Most republicans understand that in life you can’t always have your cake and eat it too.
I used to be a democrat/liberal for nearly all my life, even before being able to vote. Of course then I realized that you cannot please everybody and the only way forward is to level/keep level the playing field and go with what the majority of individuals want (a tenet of democratic institutions, actually) while understanding the policies of first come first serve and that you keep what you work for. It really is that simple.
If you believe the other stereotypes of Republicans, then you’ve not met real ones, or you (general you) are awash in the blathering idiocy that the overwhelmingly left leaning media provides you.
How’d the media get all lefty? If nobody wants to hear their lying crap, then how did they accomplish this takeover? Force of arms? The seductive allure of sturdy Slavic women? What? How did they take over this Board, revolutionary cadres from the Audio-Visual Club?
I have already said this in a few other threads, but the cry on the left for Court-packing is going to get really loud over the coming weeks and months. If the Court issues an obviously bullshit decision against a signature Democratic item - think declaring Medicare-for-All unconstitutional, or siding with the administration in the most recent bullshit ACA lawsuit from Texas et al - then it will basically be a foregone conclusion that the Dems will add more SCOTUS seats the next time they control the government.
The thing to realize is that it’s the goal of the right to turn SCOTUS into a toadie of the Republican Party, and, in so doing, permanently lock the Democrats out of governing. Such a dynamic is not sustainable in a country that plainly has more Democratic voters than Republican voters.
Bricker, you know that this is a common-law country, and the constitutional law of the nation is orders of magnitude larger than The Constitution (Madison et al., 1787) and parts of it significantly older than The Constitution.
I think Bricker is right. Donnelly of Indiana will probably vote for anyone who, to use another poster’s words, doesn’t have horns and a tail. I wouldn’t trust Collins as far as I could throw the Empire State Building.
Seems to me that any merit system is directly telling people that some of them won’t be good enough and yes, I believe that these people will need help, no matter how hard they try, no? Helping people who need it is not really a strong point of the right lately. They’re all for the merit system and hostile to any safety net. The latest farm bill comes to mind.
Considering this, I don’t agree with your position whether it’s racist or not. It seems that those who support the right’s agenda do not care about the losers of the merit system, like the poor one jot or tittle over them being a person you can claw above so it doesn’t have to be them. I really hoped that the world was more enlightened than that. It appears I was wrong.
What is racist about it? Merit systems do not judge by race.
If one looks for racism at every corner, they will find it there. It’s a combination of observational and confirmation bias in those cases. Now of course this is not to say racism doesn’t exist, it absolutely does and we all know it but if you look through that lens, its all you are going to see with any aspect of life.
I’ve never met another Republican who was against a social safety net, this is due to people always deserving second or perhaps third chances. I have found that they support eligibility requirements such as drug testing for assistance and the like but that is the only limit I’ve heard of. It is peoples perception of those requirements and viewing them erroneously. Republicans prefer a no-frills emotionless approach to many facets of governing. Emotion clouds rational judgement. This also is not to say that it’s the best approach at times, but trying to save everyone and please everyone is a dream, it will never come to fruition. There will always be caste systems in varying interpretations and there will always exist innate features of human beings such as selfishness that exist and the Republican way is to promote individualism and a self-sustaining lifestyle without dependence on others. If one chooses to view that as selfish, is up for debate. If everything else crumbles away you still have what you made of yourself, your wealth, your intelligence and your own safety instead of relying on others.
The merit system reinforces these values and makes every individual strong instead of only making them strong in a group. The merit system teaches self reliance and self-betterment instead of relying on others to make decisions and hold hands along the way. It’s not a perfect system, but neither is what the left wing is offering which is group and government reliance instead of individual liberty, which is a major tenet in the foundation of this Republic. The left wing offers experimental approaches which can fail disastrously and the right wing tries approaches that are proven with time, but may be outdated and seem archaic. It’s all a matter of perspective and of course both sides of the aisle will disagree and think their way is better.
I personally think the tug-of-war between the left and right wings lets progress and redefinition of the U.S. come at a steady pace where it can be comfortable. Not too fast, and not to slow. A pulling to and fro of utilitarianism and hedonism.
I personally just prefer to keep with the tried and true method of human nature where everything in life is earned by skill and merit.
This is why I pointed out that I was not going to judge this based on any racial element. If I can oppose something on a basic level I prefer not to include irrelevant loose threads. My statement had zero to do with any racial component. The view I was opposing stinks at a universal level; race sweetener irrelevant.
I absolutely agree with this. Take caution you don’t see racism where it’s not offered.
I’ve lived all but 3 years of my 50+ years on planet in deeply red states. My life would have been impossible without hearing and understanding the right wing point of view but here’s the thing. If the end result is toxic I can’t support the view, no matter what the intentions and I’m not a mind reader nor am I wise enough to unerring tell what someone else is really thinking. Actions speak louder than words.
Now, lets talk about the problems about second and third chances. They’re there ( I’ve utilized them ) but again that’s meaningless. Again, it invokes the merit system. What about those who are mentally, physically or emotionally incapable of taking advantage of these chances? We can safely forget about them? I sure can’t.
I firmly believe that the safety net must exist beneath the merit system rather than a tool to reinforce it.
That was the old ideal and I support something like that. That died 30 years ago and we’re not bringing Lazarus back now; he’s a bit gamey at this point.
I don’t agree with it as the overarching principle but we are hardwired for competition so I can live with it as long as the bounds of that competition is healthy and insured.
anomalous1: Having lived in Indiana most of my life, I’ve met plenty of Republicans and what you say is taradiddle. Many of these Republicans use words like nigger and raghead whenever they think they won’t be overhead by disapproving people. As for self-sufficiency, how are orphans, the mentally retarded, and many of the elderly supposed to take care of themselves. The guiding principles of much of today’s GOP are: “There is no god but Plutus and Ayn Rand is his only disciple.” and “I deserve, but you do not.”
Works for me. I propose one bottle, 750 ml or closest size, booze of your choice, not to exceed $50 retail, from me to you if a replacement for Anthony Kennedy is not confirmed by the Senate on or before November 6, 2018.
And one bottle of Glenrothes 750 ml as noted above, also not to exceed $50, from you to me if a replacement for Anthony Kennedy is confirmed on or before November 6, 2018.
While the common law post-American Revolution perforce exceeds the length of the Constitution, it (in my opinion) should merely give effect to the words of the Constitution, and not craft novel content.
With each extension, the link to the Constitution becomes weaker and the result less justifiable. So, while the Fourteenth Amendment speaks of due process, I understand and accept that some boundaries must be carved out.
But courts have crafted both procedural due process constraints, which are generally defensible, and also “substantive due process,” constraints which are less and less so, especially when consecutive discoveries of new substantive due process “rights,” rest on prior such discoveries. “It is a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand.”
Your view of Justice Kennedy’s genuine “principles” is contrary to the opinions of most lawyers I know who see him as a results oriented justice. Gorsuch is more principled, you may not like those principles but those principles make him predictable. It is largely his lack of identifiable principles that make his so unpredictable.
The biggest problem with Gorsuch is that he is sitting in someone else’s seat. That’s not his fault.
Yeah, and as a known moron, your goal is to hurt little kids by luring them into an unmarked van with the promise of candy and then use them to satiate your sick lusts; any argument you make is handwaving designed to further that goal.
Many legal scholars think Roe V Wade was one of the most unprincipled, results oriented decision to shape our constitutional landscape since the presidential war powers cases (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is among those legal scholars that think Roe V Wade is unprincipled). It might be the right policy result but its one of the most egregious cases of legislating from the bench.