Do US Republicans want a failed state?

[Patine]

You seem to think I'm a fan of America. Skol.

I'm not either. I live in Canada. But I'm a Humanist, and believe that the human condition and human living standards as a whole should be brought up to better levels, and nationalistic, parochial, ideological and partisan purist, and demographic-based thinking - regardless of which nation - or aspired or proposed nation - region, ideology, political party, or demographic - usually end up just being toxic viewpoints that divide people, cause certain people to bring others down in the world, and cause people to dehumanize and commit atrocities against other types of people.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not either. I live in Canada. But I'm a Humanist, and believe that the human condition and human living standards as a whole should be brought up to better levels, and nationalistic, parochial, ideological and partisan purist, and demographic-based thinking - regardless of which nation - or aspired or proposed nation - region, ideology, political party, or demographic - usually end up just being toxic viewpoints that divide people, cause certain people to bring others down in the world, and cause people to dehumanize and commit atrocities against other types of people.

I'ma cynic. You never get disappointed.

 

[Patine]

I'ma cynic. You never get disappointed.

But you disappoint others a lot...

 

[amadeus]

No; a failed state to me is one incapable of carrying out the functions it defines as necessary regardless of scope.

The absence of one social welfare policy or another does not make a failed state.

Simply put, Sweden and Singapore have vastly different ideas on social welfare—different from that of the U.S.—and none of the three are failed states.

 

[Zardnaar]

But you disappoint others a lot...

Wife's used to it.

"I drunk to much"
"It's not you it's me"
"I've got a headache"

Etc.

I held her hand once in 2015. What more does she want?

 

[Patine]

Wife's used to it.

"I drunk to much"
"It's not you it's me"
"I've got a headache"

Etc.

I held her hand once in 2015. What more does she want?

You're a veritable Fabio there, @Zardnaar...

 

[JPetroski]

Hard to say. The GoP is a coalition of mostly single issue voters who shrug their shoulders at less palatable aspects of the platform....

This is an interesting post. I think you've done a fair job of describing the primary motivator for a lot of Republican voters, but I'm not sure I'd define them so much as "single issue voters" as "a single issue won't derail them voters."

 

[Zardnaar]

You're a veritable Fabio there, @Zardnaar...

20th anniversary this year. To be fair.

1. We don't have an anniversary. Just kinda happened there was no specific date.

2. We don't do Valentine's day.

3. Next bunch of roses I give her will be a first.

I'ma housetrained though. Cook,clean,roll overetc.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Zardnar, Patine and Cloud do have a unique and complex triangle relations.

I just want to be left alone...

 

[H4run]

I just want to be left alone...

I'm sorry if my humor makes you uncomfortable, I got no ill intention. Actually you and Patine struggling the same things in essence, what I see here is only a disagreement in method.

 

[Estebonrober]

No; a failed state to me is one incapable of carrying out the functions it defines as necessary regardless of scope.

The absence of one social welfare policy or another does not make a failed state.

Simply put, Sweden and Singapore have vastly different ideas on social welfare—different from that of the U.S.—and none of the three are failed states.

I think I see it as a failed state because it has no interest in serving its function to protect or promote its actual citizen's welfare whatsoever. Its become completely captured by corporate interests. Both sides, only one side is slightly better then the other. I view that as a failed state in a way. Also it no longer has complete control over its territory really as demonstrated by militia groups like the bundy's. . .

 

[amadeus]

I think I see it as a failed state because it has no interest in serving its function to protect or promote its actual citizen's welfare whatsoever. Its become completely captured by corporate interests. Both sides, only one side is slightly better then the other. I view that as a failed state in a way. Also it no longer has complete control over its territory really as demonstrated by militia groups like the bundy's. . .

1. I already addressed the degree to which social welfare is considered in defining a failed state.
2. Your view of a failed state is different from mine, but I think mine is closer to a broadly-accepted definition when discussing what is a failed state and what isn't.
3. That anecdote about the Bundy militia* doesn't in my eyes look at enough context. What are the pros and cons of having another Waco? As far as I understood the Bundy group were a largely harmless bunch of loons and dealing with them with the least violence necessary should be looked at as a positive, not a negative.

Spoiler :

Can I get a whoa Bundy?

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.

To a degree. The current Republican mix is an alliance of religious and nationalist conservatives with plutocrats. The plutocrats, who dominate, want the state not to block, and indeed to help, the acquisition of more and more wealth, really without limits. The nationalists/religious pleb-types want pretty much whatever the plutocrats tell them via their media and astroturf organisations, but includes a bunch of moral stuff and stuff about guns the plutocrats don't care about. They also want a big army to ensure that trade relations continue to be profitable, more profitable; the smart plutocrats also realise that if you destroy the state entirely someone like Putin will establish a godfathership of all the plutocrats and they'll be back to square one.

