Convince me why I should be a republican.

The data is obvious. Social programs are paid for by the working men and women, and their tax dollars. The more social programs, the more taxes. Eventually leading to government dependency, as opposed to independent, and free prosperity. Most will claim the rich are greedy and need to share. Take away the freedom that allows this, their minds will change real quick.

 

I don't think you should vote Republican.

I think you should vote individual liberty.

Which party seeks to restrict not just your liberty, but everyone's individual liberty the most?

 

Wow, this is unbelievable. None of what you listed has had an effect on the middle class, are you kidding me. If it was not for social programs, the country would damn near be debt free, and labor would see much more of it's value. But hey, let's bring in social healthcare and add to that debt. What's next, social automotive? Or hey I have the ultimate idea! Instead of getting a paycheck, let's just give everything to the government, and if you ever want a new car, phone, house, t.v., etc. You just go down and get it, and the government will let you know if you are qualified. What do you think?

 

We know what the real world you describe actually looks like, because that was the world of the robber baron era.

These people were free of the restraints that come from being taxes to provide old age pensions, food stamps, and are clearly enjoying their independent and free prosperity!

 

I was assuming from his persona untruth would be a given.

 

Ahhh, the liberal "you didn't build that" catchphrase. You're right, I drove on public roads so I owe everything to the government.

 

You can keep your bumper stickers...but yea...you are forgetting about all the help you did receive.

Ever go to a public school or a State University?

 

Somebody posted this on the net today, and it was like they were reading my mind. I just don't get anything progressives say/do, and as of yet nobody can explain it too me, that my calculator can verify it.

 

Going to public school did not get me out of poverty, working three jobs and not wasting my money did.

 

Who can spend your money better than you can? If believe your tax money is what was used to educate, feed, and provide you with transportation then I suggest you wasted the money you spent paying whoever it was that made those choices for you. But you don't believe that, do you? You don't believe that it was your money that did those things. You believe it was someone else's money that fed you, educated you, and made your roads. That's why you think it's a good deal, that you "befitted" [sic] (benefited?)

The system by which money is taken away from you without your consent to be spent by someone else on someone else is what makes it harder for you to access those things you think are being purchased for you. It's what makes them more expensive. It's what makes them more scarce. It's what monopolizes their control, and limits its function.

How ironic is it that the supposed solution to "too much money in politics" is to enable politicians to take and spend even more tax money?

 

the republican party now is changing into the nationalist party. The reason why you should vote republican is because there is not enough money in the world to help everyone if liberals had their way.

Consider universal healthcare. Great right? Now imagine that coupled with unrestricted illegal immigration like the left wants. Imagine you budgeted 3 trillion for your healthcare for your citizens. Would you be able to take in the citizens of central and south america as well? Any welfare program you propose will have to pass this test. Any program will have to be used by citizens first and only.

Consider jobs. Do you want a government that will continue to offshore job after job? Or do you want a party that will fight to bring jobs back? Do you want a party who will prioritize illegals and make it more attractive to hire them than citizens?

ill add more later if you want

 

How would school be different if there were no such thing as "public" school, or "state" university?

Do you believe school and university would not exist?

Do you believe that fewer people would be educated?

I suggest the opposite. Private markets will fill the void. It would be cheaper, more efficient, more diverse, and better equipped to adapt to the needs of the public it serves.

 

You're inevitably smarter than 100.032% of US republicans so it should be easy enough to make like a mini Donald and use the littl ppl as a springboard to feather your own nest.

 

OMG how could anyone make such an assertion in view of the existing republican population of wackos?

 

I take a stab at it. Others will say I'm wasting my time, but I'll play. The topics of discussion are near endless so I'll only touch on a few.

Jobs - Many views of the left and the right are opinions that they back up with statistics. So here's our first problem; who's statistics do you want to believe. I can march out many economists that will back the claims of the right, and I can march out an equal number that back the claims of the left. Here's the main part to consider though. As anyone who has taken a statistics class can confirm.....it's all in the way you ask the question and whom you ask the question of. Me myself.......I believe that government assistance is needed because everyone has a hard time once in a while. It should not however be a long term solution. There needs to be more emphasis on jobs in the US and I don't mean the BS low wage jobs that we count as jobs now. I can't defend either side on this issue because neither has done a good job of looking out for the average worker.

Immigration - I believe the right wants immigration......just with some control. We do not have and should not have an open border that allows people to come and go as they please and we should have a better idea of who is coming into this country. We are not the only country in the world that feels this way about their borders either.

Guns - You've already touched on guns and you claim to already be close to the right on this topic already.

