or voting solely in their self-interest to preserve undeserved welfare and food stamp benefits.

We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country.  We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might.  For example, a 64-year-old strong Republican man from Illinois surmised that Democrats want to help the poor, save Social Security, and tax the rich.   

But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote I dont want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy! Indeed, roughly one in six Republican voters answered in the persona of a Democratic voter who is motivated free college, free health care, free welfare, and so on.  They see Democrats as voting in order to get free stuff without having to work for it was extremely common roughly one in six Republican voters used the word free in the their answers, whereas no real Democratic voters in our sample answered this way. 

How Bipartisan Is Democrats Infrastructure Plan

All Videos

But Trumps continued popularity among key GOP constituencies prevents Republican insiders from undertaking a formal, public discussion about his political shortcomings and how the party should move on from him. Everyone in the GOP knows that irritating Trump could result in the former president attacking them, which would make them vulnerable to a primary challenge, with conservative activists likely backing their opponent. So there will be no autopsy of the post-Trump Republican Party, akin to the Republican National Committees report in 2013 following Romneys defeat, at least not in public. 

Democrats Remain United Around Ideas

While some Democrats remain coy about it, they are broadly united in the objective of moving the United States much more toward European-style social democracy. That includes a much more extensive social welfare system. A government-directed economy. Heavily regulated capital, labor and consumer markets.

This is not socialism, properly understood and defined. Markets would remain the primary mechanism for allocating capital and labor, and setting prices. Even the members of the Democratic coalition who call themselves socialists arent really.

Now, there are disagreements among Democrats about the specifics of what should constitute a European-style social democracy in the United States. And differences about how rapidly to get there.

Nevertheless, there is sufficient consensus on the direction that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were able to agree on a unity platform headed into the election.

What Does Democratic Mean

Starting alphabetically, the word means pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

Simply put, the lowercase democratic is a word used to refer to anything that resembles or has to do with a , a form of in which the supreme power rests with the people and is exercised by them directly or by politicians that they elect to them. In practice, this is usually accomplished through a fair, organized system of voting, in which  or cast votes in support of political or societal issues . 

So, the word democratic is used to describe government systems that are or resemble democracies and the people that run these types of governments. The United States of America is a representative democracy in which the people elect representatives to perform the demands of politics on their behalf. This is why we say that the US is a democratic country or that we have a democratic form of government. 

The English word democratic dates all the way back to the late 1500 and early 1600s. It is derived from the Greek word dmokratía . The government system of the ancient Greek of Athens, in which the people held the power , is considered the worlds first democracy. Considering that Athens was a slave-owning society, its form of democracy was much different than the democratic governments of today. 

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.  More than four in ten Democratic voters   felt that most Republican voters had the countrys best interests at heart .  And many tried their best to answer from the others perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.  A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to stop abortion stop gay marriage from ruining our country and give us our coal jobs back.

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOPs opposition to Obamacare, lower taxes and to support a party that reduced unemployment. 

What Does Republican Mean

The word means of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic. Similarly to the word democratic, the word republican also describes things that resemble or involve a particular form of government, in this case the government in question is a . A republic is a government system in which power rests with voting citizens who directly or indirectly choose representatives to exercise political power on their behalf. 

You may have noticed that a republic sounds a lot like a democracy. As it happens, most of the present-day democracies are also republics. However, not every republic is democratic and not every democratic country is a republic.

For example, the historical city-state of Venice had a leader known as a who was elected by voters. In the case of Venice, though, the voters were a small council of wealthy traders, and the doge held his position for life. Venice and other similar mercantile city-states had republican governments, but as you can see, they were definitely not democratic. At the same time, the United Kingdom is a democratic country that has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and so it is not a republican country because it is not officially a republic. 

Republican Vs Democrat: What Are The Differences

When it comes to U.S. politics, two prominent parties dominate democrats and republicans. Each party, despite some of their common grounded principles, stands for a very different system where beliefs and applications might vary.

Here is an unbiased breakdown of some of the major differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

  The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

Why The Gops Lack Of Party Platform Matters

President Trumps refusal to commit to accepting Novembers election results is the latest example of this president abandoning the norms of constitutional democracy. And although high-profile Republicans have issued statements affirming that they support a peaceful transfer of power, they have also been carefully deferential to Trump.

This is a notable continuation of the party slowly becoming the party of Trump. Nowhere was this clearer than in the decision not to have a 2020 party platform and instead simply affirming enthusiastic support for Trump and his America First agenda. That move, more so than statements pledging fealty to the peaceful transfer of power, signals wavering Republican commitment toward equal rights and democracy.

Platforms declare a partys values and commitments. While the substance of the Democratic and Republican platforms often differs sharply, both have historically used certain key words, like the American Dream, economic opportunity and freedom from discrimination. Examining Republican platforms over time shows that what once had been a big-tent strategy of carefully managing intraparty differences over equality has been replaced by a hierarchical model of leadership where the party faithful should acquiesce to one individuals vision of political community. Indeed, the 2020 resolution ruled out of order any effort to adopt a platform.

What Do Republicans Stand For

Since this is a presidential election year, and the Republican Party wants Americans , it is fitting to ask the question: What do Republicans stand for?

Writing in Politico Magazine, chief political correspondent Tim Alberta hit the nail on the head: The supposed canons of GOP orthodoxy limited government, free enterprise, institutional conservation, moral rectitude, fiscal restraint, global leadership have in recent years gone from elastic to expendable. Identifying this intellectual vacuum is easy enough. Far more difficult is answering the question of what, quite specifically, has filled it.

The Republican Party held a truncated convention in Charlotte last month because of coronavirus restrictions on gatherings and concern for the safety of convention attendees. Every four years at their convention, Republicans adopt a new party platform but not this time. Even though the Democrats adopted a new for 2020 and a 110-page of recommendations issued by the BidenSanders unity task force, the Republican National Committee unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement. Had the Platform Committee convened, it would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the Partys strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration.

Education

Health care

Democrats Return The Favor: Republicans Uninformed Or Self

The 429 Democratic voters in our sample returned the favor and raised many of the same themes. Democrats inferred that Republicans must be VERY ill-informed, or that Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.  Or that Republicans are uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.

Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want free stuff, many Democrats believe Republicans think that I got mine and dont want the libs to take it away, or that some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.

Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side.  Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, I like a dictatorial system of Government, Im a racist, I hate non-whites. 

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

The GOP is viewed more negatively 38% say they have a positive view of the Republican Party, while 60% rate it unfavorably. These views are modestly changed since last summer, with the share of Americans rating the GOP unfavorably slightly higher than it was in August and the share of Americans with a negative view of the Democratic Party down slightly .

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Nearly all Republicans who say they strongly identify with the Republican Party express a favorable opinion of the GOP. Among Republicans who say they not so strongly identify with the party, 77% say have a favorable view, while 56% of independents who lean toward the Republican Party say the same.

Democrats who very strongly identify with the Democratic Party nearly universally view their party favorably, as do 87% of Democrats who describe themselves as not-so-strong Democrats. About six-in-ten Democratic leaners have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.

Within both partisan groups, views of the opposing party are overwhelmingly unfavorable across-the-board, with more than eight-in-ten strong partisans, not so strong partisans and leaners alike saying this.

