What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Issues on which I disagree with the right

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
43,227
Reaction score
7,840
Points
1,830
What's with the apples and oranges comparison? Care to try something else?
Yeah, I kinda figured you'd dodge.
We are not choosing between Stalin and Hitler, we are choosing between more government control and less government control.
I know that. But if we were, would you spend time sorting out which one was lesser, or would you vote third party? Again, I'm just trying to understand how far you'd take this logic.
We are choosing between picking a party that supports criminals and a party that supports law abiding citizens. We are picking between a party that favors invaders over Americans, and a party that favors Americans over invaders. We are picking between a party that strives to create as many government dependents as possible and a party that's wants to reduce that dependency. We are deciding between a party that hates the Constitution and a party that loves it.
Bottom line, we are choosing between good and evil whereas your comparison is evil against evil.

No, in reality, I'm saying neither party is evil. They're just shitty and not worth my vote. Once you turn it into a jihad, you've abandoned reason.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
106,085
Reaction score
15,681
Points
2,180
100% correct, we won't. That's why you vote for the people closest to your views instead of waiting the rest of your life for one that addresses every concern of yours.
BTW, there is no such path forward where anyone believes everything one may want. If they did, it would be you and that other person. Two people, I don't think that will ever get on the ballot.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,570
Reaction score
24,411
Points
2,290
BTW, there is no such path forward where anyone believes everything one may want. If they did, it would be you and that other person. Two people, I don't think that will ever get on the ballot.

It's ridiculous to think you can get most people to think like you. If that were possible, our crime problems would be solved, our drug problems would be solved, our border problems would be solved and so forth.

Part of being a free country is thinking the way you wish, and you're simply not going to get everybody to think like you, especially when it comes to third party candidates. People either vote to keep their party in power or to make sure the opposing party doesn't get power. So nobody is going to vote third party even if their views are more in line with yours than either party because the stand zero chance at winning.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
What's with the apples and oranges comparison? Care to try something else?

We are not choosing between Stalin and Hitler, we are choosing between more government control and less government control. We are choosing between picking a party that supports criminals and a party that supports law abiding citizens. We are picking between a party that favors invaders over Americans, and a party that favors Americans over invaders. We are picking between a party that strives to create as many government dependents as possible and a party that's wants to reduce that dependency. We are deciding between a party that hates the Constitution and a party that loves it.

Bottom line, we are choosing between good and evil whereas your comparison is evil against evil.

I disagree.
I think we are only given the choice between evil and evil in the US.
For example, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, sentence mandates, no-knock-warrants, etc., are not just wrong, but completely illegal.
They can not be justified under the basic definition of legal authority, which is the delegation of the defense of individual rights.
These acts harm rights, not defend them, so then both parties supporting these policies, are simply criminal.

And it is much wider than just these clear violations of law, into all aspects of our optional policies as well.
Like Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq, murdering Qaddafi, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, Benghazi, Syria, etc.
We are illegally murdering people, based on lies, in order to implement some private commercial profiteering.

Your view of this being about more or less government control is a false flag I think.
The actual forces behind everything bad is profits, so then while government can be used as the vehicle for harm, it is never the source.

An easy way to illustrate that is when government does too little.
For example, health care.
The profit motive is horrendously bad for health care, because you don't want there to be an artificial shortage of health care, just to bring up prices.
Individual doctors do not want that either.
But corporations, big Pharma, insurance companies, etc. have targeted health care as the biggest money maker, and are manipulating health care in very harmful ways.
The US has some of the worst health care in the world, but pay more than twice as much as anyone else in the world.
Just consider how those on fixed income are forced to drive to Canada in order to save 50% on their life saving prescriptions, and then yet SOMEHOW legislators and police feel empowered to somehow arrest these people, as if they actually were criminals.
Isn't it obvious such legislation itself is what is not only totally illegal but immoral as well?
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,570
Reaction score
24,411
Points
2,290
Yeah, I kinda figured you'd dodge.

How am I dodging? Terrible comparison if I ever seen one.

I know that. But if we were, would you spend time sorting out which one was lesser, or would you vote third party? Again, I'm just trying to understand how far you'd take this logic.

I'm voting for the people and party that believes in smaller and less intrusive government in our lives. Would I like to see even less than they have to offer? Yes I would, but that's no reason to vote for or allow a pro big government party to take command.

No, in reality, I'm saying neither party is evil. They're just shitty and not worth my vote. Once you turn it into a jihad, you've abandoned reason.

I'm sorry but liberalism is all about being evil. On just about any debate the left always sides with evil: police vs criminals, armed citizens vs disarmed citizens, US military vs their enemies, illegals vs Americans, the list goes on and on.

