Difference between revisions of "Republican Party"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(bailout) |
(more grouping of positions) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Negatives== | ==Negatives== | ||
| − | |||
* pro-war | * pro-war | ||
** ...but not interested in paying for said wars through raised taxes | ** ...but not interested in paying for said wars through raised taxes | ||
| Line 6: | Line 5: | ||
* support [[global warming denial]] | * support [[global warming denial]] | ||
* endorse religion as a basis for governance ([[dominionism]]); anti-secular | * endorse religion as a basis for governance ([[dominionism]]); anti-secular | ||
| − | * against sex education | + | * take many positions that cannot be defended rationally (typically for religious reasons): |
| − | * against easy access to contraceptives | + | ** anti-science |
| − | * against bodily autonomy for women | + | ** against sex education |
| − | * pro-patriarchy | + | ** against easy access to contraceptives |
| − | * pro-plutonomy: | + | ** against bodily autonomy for women |
| − | ** embrace the idea of selling principles to the highest bidder | + | ** favor racial profiling over more accurate methods of identifying criminals |
| − | ** against income taxation, especially of the wealthy and large businesses (i.e. the major funders of their campaigns) | + | ** oppose any kind of marriage or sexual relations ''except'' heterosexual |
| − | * | + | *** formerly used many of the same (bad) arguments to defend opposition to "interracial" marriages |
| − | * | + | * favor [[issuepedia:authoritarianism|authoritarian]], top-down society with high inequality |
| + | ** pro-patriarchy | ||
| + | ** pro-plutonomy: | ||
| + | *** embrace the idea of selling principles to the highest bidder | ||
| + | *** against income taxation, especially of the wealthy and large businesses (i.e. the major funders of their campaigns) | ||
| + | ** tend to believe the [[issuepedia:fairness fallacy|"just world" fallacy]] | ||
| + | ** unsympathetic to [[/poverty|those in need]] | ||
* originated and support the "[[war on terror]]" | * originated and support the "[[war on terror]]" | ||
* originated and support the "[[war on drugs]]" | * originated and support the "[[war on drugs]]" | ||
| − | |||
* high level of tribalism (draw sharp line between "us" and "them"; expect unquestioning loyalty to "us") | * high level of tribalism (draw sharp line between "us" and "them"; expect unquestioning loyalty to "us") | ||
* use {{l/sub|small government}} arguments to get what they want while actually [[/large government|making government more oppressive]] | * use {{l/sub|small government}} arguments to get what they want while actually [[/large government|making government more oppressive]] | ||
Revision as of 02:24, 25 December 2014
Negatives
- pro-war
- ...but not interested in paying for said wars through raised taxes
- ...but not interested in taking care of the veterans of said wars
- support global warming denial
- endorse religion as a basis for governance (dominionism); anti-secular
- take many positions that cannot be defended rationally (typically for religious reasons):
- anti-science
- against sex education
- against easy access to contraceptives
- against bodily autonomy for women
- favor racial profiling over more accurate methods of identifying criminals
- oppose any kind of marriage or sexual relations except heterosexual
- formerly used many of the same (bad) arguments to defend opposition to "interracial" marriages
- favor authoritarian, top-down society with high inequality
- pro-patriarchy
- pro-plutonomy:
- embrace the idea of selling principles to the highest bidder
- against income taxation, especially of the wealthy and large businesses (i.e. the major funders of their campaigns)
- tend to believe the "just world" fallacy
- unsympathetic to those in need
- originated and support the "war on terror"
- originated and support the "war on drugs"
- high level of tribalism (draw sharp line between "us" and "them"; expect unquestioning loyalty to "us")
- use small government arguments to get what they want while actually making government more oppressive
- supported the Wall Street bailout
Pages
- /large government: Republicans support larger, more oppressive government when it suits them.
- /small government: Republicans exploit popular support of small government ideals for their own benefit.
News Items
- 2014-10-16 Don't Let The Republican Tactic of Suppress and Confuse Steal Your Voice: a brief list of Republican attempts at voter-suppression laws, and their status as of this date
- 2014-10-22 GOP mailer attacking Elizabeth Warren on TARP bailout misleading: Warren did not endorse the Wall Street bailout; she criticized it.
- 2014-11-09
- Navy Appoints First Ever Atheist Lay Leader, Right Wing Freakout Ensues "Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee objected strenuously saying that a secular humanist chaplain would make a mockery of the chaplaincy and denigrate religious soldiers and their families." -- an expression of dominionism
- Ted Cruz Threatens To Block Attorney General Nominee: Republicans threaten to block Attorney General nominee over non-existent problem
- 2014-11-10 Tweet: ""Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government." Implies that Obamacare is slow and inefficient; implies that net neutrality will slow down the internet. False on both counts (although lack of net neutrality would make it possible for elites to purchase faster speed for their sites -- which would be consistent with the Republican view that only elites matter.)
- The Oatmeal helpfully explains net neutrality to SenTedCruz.
- 2014-11-15 Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Misunderstanding The Internet & Net Neutrality, As Republican Engineers Call Him Out For Ignorance
- 2014-11-17 Al Franken Explains Why Ted Cruz Doesn’t Understand The Internet
- 2014-12-04 Republicans Vow To Punish Poor People With Higher Taxes Because Of Obama's Executive Action: Republicans aren't above taking their own constituents hostage when they don't get their way (h/t)
- 2014-12-05 Government Shutdown Talks May Gut Retirement Security Rule: "The policy would impose a "fiduciary duty" on financial professionals who oversee retirement accounts, barring them from considering the potential profits of their own firm when choosing investments. Instead, investment managers would have to pick stocks, bonds and other assets based only on what was in the best interest of retirees." Never mind helping the poor; Republicans won't even act to protect individual investors. "Republicans are pushing a budget rider that would require the Labor Department to mediate its rule with the more corporate-friendly Securities and Exchange Commission, which financial reform experts said they believe would render the proposal toothless, if it ever made it out of the bureaucratic negotiations at all. The GOP-led House has voted to block the Labor Department from moving forward with the rule in the past."
Positives
CWRE is seeking input regarding positive aspects of the Republican Party versus other parties. We are not aware of any at this time.
Links
- issuepedia:US/NC/gov: some details of what happened after the Republican Party took over North Carolina's state government