Public Opinion On Foreign Policy

In June 2014 the Quinnipiac Poll asked Americans which foreign policy they preferred:

A) The United States is doing too much in other countries around the world, and it is time to do less around the world and focus more on our own problems here at home. B) The United States must continue to push forward to promote democracy and freedom in other countries around the world because these efforts make our own country more secure.

Democrats chose A over B by 65%-32%; Republicans chose A over B by 56% to 39%; Independents chose A over B by 67% to 29%.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Republicans supported Woodrow Wilson‘s call for American entry into World War I in 1917, complaining only that he was too slow to go to war. Republicans in 1919 opposed his call for entry into the League of Nations. A majority supported the League with reservations; a minority opposed membership on any terms. Republicans sponsored world disarmament in the 1920s, and isolationism in the 1930s. Most Republicans staunchly opposed intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By 1945, however, internationalists became dominant in the party which supported the Cold War policies such as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.

Red States Outnumber Blue States

In February 2016, Gallup reported that for the first time since Gallup started tracking, red states now outnumber blue states.

In 2008, 35 states leaned Democratic and this number is down to only 14 now. In the same time, the number of Republican leaning states rose from 5 to 20. Gallup determined 16 states to be competitive, i.e., they leaned toward neither party. Wyoming, Idaho and Utah were the most Republican states, while states that leaned the most Democratic were Vermont, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Trump Loses Then Attempts A Coup

In Georgia, Trump is attacking the Republican governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state. In Arizona, he is attacking Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who has been a GOP statewide officeholder for more consecutive years than Trump has been a Republican.

The reason? They are not willing to try to overturn duly certified election results in their states.

There has been an attempted coup of the presidential election taking place. But Trump is not the victim. He is the perpetrator.

The legal strategy was to delay certification of election results. The political strategy was to pressure Republican officials to ignore the election results, irrespective of whether they were certified, and have Republican state legislatures chose Trump electors in states where Biden won the vote.

Internet Safety And Decency

DemocraticThe platform supports a free and open internet at home and abroad. The party would seek to strengthen cybersecurity while protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

RepublicanThe platform states: The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.

Most Republicans Say Critics Of Trump Should Not Be Accepted In The Gop While Most Democrats Say Their Party Should Be Accepting Of Biden Critics

Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say their party should be accepting of elected officials within the party who disagree with it on some important issues. At the same time, very few in either party say their party should be welcoming of elected officials who support groups advocating for violence against members of the other party.

But there are clear distinctions between the two coalitions in their appetite for accepting members of the party who criticize the partys standard bearers: While most Democrats say the party should be at least somewhat accepting of elected officials who criticize Joe Biden, the majority position among Republicans is that the GOP should not be welcoming toward Republican elected officials who criticize Donald Trump, and an even smaller share of Republicans say that those who voted to impeach Trump should be accepted in the GOP. 

Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners say the Democratic Party should be very or somewhat accepting of Democratic elected officials who disagree with Democrats on important issues, while 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners say their own party should be very or somewhat accepting of Republican officials who disagree with the GOP on some important issues. Just 4% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans say their parties should be not at all accepting of elected officials who disagree with the party on some important issues.

The changes did not affect the reports substantive findings. 

The Partys Core Activists Dont Want To Shift Gears

This is the simplest and most obvious explanation: The GOP isnt changing directions because the people driving the car dont want to. 

When we think of Republicans, we tend to think of either rank-and-file GOP voters or the partys highest-profile elected officials, particularly its leaders in Congress. But in many ways, the partys direction is driven by a group between those two: conservative organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, GOP officials at the local and state level and right-wing media outlets. That segment of the party has been especially resistant to the GOP abandoning its current mix of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, opposition to expansions of programs that benefit the poor and an identity politics that centers white Americans and conservative Christians.

You could see the power and preferences of this group in the response to the Capitol insurrection.

In the days immediately following Jan. 6, many GOP elected officials, most notably McConnell, signaled that the party should make a permanent break from Trump. an increased number of rank-and-file GOP voters were dissatisfied with the outgoing president. But by the time the Senate held its trial over Trumps actions a month later, it was clear that the party was basically back in line with Trump. 

related:Why Being Anti-Media Is Now Part Of The GOP Identity Read more. »

Mcdermott: What Exactly Does Today’s Republican Party Stand For

Sep 21, 2019

Don’t want this next door? Too bad, say Missouri’s ruling Republicans.

}

Kevin McDermott

Some recent news items:

A new law by Missouri Republicans prevents local governments from regulating mega-hog-farms more stringently than the state does. So much for the Republican principle of local control.

The Republican-held U.S. Senate refuses to consider background checks on all gun purchases to ensure criminals cant buy them a no-brainer thats supported by about 90% of Americans, including most gun owners. So much for the Republican principle of law and order.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wants government regulation of the big social media companies to make their platforms more friendly to conservatives. So much for the Republican principles of deregulation and free enterprise.

The massive tax-cut-for-the-rich that Republicans passed in 2017 continues to very much not pay for itself as promised, instead driving the federal deficit over $1 trillion for the first time in six years. Yet President Donald Trump is calling for another massive tax cut. So much for the Republican principle of fiscal responsibility.

What, exactly, does todays GOP stand for?

Thats not snark. Its a real question.

They were genuinely obsessed with law and order, which is why Ronald Reagan all but banning civilian ownership of machine guns. Would todays Republican Senate pass that?

McDermott: Oblivious in the Ozarks

The Gop Now Stands For Nothing

A party that doesnt believe in anything ends up believing only in its right to rule.

About the author: Tom Nichols is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author ofthe book Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault From Within on Modern Democracy.

The Republicans in Congress are blocking a bipartisan investigation into the January 6 insurrection. Their spines crushed by years of obedience to Donald Trump, the members of the GOP have once again retreated from civic responsibility, with one more humiliation of those last few in the party who thought that the Senate Republicans might mimic something like statesmanship.

However, this effort is more than the usual cynical mendacity and crass careerism that characterize the current Republican Party. This latest insult to the rule of law and the Constitution was possible only because the Republicans have already lost confidence in their own principles. The GOP now stands for nothing. The party of Lincoln has become, in every way, a political and moral nullity.

American conservatism once meant something definite and tangible. You could fight those beliefs and policies; you could argue with them, admire them, or hate them. But they existed. Strom Thurmond, Ronald Reagan, Howard Baker, and Edward Brooke were not necessarily deep thinkers, and they didnt all agree on everything. But the GOP held clear lines of thought that stood as alternatives to liberalism.

Read: Mitch McConnells gift to progressives

Hincker: What Is Conservatism And What Do Republicans Stand For

Larry Hincker

I awoke on the morning of Jan. 6 dusting off ideas for another column. The U.S. Senate had just tipped to Democratic control in a decidedly anti-Trump vote. Should I snidely thank the president for decisively uniting the Democratic Party and its complete takeover of the federal government? Or tackle something closer to my beatthe more complex and substantial topic of the Virginia legislatures costly clean energy policies?

Then I read the paper. The conservative Wall Street Journal opined that Trump was unhinged from political reality. I thought for a moment that the modifier, from political reality, was unnecessary.

