GrumpyCatFace wrote: Yes, conservatives are definitely more up my alley, in terms of governance. Unfortunately, they don't have a party to represent them
Dude tell me about it.
I agree with what GCF said there. Conservatives <> Republicans. There is some overlap. The main problem are the Republican politicians who talk conservative, but are really just part of the whole political swamp.
Conservatives ≠ Republicans
Conservatives ≠ Democrats either
I agree with what GCF said there. Conservatives <> Republicans. There is some overlap. The main problem are the Republican politicians who talk conservative, but are really just part of the whole political swamp.
Conservatives ≠ Republicans
Conservatives ≠ Democrats either
Conservatives are not a party but an ideal...
Yes, and an ideal that's completely un-represented in American politics, other than the Libertarians.
As far as I can tell, both of the major parties are just branding changes on the face of totalitarianism.
PartyOf5 wrote:
I agree with what GCF said there. Conservatives <> Republicans. There is some overlap. The main problem are the Republican politicians who talk conservative, but are really just part of the whole political swamp.
Conservatives ≠ Republicans
Conservatives ≠ Democrats either
Conservatives are not a party but an ideal...
Yes, and an ideal that's completely un-represented in American politics, other than the Libertarians.
As far as I can tell, both of the major parties are just branding changes on the face of totalitarianism.
You have to admit that the Libertarian party is a mess atm. I voted for Johnson in 2012, but some core tenets of Libertarian philosophy are just a different side of the same utopian Marxist coin.
The Conservative wrote:
Conservatives ≠ Republicans
Conservatives ≠ Democrats either
Conservatives are not a party but an ideal...
Yes, and an ideal that's completely un-represented in American politics, other than the Libertarians.
As far as I can tell, both of the major parties are just branding changes on the face of totalitarianism.
You have to admit that the Libertarian party is a mess atm. I voted for Johnson in 2012, but some core tenets of Libertarian philosophy are just a different side of the same utopian Marxist coin.
Agree that it's a mess, but how on earth do you get from Libertarians to Marxism?
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Yes, and an ideal that's completely un-represented in American politics, other than the Libertarians.
As far as I can tell, both of the major parties are just branding changes on the face of totalitarianism.
You have to admit that the Libertarian party is a mess atm. I voted for Johnson in 2012, but some core tenets of Libertarian philosophy are just a different side of the same utopian Marxist coin.
Agree that it's a mess, but how on earth do you get from Libertarians to Marxism?
They are both utopian projects. Neither is big on nationalism, both are globalizing enterprises. Both place economics above all else. Libertarians equate liberty, their most cherished concept, with money, and marxists use the wealth disparity between differing social classes as the basis of all conflict in the world. Money is the prime driver for both ideologies. They have different solutions (No State vs. All State), but they share many core ideas about the world. Anyway, that is my opinion on the matter.
PartyOf5 wrote:
I agree with what GCF said there. Conservatives <> Republicans. There is some overlap. The main problem are the Republican politicians who talk conservative, but are really just part of the whole political swamp.
Conservatives ≠ Republicans
Conservatives ≠ Democrats either
Conservatives are not a party but an ideal...
Yes, and an ideal that's completely un-represented in American politics, other than the Libertarians.
As far as I can tell, both of the major parties are just branding changes on the face of totalitarianism.
That's not my problem... it's the problem of the parties that are having an identity crisis. I know what I stand for and it is why I don't stand for either party... because neither stand for themselves any more. They stand for ideals that aren't compatible with their parties core, and that's a problem.
heydaralon wrote:
You have to admit that the Libertarian party is a mess atm. I voted for Johnson in 2012, but some core tenets of Libertarian philosophy are just a different side of the same utopian Marxist coin.
Agree that it's a mess, but how on earth do you get from Libertarians to Marxism?
They are both utopian projects. Neither is big on nationalism, both are globalizing enterprises. Both place economics above all else. Libertarians equate liberty, their most cherished concept, with money, and marxists use the wealth disparity between differing social classes as the basis of all conflict in the world. Money is the prime driver for both ideologies. They have different solutions (No State vs. All State), but they share many core ideas about the world. Anyway, that is my opinion on the matter.
All ideologies are 'globalizing enterprises'. That's no different between any of them - they inherently 'need' to spread everywhere, lest they be seen as imperfect by their adherents. And money does make the world go round, no matter what you believe in.
I'm curious what ideology you've rejected Libertarianism/Conservatism in favor of then...
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Agree that it's a mess, but how on earth do you get from Libertarians to Marxism?
They are both utopian projects. Neither is big on nationalism, both are globalizing enterprises. Both place economics above all else. Libertarians equate liberty, their most cherished concept, with money, and marxists use the wealth disparity between differing social classes as the basis of all conflict in the world. Money is the prime driver for both ideologies. They have different solutions (No State vs. All State), but they share many core ideas about the world. Anyway, that is my opinion on the matter.
All ideologies are 'globalizing enterprises'. That's no different between any of them - they inherently 'need' to spread everywhere, lest they be seen as imperfect by their adherents. And money does make the world go round, no matter what you believe in.
I'm curious what ideology you've rejected Libertarianism/Conservatism in favor of then...
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
Agree that it's a mess, but how on earth do you get from Libertarians to Marxism?
They are both utopian projects. Neither is big on nationalism, both are globalizing enterprises. Both place economics above all else. Libertarians equate liberty, their most cherished concept, with money, and marxists use the wealth disparity between differing social classes as the basis of all conflict in the world. Money is the prime driver for both ideologies. They have different solutions (No State vs. All State), but they share many core ideas about the world. Anyway, that is my opinion on the matter.
All ideologies are 'globalizing enterprises'. That's no different between any of them - they inherently 'need' to spread everywhere, lest they be seen as imperfect by their adherents. And money does make the world go round, no matter what you believe in.
I'm curious what ideology you've rejected Libertarianism/Conservatism in favor of then...
I'm not denying that money and economics are crucial, but both Libertarianism and Marxism are reductive in that they look at one component of human life, the economic one and hardly examine the other pieces. There are other things to consider.
heydaralon wrote:
They are both utopian projects. Neither is big on nationalism, both are globalizing enterprises. Both place economics above all else. Libertarians equate liberty, their most cherished concept, with money, and marxists use the wealth disparity between differing social classes as the basis of all conflict in the world. Money is the prime driver for both ideologies. They have different solutions (No State vs. All State), but they share many core ideas about the world. Anyway, that is my opinion on the matter.
All ideologies are 'globalizing enterprises'. That's no different between any of them - they inherently 'need' to spread everywhere, lest they be seen as imperfect by their adherents. And money does make the world go round, no matter what you believe in.
I'm curious what ideology you've rejected Libertarianism/Conservatism in favor of then...
Then you don't understand Conservatism...
I don't necessarily understand your definition of it, no. But I certainly understand ideologies. They are never satisfied in a local area - they must have True Believers, and those Believers must go forth and proseletize to the unwashed masses abroad. Anything less is not going to maintain cohesion in a large group.
....which is probably a big part of why Libertarians can't get off the ground, come to think of it.