 

[aelf]

No; a failed state to me is one incapable of carrying out the functions it defines as necessary regardless of scope.

The absence of one social welfare policy or another does not make a failed state.

Simply put, Sweden and Singapore have vastly different ideas on social welfare—different from that of the U.S.—and none of the three are failed states.

Oh, the current situation in Singapore is very different from the US, and I'm not talking about "social welfare" at all.

To a degree. The current Republican mix is an alliance of religious and nationalist conservatives with plutocrats. The plutocrats, who dominate, want the state not to block, and indeed to help, the acquisition of more and more wealth, really without limits. The nationalists/religious pleb-types want pretty much whatever the plutocrats tell them via their media and astroturf organisations, but includes a bunch of moral stuff and stuff about guns the plutocrats don't care about. They also want a big army to ensure that trade relations continue to be profitable, more profitable; the smart plutocrats also realise that if you destroy the state entirely someone like Putin will establish a godfathership of all the plutocrats and they'll be back to square one.

This is an interesting post. I think you've done a fair job of describing the primary motivator for a lot of Republican voters, but I'm not sure I'd define them so much as "single issue voters" as "a single issue won't derail them voters."

What about this, then?

...let's reframe the question a bit.

Does the innocence of your original intentions still matter if the result of your choice has been shown to be something and yet you persist with it? You might deny that the outcome is what you want, but if you have rationalised the fact that in order to get what you want, that outcome is inevitable, then are your intentions not implicated in the outcome?

That's where people who insist that the non-racist supporters of a racist platform are still supporting racism are coming from.

 

[Socrates99]

Maybe I need to reiterate a point I made in my first post. It seems like Tim was the only one that caught it. The "if it makes me wealthy today IDGAF about tomorrow" people control all the power. They cynically use the other groups to stay in power. I'm not defending this group by saying they aren't bigoted. In fact I think they're worse than the bigots themselves. They themselves know better and still do gross things. IMO that makes them even more disgusting than the racists and bigots they manipulate to gain power.

I used McConnell as an example not only because he has a Chinese wife but also because he was originally a pretty moderate Republican at the beginning of his career. Now he's packing the court with hard right, often fundamentalist judges to appease the bigots. He used this to appeal to his electorate. He's one of the most unpopular senators in their respective home states because of his economic policies but he's stayed in power because he pays attention to the people obsessed with culture war issues. Trying to overturn Roe v Wade and protecting bigots keeps him in power even if he doesn't give a flip about either of those things.

Edit: oops I need to give Pangur Ban credit too. He's got it.

 

[aelf]

Let's try reframing it another way.

Are there different ways of understanding 'want'? Is it possible to neither want nor not want something that you have chosen?

If you say you do not want a particular outcome, but you knowingly create that outcome on the way to something else, is your initial statement valid?

 

[JPetroski]

Let's try reframing it another way.

Are there different ways of understanding 'want'? Is it possible to neither want nor not want something that you have chosen?

If you say you do not want a particular outcome, but you knowingly create that outcome on the way to something else, is your initial statement valid?

What outcome are you talking about, ultimately? That someone failed?

Are you then expanding on that to say that the someone failed primarily because of an "ism?" and that but for someone else's benign neglect of that "ism," the other party would not have failed?

 

[aelf]

I quickly tire of people who don't read and respond with something shallow or irrelevant.

 

[JPetroski]

I quickly tire of people who don't read and respond with something shallow or irrelevant.

Are my questions troublesome to the narrative you're trying to drive?

 

[Farm Boy]

1. I already addressed the degree to which social welfare is considered in defining a failed state.
2. Your view of a failed state is different from mine, but I think mine is closer to a broadly-accepted definition when discussing what is a failed state and what isn't.
3. That anecdote about the Bundy militia* doesn't in my eyes look at enough context. What are the pros and cons of having another Waco? As far as I understood the Bundy group were a largely harmless bunch of loons and dealing with them with the least violence necessary should be looked at as a positive, not a negative.

Spoiler :

Can I get a whoa Bundy?

The thing that finally spurred the majority to kill was marching out away from population concentrations, token occupying something that was closed for the season, and... making an actual good point about the government misapplying terrorism statutes as they pertain to a situation where the government saw an opportunity to screw down pressure on land aquisition. Not really surprising for the standard American thug mentality.

They're still mad tho. They wanted another WACO and they got mostly blue balled by the solitary corpse. That's only good for a couple jacks.