Later as I watched TV, unhinged historical figures poured over my brain. Theres Sampson pulling down columns in the temple, screaming about a stolen election amid woe-is-me fueled fury.

Or the Madness of King George, another slightly unhinged leader who suffered defeat, and wondering if our presidents minions were struggling to contain his rages.

Images of Nuremburg dance around my cranium while Trump encouraged tens of thousands at the huge Save America March outside The White House to be wild and walk down to the Capitol. Ill be there with you, he said. Apparently, his bone spurs prevented the walk or affected his courage. He watched from afar as mobs, thugs, and punks assaulted the seat and center of American democracy.

It all represents partisan voter disenfranchisement.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-republicans-stand-for-today/

[starlightbarbie]

(don’t reblog this post if you’re not one of my friends talking to me)

okay, you know, i changed my mind? i’m cleaning house today, airing out laundry, so why not do the same emotionally?

it’s been weighing on me too long and making me feel like a bad person but i’ve been so terrified of burning bridges that i never want to admit when i have a different opinion social-justice/spiritual-wise than my friends on here.

bc a lot of people seem to have the attitude that having a different political opinion than someone means you literally can’t interact with them again or continue being friends.

which i understand, it’s an online safe space and you want to surround yourself with like-minded people so you can enjoy your time away from the real-life people whose opinions you’re stuck around. tumblr is kind of the only place you CAN talk to ppl about lgbt, race, gender, etc issues and avoid other types of ppl.

but it just seems so, in a way, divisive and un-productive to alienate people who you enjoy talking to and being friends with, who share all of your political, social justice beliefs except ONE or TWO....just because their ideology doesn’t match perfectly with yours.

especially when they’ve been respecting your opinions the entire friendship and there’s no reason you wouldn’t be able to continue talking just without discussing those topics you’ve never discussed in the first place because they’ve been silent about them...

so maybe i’m afraid of all my friends finally learning my two differing opinions and immediately going “wow youre a bigot we cant be friends” and maybe thats presumptive and wrong but i can’t help my instinctual worries, you know? am i putting up too much self-defense here??

i hope i dont sound attack-y which i’m worried i might because whenever i get ranty....but whatever, this is all just MY opinion and if you read it i hope you can understand where im coming from and then, take from it what you will.

.hhmm. enough stalling...

ive never been “anti” otherkin--as i understand it’s a spiritual belief for some and a coping mechanism for others, and there’s no reason for me to bash that or find any fault with people who just feel a connection to a certain animal or whatever. that’s been happening for all of human existence, there are religions which believe in reincarnation, and i’m agnostic anyways.

i wasn’t raised religious, tho my mom was raised catholic--she wanted my sister and i to come to god on our own terms in our own time instead of being brainwashed by a church since babyhood. so far it just made us very secular. but i’ve had jewish, christian, muslim friends, and never disrespect anyone’s spiritual beliefs. i do preach separation of church and state and hold the political views that come with that, but i believe in freedom to express religion as long as it doesn’t infringe on another human’s rights.

but when it goes past otherkin...people identifying as animals, plants, and galaxies, that doesn’t harm anything--but when it comes to fictionkin and factkin it makes me very uncomfortable.

it feels extremely like theft of intellectual property and theft of identity. factkin, i have never actually seen a person identifying as, just people having “discourse” over, so i dont know if its even real but if it is...i dont even know if i have to argue against it, it’s literally pretending to be another person who is alive?? and is themselves. it’s way beyond wrong to pretend to actually be a famous person, and it is NOT a healthy coping mechanism. it could actually really scare or harm that person they’re pretending to be.

fictionkin is something i have seen a LOT and have friends who id that way, so that’s i guess the big topic here. no problem with otherkin, no one i know is factkin, but fictionkin....

i understand where it would come in as a coping mechanism, i really do. i can relate. i have characters that i’m very attached to, that i relate to very much, that i look up to and want to emulate. some of them i even feel unreasonably possessive over, like “well that’s my favorite character, they can’t be your favorite character if they’re already mine” which probably comes in to play with fictionkin feeling like they ARE the character so nobody else can be the character.

but the thing is, i can’t help but to feel like it’s intellectual property being stolen. it’s one thing to roleplay, to say “hey i know i dont own this character but i’m gonna pretend to be them and explore different scenarios.” the same for cosplaying or writing fanfiction and making fan art. using characters somebody else created to INSPIRE your own art is all fun and games as long as you dont claim to own any of the copyrighted materials.

claiming to BE the fictional character is totally claiming to own it. not legally obviously, i don’t think any fictionkin think they legally have rights to their kin, but definitely a huge mark of ownership to say “This is Me.”

they didn’t create that character. they didn’t spend hours, days, months, pouring their heart soul sweat blood and tears into bringing that character to life. the writer/artist did. when you write, you put literally all of yourself into your characters. every bit of it comes from your thoughts, your unique worldview, the things you’ve seen and learned all mixed together and spat out in a new form. it all comes from the mind of the character’s creator. in a way, their characters are each, them, or have their blood running through their metaphorical veins.

i am PASSIONATE about writing.

claiming to BE that character, that a writer put so much of themselves into, is almost like claiming to be that writer too. at least like carving out a piece of their mind and saying “this is mine, it came from my life in another universe. it doesn’t belong to you. it’s not a unique pattern of emotions and ideas and creativity that you spent years developing. it’s just me from another universe, what a coincidence, right?”

it’s so offensive to steal another person’s hard work like that. and tumblr--tumblr--is supposed to be this place where people care about art theft and crediting the owners matters? and that makes me very, very uncomfortable as an aspiring writer who has my own original characters developing in my head.

important side note: i dont think you can say that fictionkin doesnt actually hurt anyone the way factkin obviously would. i have seen personal accounts from people on tumblr that said people were tagging their ocs/self portraits as kin, or telling them that they were kin with their ocs and they were writing the story wrong in some way, and they were very distressed by it.

so. i have never said anything because i dont want to hurt anyones feelings and i dont want to lose friends, but i also have to be honest and say what i believe if i want to respect myself as a person. so that’s what i believe.

and i don’t think it’s a necessary course of action to cut off ties with someone because they dont believe in fictionkin. its like stopping being friends with someone because they have a different religion than you. i’ve had christian, jewish and muslim friends and as i said, i’m non-religious.

i understand that maybe identifying as a character is more tied with your personal identity than your religious identity, so it’s natural you would feel like people should accept that that character is part of your personality--but please understand that i can accept that there are aspects of all those characters in you and that you relate to them, without expecting me to believe that infinite universes AND reincarnation across those universes exist, which is more than any of my religious friends have asked of me. (ie no one has tried to convert me to their personal spiritual beliefs)

so that said, idk if anyone read all of this, but if you want to stop being my friend over it i wont try to make you change your mind. if youre uncomfortable talking to me after this, its fine and i wont push it. i gave my reasoning for why im willing to stay friends and put our different beliefs aside so know that youre always welcome in my life if you want to be, but i wont force you if you dont.

the next one is worse. stay tuned.

[viralhottopics]

How to stop arguing and actually change someone’s mind on social media

There are ways to get your point across more effectively. Avoid shouting into the abyss and follow these steps to become a master persuader

Whenever a major story breaks in the social media age, from the supreme court judgement on article 50 to the news that roast potatoes can apparently cause cancer it sparks a heated debate. And in this post-truth world of alternative facts even the US president conducts his battles on Twitter. But what if youre less interested in just shouting your view and actually want to try to change peoples minds?