Look at what they're doing to places in California and Chicago. Look at New York city. Pure evil.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
It's ridiculous to think you can get most people to think like you. If that were possible, our crime problems would be solved, our drug problems would be solved, our border problems would be solved and so forth.

Part of being a free country is thinking the way you wish, and you're simply not going to get everybody to think like you, especially when it comes to third party candidates. People either vote to keep their party in power or to make sure the opposing party doesn't get power. So nobody is going to vote third party even if their views are more in line with yours than either party because the stand zero chance at winning.

I disagree.
I think if people were allowed to vote based on the actual issues, we could get much better representation.
But the 2 party strangle hold prevents that.
For example, I think there are some excellent candidates from both extremes that would appeal to the whole population enough to get elected, who are screened and prevented by the party they are forced to try to go through.
Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, etc. are some who come to mind, that I would like to vote for, have strong bipartisan support, but am prevented by the 2 party system.
The 2 party system is wrong, evil, not supported by any legal principle, and prevents actual issues from being debated honestly.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,570
Reaction score
24,411
Points
2,290
I disagree.
I think if people were allowed to vote based on the actual issues, we could get much better representation.
But the 2 party strangle hold prevents that.
For example, I think there are some excellent candidates from both extremes that would appeal to the whole population enough to get elected, who are screened and prevented by the party they are forced to try to go through.
Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, etc. are some who come to mind, that I would like to vote for, have strong bipartisan support, but am prevented by the 2 party system.
The 2 party system is wrong, evil, not supported by any legal principle, and prevents actual issues from being debated honestly.

There is no mandate of a 2 party system. It's just that nobody will vote third party, but it's available if you want to waste your vote and feel better about yourself.
 

Dirk the Daring

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
649
Reaction score
285
Points
180
Disagree.

I "practice libertarianism," by not advocating people's freedom be reduced, AND by avoiding attitudes which might lead to freedom being reduced. In other words, I try not to be judgmental about people doing things that I do not like but would not ban. Because a judgmental attitude towards something is often the first step in legal restrictions.

It's not just unselfishness that drives that reasoning. For example, I play poker as a hobby business. I believe that poker is a game in which intelligent people can win, while games like blackjack, roulette, craps are basically legalized fraud and state-run lottos are a tax on people incredibly bad at math. But I rarely say so, because it could give ammo to people who want to ban gambling, which poker legally is.

Agreed.

Aww, you were batting a thousand with me until you CARPED on roulette. Sometimes games of chance are just... fun to play.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
43,227
Reaction score
7,840
Points
1,830
How am I dodging? Terrible comparison if I ever seen one.
You're dodging by non answer the question. It's not a trick or anything. All you have to say "No, in the case of a 'choice' between Hitler and Stalin, of course I wouldn't vote for either." or "I stand by my argument. Even if it were Hitler vs Stalin, I'd pick the one that seem less evil". But you won't. Wondering why.
Look at what they're doing to places in California and Chicago. Look at New York city. Pure evil.
Yep. That's how the game works. Rs scare their base into believing that the other side is evil. Ds do likewise. Let the jihad commence. No one thinks. They just believe.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
How am I dodging? Terrible comparison if I ever seen one.



I'm voting for the people and party that believes in smaller and less intrusive government in our lives. Would I like to see even less than they have to offer? Yes I would, but that's no reason to vote for or allow a pro big government party to take command.



I'm sorry but liberalism is all about being evil. On just about any debate the left always sides with evil: police vs criminals, armed citizens vs disarmed citizens, US military vs their enemies, illegals vs Americans, the list goes on and on.

Look at what they're doing to places in California and Chicago. Look at New York city. Pure evil.

And you don't think you are not also being manipulated?
For example, you were just claiming how you are for less government power, but then you just sided with the police, over the citizens they wish to take rights away from.
If you look at the biggest problem we face, urban violence, it actually caused entirely BY police, with their illegal War on Drugs.
Just like Prohibition, making something illegal that government has no valid or legal authority to dictate, just increases the profits, use, and associated violence.
Pure evil.

I think that is also true with your example of "US military vs their enemies".
The US has never been invaded since 1812, and we never really had any "enemies".
It is the US military who has been the greatest enemy of the US, illegally murdering in wars against native Americans, (Manifest Destiny), Mexicans, the Civil War, Spanish American war, Philippine Rebellion, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, etc.
No one has ever threatened us, but we have air craft carrier fleets all over the world, threatening innocent people with highly offensive weapons.
Pure evil.
 
