Anarchism vs. Atheism: RNC/DNC

[Abishai100]

Let's look at anarchism (pseudo-egalitarian philosophy espousing libertarian beliefs of individualism, rotational leadership, and self-determined governance) and atheism (pseudo-religious philosophy espousing a belief in a God-less universe).

Anarchism does not favour strict or predictable governance hierarchies, and atheism is opposed to the notion of a supervising all-knowing creator (or God) serving as a supreme super-mind.

Atheists may favour anarchism, but anarchists are not necessarily atheists.

We can look at the odd Republican Party choice of favouring the finance-wizard and businessman Donald Trump as their presidential candidate and compare it to the radical Democratic Party choice of favouring the female presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans are going for an unusual society approach to leadership (not unlike their actor-turned-president Reagan choice), while the Democrats are going for a radical gender-themed approach to leadership (not unlike the minority-approach during the Obama administration).

Republicans are usually not atheists and are almost never anarchists, while Democrats are not usually anarchists but may cater to various atheists in their relatively more 'progressive' party.

So as we look at the national conventions of these two parties, the RNC and the DNC, we may ask, "Is anarchy equivalent to atheism when politics becomes complicated by matters of controversy?"

It's an ironically logical question...



RNC: About

DNC: Home - Philadelphia 2016

 

[Norman]

What?

 

[yiostheoy]

Let's look at anarchism (pseudo-egalitarian philosophy espousing libertarian beliefs of individualism, rotational leadership, and self-determined governance) and atheism (pseudo-religious philosophy espousing a belief in a God-less universe).

Anarchism does not favour strict or predictable governance hierarchies, and atheism is opposed to the notion of a supervising all-knowing creator (or God) serving as a supreme super-mind.

Atheists may favour anarchism, but anarchists are not necessarily atheists.

We can look at the odd Republican Party choice of favouring the finance-wizard and businessman Donald Trump as their presidential candidate and compare it to the radical Democratic Party choice of favouring the female presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans are going for an unusual society approach to leadership (not unlike their actor-turned-president Reagan choice), while the Democrats are going for a radical gender-themed approach to leadership (not unlike the minority-approach during the Obama administration).

Republicans are usually not atheists and are almost never anarchists, while Democrats are not usually anarchists but may cater to various atheists in their relatively more 'progressive' party.

So as we look at the national conventions of these two parties, the RNC and the DNC, we may ask, "Is anarchy equivalent to atheism when politics becomes complicated by matters of controversy?"

It's an ironically logical question...



RNC: About

DNC: Home - Philadelphia 2016


View attachment 82685

This is just more Mitt Romney again -- this Donald For POTUS thing.

The only difference is Donald Duck Trump's war chest -- it was his own money.

That's how he hijacked the GOP.

He did not need to give speeches about any phantasmal 47% to flatter his donors.

He did not have any donors.

So why does the GOP seem to like business moguls?

Maybe they just don't know any better yet.

 

[Norman]

Let's look at anarchism (pseudo-egalitarian philosophy espousing libertarian beliefs of individualism, rotational leadership, and self-determined governance) and atheism (pseudo-religious philosophy espousing a belief in a God-less universe).

Anarchism does not favour strict or predictable governance hierarchies, and atheism is opposed to the notion of a supervising all-knowing creator (or God) serving as a supreme super-mind.

Atheists may favour anarchism, but anarchists are not necessarily atheists.

We can look at the odd Republican Party choice of favouring the finance-wizard and businessman Donald Trump as their presidential candidate and compare it to the radical Democratic Party choice of favouring the female presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans are going for an unusual society approach to leadership (not unlike their actor-turned-president Reagan choice), while the Democrats are going for a radical gender-themed approach to leadership (not unlike the minority-approach during the Obama administration).

Republicans are usually not atheists and are almost never anarchists, while Democrats are not usually anarchists but may cater to various atheists in their relatively more 'progressive' party.

So as we look at the national conventions of these two parties, the RNC and the DNC, we may ask, "Is anarchy equivalent to atheism when politics becomes complicated by matters of controversy?"

It's an ironically logical question...



RNC: About

DNC: Home - Philadelphia 2016


View attachment 82685

This is just more Mitt Romney again -- this Donald For POTUS thing.

The only difference is Donald Duck Trump's war chest -- it was his own money.

That's how he hijacked the GOP.

He did not need to give speeches about any phantasmal 47% to flatter his donors.

He did not have any donors.

So why does the GOP seem to like business moguls?

Maybe they just don't know any better yet.

Wrong.

 

[yiostheoy]

What?

He is talking "philosophy".

 

[Norman]

What?

He is talking "philosophy".

I realize that, but he isn't making any sense.

 

[yiostheoy]

Let's look at anarchism (pseudo-egalitarian philosophy espousing libertarian beliefs of individualism, rotational leadership, and self-determined governance) and atheism (pseudo-religious philosophy espousing a belief in a God-less universe).

Anarchism does not favour strict or predictable governance hierarchies, and atheism is opposed to the notion of a supervising all-knowing creator (or God) serving as a supreme super-mind.

Atheists may favour anarchism, but anarchists are not necessarily atheists.