The basics

Is there a way to argue more effectively on social media? Yes, there is, says Sean Jones, an employment and sports law QC, but we might need to change our tactics. He suggests learning from his mistakes. Before I became a barrister, I was convinced I was brilliant at argument, says Jones. I found that a relentless condescension, refusal to concede any point and a tireless determination to prolong the dispute reliably wore out opponents. They walked away leaving me the victor.

Sounds like a lot of debate online? Thats not surprising. Bullying people into silence, as can happen on Twitter, turns out to be a very poor way to persuade them you are right, he says. I soon realised that my job was about persuading people.

To do this, we can to follow a simple formula that works for arguments and then apply it to social media. Lady Helena Kennedy QC says: I always think the best way to make an argument is to use the acronym Prep. Position, example, reason, repeat position.

Position

So, first, Jones says, ask yourself what is the point of the argument. Generally, you want to end up stood together on common ground, so look for what common ground exists and go from there. Next, lead with your best point. Lawrence Winston, head of litigation at law firm Squire Patton Boggs, says: Keep it as simple as possible. The more detailed you make it, the more punch youll take out of your point. Once the debate has got going, keep focused and dont be repetitive. Dont send 20 tweets saying the same thing.

And dont get distracted. Deal with one point at a time. People who feel a pillar of their argument crumbling will leap to another. Make sure a move to a different point is acknowledged, adds Jones.

Example

Be prepared to be the one answering questions and justifying your view, ideally with facts and figures. Many Twitter exchanges begin with an arm-wrestle over who must justify their position, continues Jones. If your position is justified, dont be afraid to accept the burden. In fact, taking that more confident approach can help, even if you dont know your facts, according to research. A study published in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes suggests people will believe a confident speaker before they believe someone more knowledgeable. However, it is better to engage only when you know your case. Dont bluff or seem to be an expert on things you dont know you need to have at least some relevant facts or experience, says Joanne Harris, bestselling author and active Twitter user..

Reason/and be reasonable to others

Make your main point and then add to your argument with short additions to further the debate. Winston says: Sending bullet points can be more effective than a series of tweets with a longer message and make sure you stay credible.

If anyones reacting badly, remember that they may be misinterpreting you even if you try and make it clearer by adding emoticons, says Dr Sam Roberts, senior lecturer in psychology at Chester University. The people you are arguing with cant see your facial expressions or hear the tone of your voice. People cant always tell if youre being lighthearted or voicing a serious belief. So, aim for clarity, he says, and explain what you meant.

Remember, however, that occasionally your opponent will be engaging with you just for a reaction and it goes without saying that you shouldnt get personal, even if youre provoked. Bear in mind that you may be dealing with someone with mental health issues, says Harris. So do no harm. And dont say anything to anyone that you wouldnt say to them directly. Shouting on Twitter isnt the same as shouting at the TV.

Repeat position

When youve made your points, repeat your position and move on. Much of the debate on Twitter is never resolved and the chances are your exchange will probably end before they have been persuaded. Be courteous and thank them for talking. You are more likely to resume constructively, says Jones. If your debate is not going well, learn to spot when its pointless continuing. Harris says: Bear in mind that however much you try, some people will never listen. Dont waste too much time with these people.

Remember that if someone keeps tweeting you, you dont have to respond. You could consider blocking them, ignoring them or if all else fails, send them one of Joness Error Codes.

Selective exposure

If youre serious about being really open-minded, you might need to check your followers. People on Twitter suffer from what researchers call selective exposure. In conflicts, users are more willing to share and to communicate with their ideological friends than foes, according to a study from the Pennsylvania State University [PDF]. This is where you are surrounded by those who agree with you and your views become entrenched.

Follow people who disagree with you and listen to them, concludes Jones. An advocate wants every aspect of their case tested. And you never know, it might be you wholl ends up convinced.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2kDToWP

from How to stop arguing and actually change someone’s mind on social media

[patriotsnet]

What Do Republicans Stand For Today

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-republicans-stand-for-today/

What Do Republicans Stand For Today

Poverty Must Solve Itself

Republicans believe that poor people are usually poor for a reason, be it laziness, choice or whatever. Unless we demand that people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and solve their own problems, people will not be motivated to do things. Therefore, the issue of poverty cannot be solved by the government. Charity should be the choice of individuals.

Republicans Cant Understand Democrats

Only one in four Republican voters felt that most or almost all Democratic voters sincerely believed they were voting in the best interests of the country.  Rather, many Republicans told us that Democratic voters were brainwashed by the propaganda of the mainstream media, or voting solely in their self-interest to preserve undeserved welfare and food stamp benefits.

We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country.  We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might.  For example, a 64-year-old strong Republican man from Illinois surmised that Democrats want to help the poor, save Social Security, and tax the rich.   

But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote I dont want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy! Indeed, roughly one in six Republican voters answered in the persona of a Democratic voter who is motivated free college, free health care, free welfare, and so on.  They see Democrats as voting in order to get free stuff without having to work for it was extremely common roughly one in six Republican voters used the word free in the their answers, whereas no real Democratic voters in our sample answered this way. 

How Bipartisan Is Democrats Infrastructure Plan

All Videos

But Trumps continued popularity among key GOP constituencies prevents Republican insiders from undertaking a formal, public discussion about his political shortcomings and how the party should move on from him. Everyone in the GOP knows that irritating Trump could result in the former president attacking them, which would make them vulnerable to a primary challenge, with conservative activists likely backing their opponent. So there will be no autopsy of the post-Trump Republican Party, akin to the Republican National Committees report in 2013 following Romneys defeat, at least not in public. 

Democrats Remain United Around Ideas

While some Democrats remain coy about it, they are broadly united in the objective of moving the United States much more toward European-style social democracy. That includes a much more extensive social welfare system. A government-directed economy. Heavily regulated capital, labor and consumer markets.

This is not socialism, properly understood and defined. Markets would remain the primary mechanism for allocating capital and labor, and setting prices. Even the members of the Democratic coalition who call themselves socialists arent really.

Now, there are disagreements among Democrats about the specifics of what should constitute a European-style social democracy in the United States. And differences about how rapidly to get there.

Nevertheless, there is sufficient consensus on the direction that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were able to agree on a unity platform headed into the election.

What Does Democratic Mean

Starting alphabetically, the word means pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

Simply put, the lowercase democratic is a word used to refer to anything that resembles or has to do with a , a form of in which the supreme power rests with the people and is exercised by them directly or by politicians that they elect to them. In practice, this is usually accomplished through a fair, organized system of voting, in which  or cast votes in support of political or societal issues . 

So, the word democratic is used to describe government systems that are or resemble democracies and the people that run these types of governments. The United States of America is a representative democracy in which the people elect representatives to perform the demands of politics on their behalf. This is why we say that the US is a democratic country or that we have a democratic form of government. 

The English word democratic dates all the way back to the late 1500 and early 1600s. It is derived from the Greek word dmokratía . The government system of the ancient Greek of Athens, in which the people held the power , is considered the worlds first democracy. Considering that Athens was a slave-owning society, its form of democracy was much different than the democratic governments of today. 