Last edited:

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Obviously since most people are NOT evil, and all governments are turning out TOTALLY evil, then the system of representation has to be at fault.
And clearly when one examines the awful candidates, it is obvious it is the 2 party system at fault.
It is rigged to prevent good candidates.
Good candidates are not going to follow party lines, but instead pick and choose what is best on all issues.
We need to change elections so political parties are eliminated from being able to restrict our choices.

And if someone suggest they just form a third party, that shows an incredible lack of understanding.
First of all, NO party can ever work, because you should never be voting for a party, but on individual issues instead, and you can NEVER do that with ANY party.
Second is that the 2 main parties are wealthy engines no one can possibly withstand.
They really are illegal and must be totally and completely destroyed.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,570
Reaction score
24,411
Points
2,290
And you don't think you are not also being manipulated?
For example, you were just claiming how you are for less government power, but then you just sided with the police, over the citizens they wish to take rights away from.
If you look at the biggest problem we face, urban violence, it actually caused entirely BY police, with their illegal War on Drugs.
Just like Prohibition, making something illegal that government has no valid or legal authority to dictate, just increases the profits, use, and associated violence.
Pure evil.

I think that is also true with your example of "US military vs their enemies".
The US has never been invaded since 1812, and we never really had any "enemies".
It is the US military who has been the greatest enemy of the US, illegally murdering in wars against native Americans, (Manifest Destiny), Mexicans, the Civil War, Spanish American war, Philippine Rebellion, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, etc.
No one has ever threatened us, but we have air craft carrier fleets all over the world, threatening innocent people with highly offensive weapons.
Pure evil.

Oh with your illegal crap. When you become a lawyer, then tell us what's illegal. Illegal is not what you dislike.

As for drugs, I lost a family member over dope. I've known several people who lost their lives over dope. My home has been robbed once, and it was because of dope. Yes, I want dope illegal and I want a 30 year prison sentence for selling the shit. Dope is responsible for more murders in this country than any other cause. You want dope legal? Here is a video of Afghan solders trying to do jumping jacks. This is what everybody in our country would look like if dope were legal here like it is there.


It would only be a matter of weeks before China invaded our country and took it over.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
There is no mandate of a 2 party system. It's just that nobody will vote third party, but it's available if you want to waste your vote and feel better about yourself.

My point is that the game is rigged.
Not only is a third party nearly impossible, but that as a party it would not improve anything.
ALL parties have to go.
They are all wrong, evil, and inherently prevent individual issue discussion.

Those who could best represent us are those all parties would reject as being too compromising.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,570
Reaction score
24,411
Points
2,290
You're dodging by non answer the question. It's not a trick or anything. All you have to say "No, in the case of a 'choice' between Hitler and Stalin, of course I wouldn't vote for either." or "I stand by my argument. Even if it were Hitler vs Stalin, I'd pick the one that seem less evil". But you won't. Wondering why.

Why the stupid question that has nothing to do with what we are talking about? That's like me asking you which one you would rather sleep with, Nancy Piglosi or Dianne Feinstien. It's just a stupid question. And when you answer neither, try to make the comparison to voting. Plain stupid.

Yep. That's how the game works. Rs scare their base into believing that the other side is evil. Ds do likewise. Let the jihad commence. No one thinks. They just believe.

Republicans don't have to convince anybody Democrats are evil. It's all on record. Need links? There are thousands of them.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,570
Reaction score
24,411
Points
2,290
My point is that the game is rigged.
Not only is a third party nearly impossible, but that as a party it would not improve anything.
ALL parties have to go.
They are all wrong, evil, and inherently prevent individual issue discussion.

Those who could best represent us are those all parties would reject as being too compromising.

Nothing is rigged. You are just upset because most of America doesn't think like you. If you want to vote third party, be my guest. it's your vote to waste, but nobody is stopping you.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
43,227
Reaction score
7,840
Points
1,830
Why the stupid question that has nothing to do with what we are talking about? That's like me asking you which one you would rather sleep with, Nancy Piglosi or Dianne Feinstien. It's just a stupid question. And when you answer neither, try to make the comparison to voting. Plain stupid.
LOL sure man. All this excuse making and dodging should really give you pause. A person who wasn't blindly defending an irrational faith would simply answer the question honestly. You can't.
Republicans don't have to convince anybody Democrats are evil. It's all on record. Need links? There are thousands of them.

Yes. Lots of links. Deep state lizard people - heard the whole spiel. Democrats are satanic and eat babies.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,570
Reaction score
24,411
Points
2,290
LOL sure man. All this excuse making and dodging should really give you pause. A person who wasn't blindly defending an irrational faith would simply answer the question honestly. You can't.

No, it's just that I'm not playing your junior high games. I say I wouldn't vote for either and then you'd compare that to voting Republican or Democrat. I know these games.

