Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Umbran]

Perhaps if you'd realized I was being sarcastic, you wouldn't get upset an make incorrect assumptions that I don't understand "the positions of others," but would rather just joke about it, like in the second post you quoted.

"Perhaps" goes both ways. Perhaps, if you'd remembered Poe's Law, and realized that your sarcasm was a poor fit for a discussion where folks were seriously engaged with the subject matter, he'd have not had a chance to miss your intent.

Given how much you could have done to avoid the misunderstanding, it isn't appropriate for you to push the blame for it onto others. If you continue with the politics and religion conversations, please note that we will have very little tolerance for argumentative, disrespectful, or thoughtless behavior.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Mod Edit: Someone has forgotten that you don't argue with moderation in-thread. ~Umbran

 

[Kramodlog]

No, because the national party must aggregate and attempt to hit a set of positions that most of the party can swallow.

Exactly, and among those positions there are reducing the size of guberment and taxes like HS said. Those are some of the policies that rally conservatives. And if those are aggregators, there is nothing wrong with saying those are what conservatives (in general) want. Don't get mad at those who point it out.

When there will be Republican presidential candidates who want to increase the funding of planned parenthood, create a carbon tax, regulate the price of pills, etc, we'll be able to talk about a diverse base.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Exactly, and among those positions there are reducing the size of guberment and taxes like HS said. Those are some of the policies that rally conservatives. And if those are aggregators, there is nothing wrong with saying those are what conservatives (in general) want. Don't get mad at those who point it out.

When there will be Republican presidential candidates who want to increase the funding of planned parenthood, create a carbon tax, regulate the price of pills, etc, we'll be able to talk about a diverse base.

When was the last time a Republican government reduced the size of government? That's a TEA party initiative, not a Republican one. Republicans are fine with big government, they just differ with Democrats as to where government needs to be bigger.

As for your latter argument, that boils down to "when Republicans want to enact Democratic policies, only then can you claim to be diverse.". That seems a high bar, no?

 

[Ryujin]

When was the last time a Republican government reduced the size of government? That's a TEA party initiative, not a Republican one. Republicans are fine with big government, they just differ with Democrats as to where government needs to be bigger.

As for your latter argument, that boils down to "when Republicans want to enact Democratic policies, only then can you claim to be diverse.". That seems a high bar, no?

You're right about that, though the Tea Party's take on government reduction is not what I would call a reasoned reduction. I would also say that while actual reduction in government isn't a Republican priority, it most definitely is one of their oft-stated bullet points.

 

[Kramodlog]

Actually, Ovinomancer's destination is basically accurate, at least in terms of US politics. While the GOP isn't as diverse as the Democratic party's political demographics, there is a profound distinction between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives*. That philosophical divide is a BIG part of why John McCain railed for years about the GOP avoiding extensive entanglement with the religious right...until he needed their money & influence in 2008.

The GOP, thus, became a party that has held together by winning. But their victories are diminishing in quality and quantity. Even as GOP candidates took seats in the legislature over the past few election cycles, more of the winning policy proposals that went to the ballot in those years were essentially in accord with the philosophies espoused by the Democrats. Simply put, people voted for Republican lawmakers but Democratic laws.










* there are also key- albeit overlapping- divisions within the social conservatives as well, notably between mainstream religious conservatives and the racists brought into the party via the Southern Strategy.

It comes back to the argument we were making about Republican politicians trying to get the votes of racist. Not all Republicans are racist, but buy doing nothing about politicians who try to get votes from racists, there is a certain level of endorsement of racism. Neoliberals might want low taxes, less government regulations and same sex-marriage, but if they do not really do anything about candidates who oppose sex-marriage, on some level they are endorsing it and are making the policy theirs as much as social conservatives are.

 

[Kramodlog]

When was the last time a Republican government reduced the size of government?/quote]It is still what the party, its politicians and the base have been proposing for decades. And they make a lot of cuts in taxes and services based on those ideas.

The Republican party, its politicians and base have been opposed to abortions for quite some time with variable results, but because they haven't managed to completely outlaw it accross the US, does it mean they are for it?

That's a TEA party initiative, not a Republican one. Republicans are fine with big government, they just differ with Democrats as to where government needs to be bigger.

Tea partiers aren't that different. A poll showed that 70% are against cuts to social security and medicare. http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...ters-oppose-cuts-to-medicare-social-security/ It isn't that surprising considering that that TPers are generally older folks.

As for your latter argument, that boils down to "when Republicans want to enact Democratic policies, only then can you claim to be diverse.". That seems a high bar, no?

There can be Democratic policies, tied to Democrates I imagine, but not conservative policies? Is the problem you have with that more rooted in how conservative and Republican are often used interchangeably?

 

[Ovinomancer]

You're right about that, though the Tea Party's take on government reduction is not what I would call a reasoned reduction. I would also say that while actual reduction in government isn't a Republican priority, it most definitely is one of their oft-stated bullet points.

It's clearly reasoned, you just disagree either with the premises or the conclusions. We all do ourselves a disservice when we mistake disagreement with perfidy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It comes back to the argument we were making about Republican politicians trying to get the votes of racist. Not all Republicans are racist, but buy doing nothing about politicians who try to get votes from racists, there is a certain level of endorsement of racism. Neoliberals might want low taxes, less government regulations and same sex-marriage, but if they do not really do anything about candidates who oppose sex-marriage, on some level they are endorsing it and are making the policy theirs as much as social conservatives are.

This returns to the fallacy that because I did not decry an action this time, I must support it. I believe this is a major argument used against the depiction of Muslims as supportive of extremist Islam? Why should it apply to conservatives, but not Muslims? NOTE: I do not support this argument against Muslims, I'm only using it for rhetorical purposes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is still what the party, its politicians and the base have been proposing for decades. And they make a lot of cuts in taxes and services based on those ideas.

The Republican party, its politicians and base have been opposed to abortions for quite some time with variable results, but because they haven't managed to completely outlaw it accross the US, does it mean they are for it?

Tea partiers aren't that different. A poll showed that 70% are against cuts to social security and medicare. http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...ters-oppose-cuts-to-medicare-social-security/ It isn't that surprising considering that that TPers are generally older folks.

There can be Democratic policies, tied to Democrates I imagine, but not conservative policies? Is the problem you have with that more rooted in how conservative and Republican are often used interchangeably?

I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the "reduction of government" planks of the Republican party. They want to reduce some aspects of government while increasing others. Usually it's military and business spending at the expense of social welfare programs. The net result isn't a reduction of government, but a realigning of it.

Libertarians, on the other hand, want less government, period, and aren't well liked by Republicans.

And there usually is an issue with the interchange of conservative and Republican. I don't mind, and usual assume that the speaker means them interchangeably, even though there are differences and divisions of conservatives and Republicans alike. There is no monolithic block of conservatives or Republicans, but it's often assumed that way.

Speaking to what I perceive is the largest gist of your argument, I'm not arguing that there aren't demonstrably conservative or Republican policies, but that belief in those is not monolithic or religious. Those policies are the middle ground of many subclasses and shouldn't be taken to be dogma for anyone. However, most of the time I see these arguments, dogma is what's being implied, usually in an attempt to dismiss the entire set of political thought on a pretext like failing to argue sufficiently vociferously against presumed racists.