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.  More than four in ten Democratic voters   felt that most Republican voters had the countrys best interests at heart .  And many tried their best to answer from the others perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.  A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to stop abortion stop gay marriage from ruining our country and give us our coal jobs back.

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOPs opposition to Obamacare, lower taxes and to support a party that reduced unemployment. 

What Does Republican Mean

The word means of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic. Similarly to the word democratic, the word republican also describes things that resemble or involve a particular form of government, in this case the government in question is a . A republic is a government system in which power rests with voting citizens who directly or indirectly choose representatives to exercise political power on their behalf. 

You may have noticed that a republic sounds a lot like a democracy. As it happens, most of the present-day democracies are also republics. However, not every republic is democratic and not every democratic country is a republic.

For example, the historical city-state of Venice had a leader known as a who was elected by voters. In the case of Venice, though, the voters were a small council of wealthy traders, and the doge held his position for life. Venice and other similar mercantile city-states had republican governments, but as you can see, they were definitely not democratic. At the same time, the United Kingdom is a democratic country that has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and so it is not a republican country because it is not officially a republic. 

Republican Vs Democrat: What Are The Differences

When it comes to U.S. politics, two prominent parties dominate democrats and republicans. Each party, despite some of their common grounded principles, stands for a very different system where beliefs and applications might vary.

Here is an unbiased breakdown of some of the major differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

  The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

Why The Gops Lack Of Party Platform Matters

President Trumps refusal to commit to accepting Novembers election results is the latest example of this president abandoning the norms of constitutional democracy. And although high-profile Republicans have issued statements affirming that they support a peaceful transfer of power, they have also been carefully deferential to Trump.

This is a notable continuation of the party slowly becoming the party of Trump. Nowhere was this clearer than in the decision not to have a 2020 party platform and instead simply affirming enthusiastic support for Trump and his America First agenda. That move, more so than statements pledging fealty to the peaceful transfer of power, signals wavering Republican commitment toward equal rights and democracy.

Platforms declare a partys values and commitments. While the substance of the Democratic and Republican platforms often differs sharply, both have historically used certain key words, like the American Dream, economic opportunity and freedom from discrimination. Examining Republican platforms over time shows that what once had been a big-tent strategy of carefully managing intraparty differences over equality has been replaced by a hierarchical model of leadership where the party faithful should acquiesce to one individuals vision of political community. Indeed, the 2020 resolution ruled out of order any effort to adopt a platform.

What Do Republicans Stand For

Since this is a presidential election year, and the Republican Party wants Americans , it is fitting to ask the question: What do Republicans stand for?

Writing in Politico Magazine, chief political correspondent Tim Alberta hit the nail on the head: The supposed canons of GOP orthodoxy limited government, free enterprise, institutional conservation, moral rectitude, fiscal restraint, global leadership have in recent years gone from elastic to expendable. Identifying this intellectual vacuum is easy enough. Far more difficult is answering the question of what, quite specifically, has filled it.

The Republican Party held a truncated convention in Charlotte last month because of coronavirus restrictions on gatherings and concern for the safety of convention attendees. Every four years at their convention, Republicans adopt a new party platform but not this time. Even though the Democrats adopted a new for 2020 and a 110-page of recommendations issued by the BidenSanders unity task force, the Republican National Committee unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement. Had the Platform Committee convened, it would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the Partys strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration.

Education

Health care

Democrats Return The Favor: Republicans Uninformed Or Self

The 429 Democratic voters in our sample returned the favor and raised many of the same themes. Democrats inferred that Republicans must be VERY ill-informed, or that Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.  Or that Republicans are uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.

Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want free stuff, many Democrats believe Republicans think that I got mine and dont want the libs to take it away, or that some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.

Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side.  Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, I like a dictatorial system of Government, Im a racist, I hate non-whites. 

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

The GOP is viewed more negatively 38% say they have a positive view of the Republican Party, while 60% rate it unfavorably. These views are modestly changed since last summer, with the share of Americans rating the GOP unfavorably slightly higher than it was in August and the share of Americans with a negative view of the Democratic Party down slightly .

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Nearly all Republicans who say they strongly identify with the Republican Party express a favorable opinion of the GOP. Among Republicans who say they not so strongly identify with the party, 77% say have a favorable view, while 56% of independents who lean toward the Republican Party say the same.

Democrats who very strongly identify with the Democratic Party nearly universally view their party favorably, as do 87% of Democrats who describe themselves as not-so-strong Democrats. About six-in-ten Democratic leaners have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.

Within both partisan groups, views of the opposing party are overwhelmingly unfavorable across-the-board, with more than eight-in-ten strong partisans, not so strong partisans and leaners alike saying this.

Public Opinion On Foreign Policy

In June 2014 the Quinnipiac Poll asked Americans which foreign policy they preferred:

A) The United States is doing too much in other countries around the world, and it is time to do less around the world and focus more on our own problems here at home. B) The United States must continue to push forward to promote democracy and freedom in other countries around the world because these efforts make our own country more secure.

Democrats chose A over B by 65%-32%; Republicans chose A over B by 56% to 39%; Independents chose A over B by 67% to 29%.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Republicans supported Woodrow Wilson‘s call for American entry into World War I in 1917, complaining only that he was too slow to go to war. Republicans in 1919 opposed his call for entry into the League of Nations. A majority supported the League with reservations; a minority opposed membership on any terms. Republicans sponsored world disarmament in the 1920s, and isolationism in the 1930s. Most Republicans staunchly opposed intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By 1945, however, internationalists became dominant in the party which supported the Cold War policies such as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.

Red States Outnumber Blue States

In February 2016, Gallup reported that for the first time since Gallup started tracking, red states now outnumber blue states.

In 2008, 35 states leaned Democratic and this number is down to only 14 now. In the same time, the number of Republican leaning states rose from 5 to 20. Gallup determined 16 states to be competitive, i.e., they leaned toward neither party. Wyoming, Idaho and Utah were the most Republican states, while states that leaned the most Democratic were Vermont, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Trump Loses Then Attempts A Coup

In Georgia, Trump is attacking the Republican governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state. In Arizona, he is attacking Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who has been a GOP statewide officeholder for more consecutive years than Trump has been a Republican.

The reason? They are not willing to try to overturn duly certified election results in their states.

There has been an attempted coup of the presidential election taking place. But Trump is not the victim. He is the perpetrator.

The legal strategy was to delay certification of election results. The political strategy was to pressure Republican officials to ignore the election results, irrespective of whether they were certified, and have Republican state legislatures chose Trump electors in states where Biden won the vote.

Internet Safety And Decency

DemocraticThe platform supports a free and open internet at home and abroad. The party would seek to strengthen cybersecurity while protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

RepublicanThe platform states: The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.

Most Republicans Say Critics Of Trump Should Not Be Accepted In The Gop While Most Democrats Say Their Party Should Be Accepting Of Biden Critics

Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say their party should be accepting of elected officials within the party who disagree with it on some important issues. At the same time, very few in either party say their party should be welcoming of elected officials who support groups advocating for violence against members of the other party.