Yes. Lots of links. Deep state lizard people - heard the whole spiel. Democrats are satanic and eat babies.

Completely wrong, they are not eating babies yet, just killing them.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Oh with your illegal crap. When you become a lawyer, then tell us what's illegal. Illegal is not what you dislike.

As for drugs, I lost a family member over dope. I've known several people who lost their lives over dope. My home has been robbed once, and it was because of dope. Yes, I want dope illegal and I want a 30 year prison sentence for selling the shit. Dope is responsible for more murders in this country than any other cause. You want dope legal? Here is a video of Afghan solders trying to do jumping jacks. This is what everybody in our country would look like if dope were legal here like it is there.


It would only be a matter of weeks before China invaded our country and took it over.

Wrong.

First of all, what is legal is not for lawyers to decide.
The basic principle of a real democratic republic is that defense of individual rights is the ONLY source of legal authority.
When legislators pass a law that is not based on that, it is obviously inherently illegal.
All lawyers instead are taught essentially that might makes right, and ignore real law.
Lawyers are instead taught to defer to statues and how to win arguments, both of which are contrary to the principles of a democratic republic.

Sure drugs are bad and I would not recommend them, but making them illegal only makes it worse, and there is no basis for such laws in a democratic republic. Essentially, they are saying you are too stupid so we will dictate. Once you allow that, the democratic republic is totally gone.
The drug deaths are NOT due to drugs but the laws criminalizing drugs that prevent users from knowing dose or ingredients.
The robberies over drugs are NOT due to drugs, but the high costs and the lack of medical access, caused from drug criminalization.
Drug gang murders are NOT due to drugs, but the laws criminalizing drugs that entice people with high profits, but make them accumulate large cash sums that can't use the protection of banks, police, credit cards, etc.
Drugs were always historically legal, and just like with Prohibition, the big problems did not happen until they were criminalized.
If you think criminalization of drugs has had any positive or useful aspect, you are totally wrong.
It just set the stage for the future rebellion where the poor people finally topple the corrupt and evil government of the wealthy.
Obesity kills 300,000 each year in the US, while drugs are claimed to be responsible for only about 70,000 deaths a year in the US.
But obesity is legal because it is the wealthy.
The poor can't afford obesity.
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,471
Reaction score
11,069
Points
1,410
This can be the start of debate, or just a bit of disclaimer for me.

I'm libertarian. As I predicted in the introductions thread, I seem to be disagreeing with progressives/leftists on here and thus may appear to some of you to be right-wing. So, here's where I'm not right-wing:

Pretty much any right-wing belief that opposes liberty or equality of opportunity, or that favors government involvement in areas in which the government should butt out.

So - even though I wish there were far fewer abortions, or even no abortions - I don't favor banning them.

I don't favor prayers in public schools, because I think the 1A does not allow government officials to establish a religion in a tax-funded institution.

As a libertarian, I'd like to see government get out of the business of licensing marriage, but if they do license marriage, it should be available to all sexes, all perceived genders and in any number - barring under-age marriage. Libertarianism is for adults.

I don't favor the war on drugs.

I don't favor the wars in the middle-east.

I don't favor going to war to protect Taiwan.

The MIC has been wagging the dog far to long, IMHO.
while i agree i want the gov to butt-out of these things, it's odd to me you only mention butting out of conservatives practices. don't get me wrong, i agree with several of your stances.

im against abortion for example. not my role to tell you how to live, however.

no idea what the hell a perceived gender is. you're male or female (99.999% of the time) and anything else is mental, not physical. you can dress how you want, take whatever drug therapy you wish and have a wonderful day. but you can't expect everyone to go along with it.

the war on drugs should focus on the ones that are an actual issue like opium. outside that who gives a damn what people smoke or do in private. again, not saying im for or against drugs but again, not my place to tell people how to live.

wars - can't live with them, can't live without them. you pick your allies and you work with them. period.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
43,227
Reaction score
7,840
Points
1,830
No, it's just that I'm not playing your junior high games. I say I wouldn't vote for either and then you'd compare that to voting Republican or Democrat. I know these games.
No, you're dodging. What is it that scares you so much about answering the question? It's not a trick. It's not like I'm going to spring a gotcha on you or anything. I'm just wondering if you have any sense of moderation in your view.

I do. eg - In general, I don't do LO2E - it's mostly idiotic, a losing strategy. But if it were Stalin vs Trump, and it looked like Stalin might win, I'd probably vote for Trump, even though I despise him.

But in truth, if half the voters were seriously considering Stalin I'd just be looking to get the hell out of that country.
Completely wrong, they are not eating babies yet, just killing them.
What about the lizards?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top