Do US Republicans want a failed state?

aelf

Ashen One
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
18,228
Location
Tir ná Lia
A failed state would have a weak government. Private interests would be more free to pursue their goals, and the outcomes you get would be more dependent of your capabilities and the resources you have.

Isn't that what the US Republicans want? Is that what 'small state' right wingers want in general? Is the current US a good outcome for the Republicans?

Please tell me.
 
Maybe the voter want a candidate the most closest to the far right, MAYBE.
 
I think they don't think there's any consequences as so far they've been rewarded.

I suspect that might end this year.
 
Republicans want a failed US Constitution. Freedom outside the elite group is bad, because they limits the range of abuse and privilege of the elite. What they want is a third world kleptocracy with Jim Crow laws everywhere.
 
A failed state would have a weak government. Private interests would be more free to pursue their goals, and the outcomes you get would be more dependent of your capabilities and the resources you have.

Isn't that what the US Republicans want? Is that what 'small state' right wingers want in general? Is the current US a good outcome for the Republicans?

Please tell me.

Yes, if you think that all US Republicans are like Alex Jones.
No, if they are like the Republicans who voted GOP last time but voted for Obama previously.
In short, define US Republican and I'll get back to you. :)
 
It might be an age thing.
 
Doesn't everyone?

My family's income derives from the state's failure to enforce regulation, so I certainly cannot claim that I want the state to succeed. I don't want it to descend into chaos either. Like everyone else I want it to successfully provide the conveniences that work for me while failing to manage the things that would impose limitations on me. Whether they are among Republicans or Democrats the people of accumulated wealth do not want the state to succeed at giving the rest of the people any freedom to catch up with the head start their ancestry has provided for them, so if that is a goal of the state then yes, they want the state to fail.
 
This whole "I voted for Obama and thus am above criticism" thing is kinda funny, and only gets funnier as each year passes.
I used it as an example, not that they're beyond reproach. There's a gulf between Alex Jones types and people who changed votes from one party to the other.
Do you really think that all republican voters can be boxed into one convenient category?
 
Hard to say. The GoP is a coalition of mostly single issue voters who shrug their shoulders at less palatable aspects of the platform.

There's the "if it makes me rich today who cares about tomorrow crowd" that loves tax cuts, deregulation and will quietly outsource to their hearts content. They'll pay lip service to cultural stuff to achieve their ends but are the ones really controlling the party. This is Trump, McConnell, etc.

Christians who's mission is saving the lives of babies and "redeeming" sinners from the LGBTQ community. They'll dismiss other people's concerns as something they don't believe in or is in God's hands. They tolerate others in the coalition because God will sort it out in the end, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to gain entry into heaven."

Gun nuts who want pretty hardcore libertarianism, "tax is theft, "regulations are overreach" etc. They are ambivalent about a failed state because they don't truly believe the state is useful. They'll be fine, they've got the tool for both hunting and protection. I do use the term gun nut rather than advocate or owner because they've fetishized something that's really a simple tool for sport or protection.

Then there's the group that doesn't like the outsider. The run the gamut of just not liking non Americans, not truly racism, all the way to hating other cultures or ethnicities. These folks do not want the state to fail unless it's just to point the finger and say "see we told you those people would wreck it!" They coopt other parts of the coalition as cover for bigotry. They want a stronger state able to suppress groups they dislike. The other parts of the coalition pretend this part isnt a thing or validate their unnecessary concerns with "rationale."

Tldr, a lot of them just hold such specific values that they have zero concern for anything else.
 
Last edited:
hen there's the group that doesn't like the outsider. The run the gamut of just not liking non Americans, not truly racism, all the way to hating other cultures or ethnicities. These folks do not want the state to fail unless it's just to point the finger and say "see we told you those people would wreck it!" They coopt other parts of the coalition as cover for bigotry. They want a stronger state able to suppress groups they dislike. The other parts of the coalition pretend this part isnt a thing or validate their unnecessary concerns with "rationale."

Why can't you just call them as they are; bigots? Irredeemable people.
 
Why can't you just call them as they are; bigots? Irredeemable people.
Too simple and not really true. The problem is one type of Republican doesn't care about the concerns of another type.

For example, a good portion of the gun nut people couldn't give two shakes what clothes you wear, gender you are or who you sleep with.

The Christians who do care about that stuff can often be pretty rational about gun regs if you sit down and go over things with them.