But there are clear distinctions between the two coalitions in their appetite for accepting members of the party who criticize the partys standard bearers: While most Democrats say the party should be at least somewhat accepting of elected officials who criticize Joe Biden, the majority position among Republicans is that the GOP should not be welcoming toward Republican elected officials who criticize Donald Trump, and an even smaller share of Republicans say that those who voted to impeach Trump should be accepted in the GOP. 

Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners say the Democratic Party should be very or somewhat accepting of Democratic elected officials who disagree with Democrats on important issues, while 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners say their own party should be very or somewhat accepting of Republican officials who disagree with the GOP on some important issues. Just 4% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans say their parties should be not at all accepting of elected officials who disagree with the party on some important issues.

The changes did not affect the reports substantive findings. 

The Partys Core Activists Dont Want To Shift Gears

This is the simplest and most obvious explanation: The GOP isnt changing directions because the people driving the car dont want to. 

When we think of Republicans, we tend to think of either rank-and-file GOP voters or the partys highest-profile elected officials, particularly its leaders in Congress. But in many ways, the partys direction is driven by a group between those two: conservative organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, GOP officials at the local and state level and right-wing media outlets. That segment of the party has been especially resistant to the GOP abandoning its current mix of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, opposition to expansions of programs that benefit the poor and an identity politics that centers white Americans and conservative Christians.

You could see the power and preferences of this group in the response to the Capitol insurrection.

In the days immediately following Jan. 6, many GOP elected officials, most notably McConnell, signaled that the party should make a permanent break from Trump. an increased number of rank-and-file GOP voters were dissatisfied with the outgoing president. But by the time the Senate held its trial over Trumps actions a month later, it was clear that the party was basically back in line with Trump. 

related:Why Being Anti-Media Is Now Part Of The GOP Identity Read more. »

Mcdermott: What Exactly Does Today’s Republican Party Stand For

Sep 21, 2019

Don’t want this next door? Too bad, say Missouri’s ruling Republicans.

}

Kevin McDermott

Some recent news items:

A new law by Missouri Republicans prevents local governments from regulating mega-hog-farms more stringently than the state does. So much for the Republican principle of local control.

The Republican-held U.S. Senate refuses to consider background checks on all gun purchases to ensure criminals cant buy them a no-brainer thats supported by about 90% of Americans, including most gun owners. So much for the Republican principle of law and order.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wants government regulation of the big social media companies to make their platforms more friendly to conservatives. So much for the Republican principles of deregulation and free enterprise.

The massive tax-cut-for-the-rich that Republicans passed in 2017 continues to very much not pay for itself as promised, instead driving the federal deficit over $1 trillion for the first time in six years. Yet President Donald Trump is calling for another massive tax cut. So much for the Republican principle of fiscal responsibility.

What, exactly, does todays GOP stand for?

Thats not snark. Its a real question.

They were genuinely obsessed with law and order, which is why Ronald Reagan all but banning civilian ownership of machine guns. Would todays Republican Senate pass that?

McDermott: Oblivious in the Ozarks

The Gop Now Stands For Nothing

A party that doesnt believe in anything ends up believing only in its right to rule.

About the author: Tom Nichols is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author ofthe book Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault From Within on Modern Democracy.

The Republicans in Congress are blocking a bipartisan investigation into the January 6 insurrection. Their spines crushed by years of obedience to Donald Trump, the members of the GOP have once again retreated from civic responsibility, with one more humiliation of those last few in the party who thought that the Senate Republicans might mimic something like statesmanship.

However, this effort is more than the usual cynical mendacity and crass careerism that characterize the current Republican Party. This latest insult to the rule of law and the Constitution was possible only because the Republicans have already lost confidence in their own principles. The GOP now stands for nothing. The party of Lincoln has become, in every way, a political and moral nullity.

American conservatism once meant something definite and tangible. You could fight those beliefs and policies; you could argue with them, admire them, or hate them. But they existed. Strom Thurmond, Ronald Reagan, Howard Baker, and Edward Brooke were not necessarily deep thinkers, and they didnt all agree on everything. But the GOP held clear lines of thought that stood as alternatives to liberalism.

Read: Mitch McConnells gift to progressives

Hincker: What Is Conservatism And What Do Republicans Stand For

Larry Hincker

I awoke on the morning of Jan. 6 dusting off ideas for another column. The U.S. Senate had just tipped to Democratic control in a decidedly anti-Trump vote. Should I snidely thank the president for decisively uniting the Democratic Party and its complete takeover of the federal government? Or tackle something closer to my beatthe more complex and substantial topic of the Virginia legislatures costly clean energy policies?

Then I read the paper. The conservative Wall Street Journal opined that Trump was unhinged from political reality. I thought for a moment that the modifier, from political reality, was unnecessary.

Later as I watched TV, unhinged historical figures poured over my brain. Theres Sampson pulling down columns in the temple, screaming about a stolen election amid woe-is-me fueled fury.

Or the Madness of King George, another slightly unhinged leader who suffered defeat, and wondering if our presidents minions were struggling to contain his rages.

Images of Nuremburg dance around my cranium while Trump encouraged tens of thousands at the huge Save America March outside The White House to be wild and walk down to the Capitol. Ill be there with you, he said. Apparently, his bone spurs prevented the walk or affected his courage. He watched from afar as mobs, thugs, and punks assaulted the seat and center of American democracy.

It all represents partisan voter disenfranchisement.

[patriotsnet]

What Do Republicans Stand For Today

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-do-republicans-stand-for-today/

What Do Republicans Stand For Today

Poverty Must Solve Itself

Republicans believe that poor people are usually poor for a reason, be it laziness, choice or whatever. Unless we demand that people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and solve their own problems, people will not be motivated to do things. Therefore, the issue of poverty cannot be solved by the government. Charity should be the choice of individuals.

Republicans Cant Understand Democrats

Only one in four Republican voters felt that most or almost all Democratic voters sincerely believed they were voting in the best interests of the country.  Rather, many Republicans told us that Democratic voters were brainwashed by the propaganda of the mainstream media, or voting solely in their self-interest to preserve undeserved welfare and food stamp benefits.

We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country.  We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might.  For example, a 64-year-old strong Republican man from Illinois surmised that Democrats want to help the poor, save Social Security, and tax the rich.   

But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote I dont want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy! Indeed, roughly one in six Republican voters answered in the persona of a Democratic voter who is motivated free college, free health care, free welfare, and so on.  They see Democrats as voting in order to get free stuff without having to work for it was extremely common roughly one in six Republican voters used the word free in the their answers, whereas no real Democratic voters in our sample answered this way. 

How Bipartisan Is Democrats Infrastructure Plan

All Videos

But Trumps continued popularity among key GOP constituencies prevents Republican insiders from undertaking a formal, public discussion about his political shortcomings and how the party should move on from him. Everyone in the GOP knows that irritating Trump could result in the former president attacking them, which would make them vulnerable to a primary challenge, with conservative activists likely backing their opponent. So there will be no autopsy of the post-Trump Republican Party, akin to the Republican National Committees report in 2013 following Romneys defeat, at least not in public. 

Democrats Remain United Around Ideas

While some Democrats remain coy about it, they are broadly united in the objective of moving the United States much more toward European-style social democracy. That includes a much more extensive social welfare system. A government-directed economy. Heavily regulated capital, labor and consumer markets.