We can look at the odd Republican Party choice of favouring the finance-wizard and businessman Donald Trump as their presidential candidate and compare it to the radical Democratic Party choice of favouring the female presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans are going for an unusual society approach to leadership (not unlike their actor-turned-president Reagan choice), while the Democrats are going for a radical gender-themed approach to leadership (not unlike the minority-approach during the Obama administration).

Republicans are usually not atheists and are almost never anarchists, while Democrats are not usually anarchists but may cater to various atheists in their relatively more 'progressive' party.

So as we look at the national conventions of these two parties, the RNC and the DNC, we may ask, "Is anarchy equivalent to atheism when politics becomes complicated by matters of controversy?"

It's an ironically logical question...



RNC: About

DNC: Home - Philadelphia 2016


View attachment 82685

This is just more Mitt Romney again -- this Donald For POTUS thing.

The only difference is Donald Duck Trump's war chest -- it was his own money.

That's how he hijacked the GOP.

He did not need to give speeches about any phantasmal 47% to flatter his donors.

He did not have any donors.

So why does the GOP seem to like business moguls?

Maybe they just don't know any better yet.

Wrong.

Oh so you disagree Sweet Pea?

But is that all you can manage? Single word sentences.

Public schooling is killing us.

 

[yiostheoy]

What?

He is talking "philosophy".

I realize that, but he isn't making any sense.

That's why they did not let just everybody from the skool go into da philosophy classrooms.

Ya gots ta be a bright one first.

 

[Eaglewings]

The Bible Belt must be confused right now on who to vote for , so far its been pretty quiet over in that neck of the woods, like they have in the past.

 

[yiostheoy]

My point of agreement with the O/P is that the Trump phenomenon is simply a continuation of the Romney phenomenon.

Vis a vis in the GOP if you managed to make a lot of money whether by swindling your creditors or swindling your employees, they (the GOP) look up to you. I guess it's because you are a good pirate and you have a bigger hat.

Trump is raw unbridled greed -- a GOP icon.

Romney was greed and government mixed. Too bad Mitt tipped his hand by lying about everything he ever did -- Romney care -- abortion rights -- assault weapons bans -- etc.

McCain was all government -- public and armed forces -- without the business acumen. Being inept killed him.

The process in the GOP is simply evolving and has now reached it's apex.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Bible Belt must be confused right now on who to vote for , so far its been pretty quiet over in that neck of the woods, like they have in the past.

The Donald is not exactly the poster boy of family values. Divorce factors in there way too much for him.

Here is the church, here is the steeple, open the doors, and see all the happy people -- theyre not supposed to get a bunch of divorces.

Usually the far right religious fringe hollers about abortion, gay marriage, and other such irrelevant stuff.

I have not yet checked what various planks they got Reince to put into their platform this year.

It's just not relevant anymore.

The GOP has a madman at the stick, and he needs to be stopped.

His money needs to be stopped.

Where is the IRS when you really and truly need them?

Choke off the money and you choke off the madman.

 

[Abishai100]

yiostheoy,

I *think* I understand what you're saying. "You can't use propaganda for a debate about a subject that's already loaded with pedagoguery."

My point was humbly simpler: Who would you rather have as a pizza delivery-person, Donald or Hillary? Who makes you feel safer?

 

[yiostheoy]

yiostheoy,

I *think* I understand what you're saying. "You can't use propaganda for a debate about a subject that's already loaded with pedagoguery."

My point was humbly simpler: Who would you rather have as a pizza delivery-person, Donald or Hillary? Who makes you feel safer?

Oh I got that part although Norman did not.

The gist of your O/P is more akin to "why does the GOP draft Robber Barons?"

They have now given us 2 in a row. That's what I was trying to point out.

I myself am guessing that it is because the GOP seems to have iconized gluttony, greed, sloth, envy, wrath, pride, and lust. These are what Trump is all about, in spades.

 

[Eaglewings]

My point of agreement with the O/P is that the Trump phenomenon is simply a continuation of the Romney phenomenon.

Vis a vis in the GOP if you managed to make a lot of money whether by swindling your creditors or swindling your employees, they (the GOP) look up to you. I guess it's because you are a good pirate and you have a bigger hat.

Trump is raw unbridled greed -- a GOP icon.

Romney was greed and government mixed. Too bad Mitt tipped his hand by lying about everything he ever did -- Romney care -- abortion rights -- assault weapons bans -- etc.

McCain was all government -- public and armed forces -- without the business acumen. Being inept killed him.

The process in the GOP is simply evolving and has now reached it's apex.

From a woman's point of view , the talk about banning contraception..and the comments that woman can stop pregnancy after a rape was out of this world. Those Tea Party views did them in..

One good thin that Trump has done is that once Hi-jacked Tea-party may be going away, and a a new party may be forming.


.

 

[whitehall]

That's the problem with the left, they speak in cliches and they think in cliches. WTF is "odd" about choosing a "financial wizard and businessman" as a presidential candidate? Is it any more "odd" than picking the wife of a disgraced president who never had a job that wasn't arranged by her husband? Democrats stacked the deck when they ran a dying man for his 4th term and picked a dumb assed little bean counter senator and former clothing store owner to be the defacto president. Truman didn't even have a college education when he woke up one morning in April 1945 and found himself president without a freaking clue.

 

[Unkotare]

What?

He is talking "philosophy".

I realize that, but he isn't making any sense.

That's why they did not let just everybody from the skool go into da philosophy classrooms.

Ya gots ta be a bright one first.

*facepalm*