And I don’t even want to get into the whole “God” part. As I might be inclined to throw my moniter accross the room.
I read an article once (Sorry can’t remember where) about the similarities of Republican doctrines and the dontrines of extreme Muslims. After reading that article I wondered why republicans don’t hail extreme Muslims as the greatest thing ever.
Oh, they’ve been doing this for years and years, we of the DFH community, but most especially we recovering Texans, look forward with gleeful anticipation. Its not any more nuts than it usually is. But, truth be known, I doubt if there’s one Republican in ten in Texas who knows or cares what the platform is, or what is in it. So far as I recall, the “gold standard” bit has been in there since Nixon.
Self-sufficiency is an important doctrine I can get behind. How, exactly, are the Republican party combating the growing tide of wage labour in the state? are they requisitioning company property in order that Texan families can practice subsistence farming?
I’m pretty sure the Iowa GOP platform that came out a month or so ago (maybe, I don’t remember) was pretty much the same. Which of course is not a shock, they are probably all cribbing from the same original anyway.
Some parts of it are a bit out there to be on the national platform - the stuff about corporal punishment, for example. And I’m not sure if the education bullshit has made it into the national GOP platform, but I wouldn’t be shocked if it has. I’m also not sure that the national platform defines life at fertilization - typically implantation is the less extreme pro-life view, but that has been morphing lately.
I was going to say that the part about repealing the Capital Gains tax was too out there for the national party but I guess Mitt saw an opportunity too good to pass up and seems to have grabbed on to that one too.
So apart from #2 and #11 on the list - the superstition based BS - what exactly is so bad about all the other things? Is it the fact that they will cut out federal interference with local education? Or is it just the fact that Republicans are proposing them?
Well, #6 is pretty full of superstition based BS too. There is no reason, except slavish deference to scriptural prohibitions, to restrict civil marriage between two consenting adults to “a natural man and a natural woman”.
The rest of the so-called “principles” are mostly just eye-rolling boilerplate whose comedic or RO value depends less on their literal content than on their mismatch with actual Texas Republican policies (e.g., as Maus Magill noted, pretending to reject the concept of “subsidies” when Republican industrialists lobby as hard as they can for them).
This list is also a bit random, something I posted to the SRIotDthread. There are other posts about the platform in there if you want to do a more nuanced comparison, but once you reach a level of depravity it’s all pretty much the same.