Those two groups vote for the McConnell types because he acknowledges their interests and pays them lip service even though he doesn't care about any of it, just the fealty to big business. He's not a bigot, his wife is Chinese and he used to be pretty moderate at the beginning of his career. It's just a useful tool for power.

I'd say more GoP voters are dupes than are bigots.
 
Too simple and not really true. The problem is one type of Republican doesn't care about the concerns of another type.

For example, a good portion of the gun nut people couldn't give two shakes what clothes you wear, gender you are or who you sleep with.

The Christians who do care about that stuff can often be pretty rational about gun regs if you sit down and go over things with them.

Those two groups vote for the McConnell types because he acknowledges their interests and pays them lip service even though he doesn't care about any of it, just the fealty to big business. He's not a bigot, his wife is Chinese and he used to be pretty moderate at the beginning of his career. It's just a useful tool for power.

I'd say more GoP voters are dupes than are bigots.

You're absolutely wrong, there is a rich undercurrent of "I don't care how bad things get for me, as long as the blacks/asians/hispanics/gays/women/etc have it worse".

If you think having a chinese wife somehow inocculates McConnell against bigotry i don't even know what to say; the guy has no issues with locking up hispanic children, i mean what the hell are you trying to say?

If the best you can say is he's not "actively" bigoted but how no issues with supporting racist agendas, rhetoric and policy then what is the functional difference between him and an "active" bigot?
 
You're absolutely wrong, there is a rich undercurrent of "I don't care how bad things get for me, as long as the blacks/asians/hispanics/gays/women/etc have it worse".

As someone that regularly associates with a lot of conservatives - gun nuts, Christians, businessy folk, rednecks, and so on, I not only disagree with you but consider my opinion more grounded in fact than yours. Certainly you've had all sorts of negative experiences, but I suspect folks' motivations are more negligent than malicious in most cases, and probably in more than a few cases are only reflecting your blatant disdain if not hatred for them.

If you think having a chinese wife somehow inocculates McConnell against racism i don't even know what to say; the guy has no issues with locking up hispanic children, i mean what the hell are you trying to say?

What if he doesn't have an issue with locking up white children either? What if he really doesn't want to lock anyone up, but figures it is worth it to not fight it because it enables some other completely-unrelated-to-race-or-hatred-generally policy he favors?
 
As someone that regularly associates with a lot of conservatives - gun nuts, Christians, businessy folk, rednecks, and so on, I not only disagree with you but consider my opinion more grounded in fact than yours. Certainly you've had all sorts of negative experiences, but I suspect folks' motivations are more negligent than malicious in most cases, and probably in more than a few cases are only reflecting your blatant disdain if not hatred for them.

If you could just explain to me, like a child, how voting for a party that explicitly has made it it's job to attack LGBTQ people is somehow more "negligent" than malicious? You're using weasel words to downplay the damage these people are doing; even if i accepted your claim, at absolute best they are enabling it and at worst they don't care, and of course you'd consider your opinion more grounded than mine, you've acknowledged that you've VOTED for that same party, now what does that say about your actions? Budging on this issue wouldn't make you look so good, you might have to confront some of the results of your actions, then you'd have to deal with the fact those communities that were attacked as a result of your vote might not look so favourably on your attempts to downplay the above.

Are you seriously telling me you had no inkling of what the ramifications and implications of your vote would be for those groups the GOP have historically demonized; that it didn't even enter your or their minds when voting and if even if it didn't, that somehow that lessens the damage? How would that hold up if we applied that to european ultra nationalist party that explicitly attacked roma or Jews?

Need i say more? Or am i going to have to sit here and have this bad faith conversation where i have to entertain the possibility that people can vote for parties that are explicitly against sections of society but that their voters somehow don't get the message, even when it's been as clear as it has in the case of the GOP?

Generations of the LGBTQ community are dead as a DIRECT result of Republican policy, ideology and cultural values and that stain transfers even to the voters of that party and it certainly doesn't wash off with any defense you've mounted so far. Own your sin, after all I have too and i and other LGBTQ people suffer much more than any Republican ever could for owning theirs.

What if he doesn't have an issue with locking up white children either? What if he really doesn't want to lock anyone up, but figures it is worth it to not fight it because it enables some other completely-unrelated-to-race-or-hatred-generally policy he favors?