Healthcare - The ACA so far as been a failure. Again with the statistics though. People will produce them that state it is a wonderful thing. When you have one of the largest healthcare providers in the country indicating indicating it may be backing out or it's going bankrupt, it should tell you something. People CAN'T choose their own doctors as promised....unless they pay extra for it. The right has held that a free market country wide open option will make insurance affordable to all THAT WANT IT. There are still people that do not have ACA just like before. They show up to the Emergency room with an injury though......they get treatment. If someone stands up and says something to the affect of "yea, but if they have health coverage they would get preventative care" I will electronically slap that hand down. Ask 100 random people that have insurance how often they go see a doctor for "preventative" appoints and I bet the answer is less than 1%.

That's 3ish. If you want more I'll be happy to entertain, but I agree with the rest. To try and convince a person to change that doesn't want to change is just wasting my time. So if you're just trolling for something to argue about please don't.

 

I wouldn't ever try to convince you to be anything other than an American.

From what you've written, I think you are like the majority of Americans, in that there are some things you agree with the Democrats, some things you agree with the Republicans, and some things you don't agree with either. Being a Republican or a Democrat simply means that you agree with the priorities of one party more than you agree with the other party's priorities. Most Americans see the problems, but have different ideas on how to solve them. One side declares that government gets in the way of business and the economy, so the smaller government is, the better. The other side see that only government has the ability to step in and fix things when it isn't profitable for business to do so, or to protect citizens from bad business practices. Both sides are needed because we are a large diverse country with many, many needs. When many diverse voices are heard, we get better laws because many perspectives have been examined. What we don't need are politicians that feel no obligation or desire to listen to the other side and find ways to compromise, because they want political leverage to gain power, no matter the party.

 

Convince yourself, nobody here cares about who and what you vote for.

 

If you are Godless pagan intolerant of Christians or the Christians that founded America---then the Dem party is for you.

If you support Socialism or the practice of income redistribution mandated by a strong central government---then stay a Dem.

If you think our government should be the World's Santa Clause, bringing in illegals and other freeloaders looking for a free or easy ride and going into greater debt with no way to pay for it---then stay a Dem.

If you think our Constitution is like a giant wad of Silly Putty that can be stretched and shaped into anything a progressive judge wants it to be based on "the evolving standards of whatever"---then stay a Dem.

If you want your 2nd Amendment freedoms to be the same as in the UK---ie, no freedom at all---then stay a Dem.

If you want America to look like the Hood's in Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore that have been turned into wastelands entirely by Democrat leadership---then stay a Dem.

 

It's simpler to discuss this on a much more fundamental level. To change his party, you have to change the way he thinks, not just what he thinks.

The difference lay in the difference between objective thought, and idealist thought. It lay in the difference between someone who pretends that self interest is a vice, and someone who thinks self interest is the only true virtue.

The idealists are idolaters of Plato's philosophy of true forms. And like Plato, while they cannot define these forms, or express them rationally, they know they exist and we just have to take their word for it. In all political issues, the idealist conceives of a fantasy; a true form of the way the world should be. To resolve the dissonance between the true form and their perception of reality they cast their detractors as villains who actively work to corrupt the true form. Villains must therefore be vanquished, and so they cast themselves as heroes to vanquish them. They then play out a moral battle in their heads in which their own altruism is the highest ideal. They are prideful of their own sacrifice, and demanding of the need for others to sacrifice for them. If everyone must sacrifice for everyone else, then the only way to receive is if someone sacrifices for you. This is how they justify the public use of force to restrain the freedom of others. This is how you become enslaved to their ideology.

There is another way. That other way is to realize that self interest is a good thing. Indeed it is the only thing that drives the progression of mankind.

And that happens after realizing that forcing someone else to sacrifice for you is immoral.

 

The Nationalist Party....... has a definately familiar right to it!

 

you can demonize it all you want but "america first" is a slogan the US needs.

 

Are your ears still ringing from a Bernie Sander's rally?

You know, the guy that vows to stop them sneeky Chinese from takin our jerbs?

 

Stay independent, that's what I am, although I lean right, mostly due to the fact I'm pro life, pro gun with "background checks, I might add", and that's about it. other then that not a dimes difference between party's, both controlled by wall street, big pharma and big oil special interest, Hillary Clinton has more in common with wall street and special interest then anyone on either side, but Ted Cruz.,

party ideology means nothing anymore other then a tool for votes when needed.

 

Did the national socialist call for the elimination of their nations' tax collection agency?

 

History makes a mockery of your guess.

The introduction of universal free public education causes literacy rates in the US to skyrocket from the 30 to 40% range to near 100%. The GI bill took going to college from something one person in 20 did, to about 40%.

So, the facts, as we know them from the history of our country make an absolute mockery of the notion that "the private sector" would providee education.