This is not socialism, properly understood and defined. Markets would remain the primary mechanism for allocating capital and labor, and setting prices. Even the members of the Democratic coalition who call themselves socialists arent really.

Now, there are disagreements among Democrats about the specifics of what should constitute a European-style social democracy in the United States. And differences about how rapidly to get there.

Nevertheless, there is sufficient consensus on the direction that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were able to agree on a unity platform headed into the election.

What Does Democratic Mean

Starting alphabetically, the word means pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

Simply put, the lowercase democratic is a word used to refer to anything that resembles or has to do with a , a form of in which the supreme power rests with the people and is exercised by them directly or by politicians that they elect to them. In practice, this is usually accomplished through a fair, organized system of voting, in which  or cast votes in support of political or societal issues . 

So, the word democratic is used to describe government systems that are or resemble democracies and the people that run these types of governments. The United States of America is a representative democracy in which the people elect representatives to perform the demands of politics on their behalf. This is why we say that the US is a democratic country or that we have a democratic form of government. 

The English word democratic dates all the way back to the late 1500 and early 1600s. It is derived from the Greek word dmokratía . The government system of the ancient Greek of Athens, in which the people held the power , is considered the worlds first democracy. Considering that Athens was a slave-owning society, its form of democracy was much different than the democratic governments of today. 

America Should Deport Illegal Immigrants

Republicans believe that illegal immigrants, no matter the reason they are in this country, should be forcibly removed from the U.S. Although illegal immigrants are often motivated to come to the U.S. by companies who hire them, Republicans generally believe that the focus of the law should be on the illegal immigrants and not on the corporations that hire them.

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.  More than four in ten Democratic voters   felt that most Republican voters had the countrys best interests at heart .  And many tried their best to answer from the others perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.  A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to stop abortion stop gay marriage from ruining our country and give us our coal jobs back.

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOPs opposition to Obamacare, lower taxes and to support a party that reduced unemployment. 

What Does Republican Mean

The word means of, relating to, or of the nature of a republic. Similarly to the word democratic, the word republican also describes things that resemble or involve a particular form of government, in this case the government in question is a . A republic is a government system in which power rests with voting citizens who directly or indirectly choose representatives to exercise political power on their behalf. 

You may have noticed that a republic sounds a lot like a democracy. As it happens, most of the present-day democracies are also republics. However, not every republic is democratic and not every democratic country is a republic.

For example, the historical city-state of Venice had a leader known as a who was elected by voters. In the case of Venice, though, the voters were a small council of wealthy traders, and the doge held his position for life. Venice and other similar mercantile city-states had republican governments, but as you can see, they were definitely not democratic. At the same time, the United Kingdom is a democratic country that has a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and so it is not a republican country because it is not officially a republic. 

Republican Vs Democrat: What Are The Differences

When it comes to U.S. politics, two prominent parties dominate democrats and republicans. Each party, despite some of their common grounded principles, stands for a very different system where beliefs and applications might vary.

Here is an unbiased breakdown of some of the major differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

  The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

Why The Gops Lack Of Party Platform Matters

President Trumps refusal to commit to accepting Novembers election results is the latest example of this president abandoning the norms of constitutional democracy. And although high-profile Republicans have issued statements affirming that they support a peaceful transfer of power, they have also been carefully deferential to Trump.

This is a notable continuation of the party slowly becoming the party of Trump. Nowhere was this clearer than in the decision not to have a 2020 party platform and instead simply affirming enthusiastic support for Trump and his America First agenda. That move, more so than statements pledging fealty to the peaceful transfer of power, signals wavering Republican commitment toward equal rights and democracy.

Platforms declare a partys values and commitments. While the substance of the Democratic and Republican platforms often differs sharply, both have historically used certain key words, like the American Dream, economic opportunity and freedom from discrimination. Examining Republican platforms over time shows that what once had been a big-tent strategy of carefully managing intraparty differences over equality has been replaced by a hierarchical model of leadership where the party faithful should acquiesce to one individuals vision of political community. Indeed, the 2020 resolution ruled out of order any effort to adopt a platform.

What Do Republicans Stand For

Since this is a presidential election year, and the Republican Party wants Americans , it is fitting to ask the question: What do Republicans stand for?

Writing in Politico Magazine, chief political correspondent Tim Alberta hit the nail on the head: The supposed canons of GOP orthodoxy limited government, free enterprise, institutional conservation, moral rectitude, fiscal restraint, global leadership have in recent years gone from elastic to expendable. Identifying this intellectual vacuum is easy enough. Far more difficult is answering the question of what, quite specifically, has filled it.

The Republican Party held a truncated convention in Charlotte last month because of coronavirus restrictions on gatherings and concern for the safety of convention attendees. Every four years at their convention, Republicans adopt a new party platform but not this time. Even though the Democrats adopted a new for 2020 and a 110-page of recommendations issued by the BidenSanders unity task force, the Republican National Committee unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement. Had the Platform Committee convened, it would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the Partys strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration.

Education

Health care

Democrats Return The Favor: Republicans Uninformed Or Self

The 429 Democratic voters in our sample returned the favor and raised many of the same themes. Democrats inferred that Republicans must be VERY ill-informed, or that Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.  Or that Republicans are uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.

Many also attributed votes to individual self-interest whereas GOP voters feel Democrats want free stuff, many Democrats believe Republicans think that I got mine and dont want the libs to take it away, or that some day I will be rich and then I can get the benefits that rich people get now.

Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side.  Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, I like a dictatorial system of Government, Im a racist, I hate non-whites. 

Views Of The Democratic And Republican Parties

Just under half of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while a slightly larger share have an unfavorable view.

The GOP is viewed more negatively 38% say they have a positive view of the Republican Party, while 60% rate it unfavorably. These views are modestly changed since last summer, with the share of Americans rating the GOP unfavorably slightly higher than it was in August and the share of Americans with a negative view of the Democratic Party down slightly .

About three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party positively.

Nearly all Republicans who say they strongly identify with the Republican Party express a favorable opinion of the GOP. Among Republicans who say they not so strongly identify with the party, 77% say have a favorable view, while 56% of independents who lean toward the Republican Party say the same.

Democrats who very strongly identify with the Democratic Party nearly universally view their party favorably, as do 87% of Democrats who describe themselves as not-so-strong Democrats. About six-in-ten Democratic leaners have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.

Within both partisan groups, views of the opposing party are overwhelmingly unfavorable across-the-board, with more than eight-in-ten strong partisans, not so strong partisans and leaners alike saying this.

Public Opinion On Foreign Policy

In June 2014 the Quinnipiac Poll asked Americans which foreign policy they preferred:

A) The United States is doing too much in other countries around the world, and it is time to do less around the world and focus more on our own problems here at home. B) The United States must continue to push forward to promote democracy and freedom in other countries around the world because these efforts make our own country more secure.

Democrats chose A over B by 65%-32%; Republicans chose A over B by 56% to 39%; Independents chose A over B by 67% to 29%.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Republicans supported Woodrow Wilson‘s call for American entry into World War I in 1917, complaining only that he was too slow to go to war. Republicans in 1919 opposed his call for entry into the League of Nations. A majority supported the League with reservations; a minority opposed membership on any terms. Republicans sponsored world disarmament in the 1920s, and isolationism in the 1930s. Most Republicans staunchly opposed intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By 1945, however, internationalists became dominant in the party which supported the Cold War policies such as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.