What functionally is the difference between enabling, implementing and allowing racist policy or agendas? The end result is that people suffer all the same, if the best you can is say that he simply doesn't care then that doesn't bode too well for those that vote for that party or him.

And yeah you're right, I goddamn hate the Republican party, I hate them for what they've done to my community, to our country, for being kissing cousins with some of the worst bigotry that has existed in American society but at this point if you still can't recognize them for what they are, then that's your failure, not mine and im certainly not going to be friendly or even cordial to those that still make excuses for these people who have no problem turning a blind eye until it happens to one of their own.

These people aren't good people, at best they're indifferent to the suffering of others as long as they don't look exactly like them.
 
Last edited:
Yes the republicans want a failed state.
 
I used it as an example, not that they're beyond reproach. There's a gulf between Alex Jones types and people who changed votes from one party to the other.
Do you really think that all republican voters can be boxed into one convenient category?
I'm British, but I've never met or seen one of these mythical swing voters. There are a lot of articles in mainstream publications about such a demographic, but weirdly it never seems representative of actual election results.

People can stop voting for a party over time - we have posters who have said as much here. But the whole "I voted for a Democrat once or twice 8 to 12 years ago" doesn't mean you're not a Republican, nor does it mean you didn't vote Trump. Which makes it a very pointless point to centre your argument on, in my opinion. I mean, this isn't meant to be a knock at you, but Alex Jones is a very low bar to clear in terms of not being like that kind of person :p

Too simple and not really true. The problem is one type of Republican doesn't care about the concerns of another type.

For example, a good portion of the gun nut people couldn't give two shakes what clothes you wear, gender you are or who you sleep with.

The Christians who do care about that stuff can often be pretty rational about gun regs if you sit down and go over things with them.

Those two groups vote for the McConnell types because he acknowledges their interests and pays them lip service even though he doesn't care about any of it, just the fealty to big business. He's not a bigot, his wife is Chinese and he used to be pretty moderate at the beginning of his career. It's just a useful tool for power.

I'd say more GoP voters are dupes than are bigots.
Anecdotally, this doesn't match my experience. I know of a lot of American and Canadian gun folk through weird quirks of coincidence (online friend circles over the years) and there's a definite trend towards disbelieving in what progressive folk champion "these days".

On the whole "McConnell has a Chinese wife" thing other than to point out that Nigel Farage's wife is . . . German? I think. Milo Yiannopoulos doesn't stop talking about his black husband, but that didn't stop him being horrendously racist to Leslie Jones. People can be bigots and know or have close relations with people from that demographic. Much like how far-right xenophobic groups boast of their (invariably few) non-white members. There's a whole lot of literature out there about racist stereotypes and how members of marginalised demographics can be made to feel like "one of the good ones".

This thread seems to be weirdly morphing into people believing the best of a particular voting demographic, while also believing the worst of people who have had harm done to them by that exact demographic. I mean, I'm seeing literal devil's advocacy for high-profile Republican party members. Why? What purpose does devil's advocacy serve? It's just baseless speculation that isn't backed by any evidence. It's challenging people to prove a negative.

(more of a general thing, not really aimed at you Socrates :p)
 
Last edited:
Yes the republicans want a failed state.

The irony in it is that they'd nave no state to protect them them, and they're the ones who have the most stuff accumulated to protect.
The smart ones don't really want a failed state, and pull the strings in a different way. They want a strong state that continually "fails" most of its population. Seems to be a failed state so the plebs do not rebel. And they're achieving that goal.
 
The Republican party is controlled by rich people who for the most part just want more money. In the short-term this of course means less employee protections, less environment regulations, lower taxes for corporations, and so on.

It's a short-tern plan to get more money for those who donate to the party and so on. Those who vote Republican do so for other reasons.

Did I get this right, Americans? Republicans don't want a failed state, but they are driven by greed, so they aren't planning for the future of America. Instead they are planning for the short-term benefit of a a tiny subset of America who is already rich to begin with.

If this leads to a failed state, then you gotta blame the voters. They keep electing this party, even given the evidence that they aren't doing much to benefit those who vote for them.

Of course you could say that is a direct consequence of a "past the post" type democracy, and the polarization of America into left vs right catfights and zero rational discourse, as well as a failure of your educational system, which is underfunded and {other problems}

I'm Canadian and I endorse this message
 
Back
Top Bottom