Red States Outnumber Blue States

In February 2016, Gallup reported that for the first time since Gallup started tracking, red states now outnumber blue states.

In 2008, 35 states leaned Democratic and this number is down to only 14 now. In the same time, the number of Republican leaning states rose from 5 to 20. Gallup determined 16 states to be competitive, i.e., they leaned toward neither party. Wyoming, Idaho and Utah were the most Republican states, while states that leaned the most Democratic were Vermont, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Trump Loses Then Attempts A Coup

In Georgia, Trump is attacking the Republican governor, lieutenant governor and secretary of state. In Arizona, he is attacking Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who has been a GOP statewide officeholder for more consecutive years than Trump has been a Republican.

The reason? They are not willing to try to overturn duly certified election results in their states.

There has been an attempted coup of the presidential election taking place. But Trump is not the victim. He is the perpetrator.

The legal strategy was to delay certification of election results. The political strategy was to pressure Republican officials to ignore the election results, irrespective of whether they were certified, and have Republican state legislatures chose Trump electors in states where Biden won the vote.

Internet Safety And Decency

DemocraticThe platform supports a free and open internet at home and abroad. The party would seek to strengthen cybersecurity while protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

RepublicanThe platform states: The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.

Most Republicans Say Critics Of Trump Should Not Be Accepted In The Gop While Most Democrats Say Their Party Should Be Accepting Of Biden Critics

Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats say their party should be accepting of elected officials within the party who disagree with it on some important issues. At the same time, very few in either party say their party should be welcoming of elected officials who support groups advocating for violence against members of the other party.

But there are clear distinctions between the two coalitions in their appetite for accepting members of the party who criticize the partys standard bearers: While most Democrats say the party should be at least somewhat accepting of elected officials who criticize Joe Biden, the majority position among Republicans is that the GOP should not be welcoming toward Republican elected officials who criticize Donald Trump, and an even smaller share of Republicans say that those who voted to impeach Trump should be accepted in the GOP. 

Eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners say the Democratic Party should be very or somewhat accepting of Democratic elected officials who disagree with Democrats on important issues, while 71% of Republicans and Republican leaners say their own party should be very or somewhat accepting of Republican officials who disagree with the GOP on some important issues. Just 4% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans say their parties should be not at all accepting of elected officials who disagree with the party on some important issues.

The changes did not affect the reports substantive findings. 

The Partys Core Activists Dont Want To Shift Gears

This is the simplest and most obvious explanation: The GOP isnt changing directions because the people driving the car dont want to. 

When we think of Republicans, we tend to think of either rank-and-file GOP voters or the partys highest-profile elected officials, particularly its leaders in Congress. But in many ways, the partys direction is driven by a group between those two: conservative organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, GOP officials at the local and state level and right-wing media outlets. That segment of the party has been especially resistant to the GOP abandoning its current mix of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, opposition to expansions of programs that benefit the poor and an identity politics that centers white Americans and conservative Christians.

You could see the power and preferences of this group in the response to the Capitol insurrection.

In the days immediately following Jan. 6, many GOP elected officials, most notably McConnell, signaled that the party should make a permanent break from Trump. an increased number of rank-and-file GOP voters were dissatisfied with the outgoing president. But by the time the Senate held its trial over Trumps actions a month later, it was clear that the party was basically back in line with Trump. 

related:Why Being Anti-Media Is Now Part Of The GOP Identity Read more. »

Mcdermott: What Exactly Does Today’s Republican Party Stand For

Sep 21, 2019

Don’t want this next door? Too bad, say Missouri’s ruling Republicans.

}

Kevin McDermott

Some recent news items:

A new law by Missouri Republicans prevents local governments from regulating mega-hog-farms more stringently than the state does. So much for the Republican principle of local control.

The Republican-held U.S. Senate refuses to consider background checks on all gun purchases to ensure criminals cant buy them a no-brainer thats supported by about 90% of Americans, including most gun owners. So much for the Republican principle of law and order.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., wants government regulation of the big social media companies to make their platforms more friendly to conservatives. So much for the Republican principles of deregulation and free enterprise.

The massive tax-cut-for-the-rich that Republicans passed in 2017 continues to very much not pay for itself as promised, instead driving the federal deficit over $1 trillion for the first time in six years. Yet President Donald Trump is calling for another massive tax cut. So much for the Republican principle of fiscal responsibility.

What, exactly, does todays GOP stand for?

Thats not snark. Its a real question.

They were genuinely obsessed with law and order, which is why Ronald Reagan all but banning civilian ownership of machine guns. Would todays Republican Senate pass that?

McDermott: Oblivious in the Ozarks

The Gop Now Stands For Nothing

A party that doesnt believe in anything ends up believing only in its right to rule.

About the author: Tom Nichols is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the author ofthe book Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault From Within on Modern Democracy.

The Republicans in Congress are blocking a bipartisan investigation into the January 6 insurrection. Their spines crushed by years of obedience to Donald Trump, the members of the GOP have once again retreated from civic responsibility, with one more humiliation of those last few in the party who thought that the Senate Republicans might mimic something like statesmanship.

However, this effort is more than the usual cynical mendacity and crass careerism that characterize the current Republican Party. This latest insult to the rule of law and the Constitution was possible only because the Republicans have already lost confidence in their own principles. The GOP now stands for nothing. The party of Lincoln has become, in every way, a political and moral nullity.

American conservatism once meant something definite and tangible. You could fight those beliefs and policies; you could argue with them, admire them, or hate them. But they existed. Strom Thurmond, Ronald Reagan, Howard Baker, and Edward Brooke were not necessarily deep thinkers, and they didnt all agree on everything. But the GOP held clear lines of thought that stood as alternatives to liberalism.

Read: Mitch McConnells gift to progressives

Hincker: What Is Conservatism And What Do Republicans Stand For

Larry Hincker

I awoke on the morning of Jan. 6 dusting off ideas for another column. The U.S. Senate had just tipped to Democratic control in a decidedly anti-Trump vote. Should I snidely thank the president for decisively uniting the Democratic Party and its complete takeover of the federal government? Or tackle something closer to my beatthe more complex and substantial topic of the Virginia legislatures costly clean energy policies?

Then I read the paper. The conservative Wall Street Journal opined that Trump was unhinged from political reality. I thought for a moment that the modifier, from political reality, was unnecessary.

Later as I watched TV, unhinged historical figures poured over my brain. Theres Sampson pulling down columns in the temple, screaming about a stolen election amid woe-is-me fueled fury.

Or the Madness of King George, another slightly unhinged leader who suffered defeat, and wondering if our presidents minions were struggling to contain his rages.

Images of Nuremburg dance around my cranium while Trump encouraged tens of thousands at the huge Save America March outside The White House to be wild and walk down to the Capitol. Ill be there with you, he said. Apparently, his bone spurs prevented the walk or affected his courage. He watched from afar as mobs, thugs, and punks assaulted the seat and center of American democracy.

It all represents partisan voter disenfranchisement.