Republican Debates

[Socrates]

On 4/17/2016, 10:16:24, Ark said:

it wasn't secretive, it was off the record, this happens quite often and I imagine everyone running for president has had them. Of course Trump is getting close to winning so establishment news sources are doing whatever they can to try to stop him, including violating their own ethical standards to propagandize Trump as some phony that is doing this as a joke.

Like FOX, which can't get enough of Trump?

On 4/17/2016, 10:16:24, Ark said:

 It's quite the opposite, he is the most genuine person running, the most sincerely interested in helping America. 

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Can you name one single thing Trump actually did in his 70 years on this earth to actually advance the constitution or conservative causes, or put America first?

Didn't think so.

He was a just another standard-issue left-wing Democrat prior to deciding to run for Prez on the GOP ticket.

And he remains just another big-gov statist, who doesn't even pretend to care about limited constitutional government.

 

On 4/17/2016, 10:16:24, Ark said:

Cruz reminds me of one of these slimy backwoods preachers, blah, blah, blah . . .

Of course, you've still got nothing of substance to say about any of the actual issues.

We could talk about Trump's disdain for private property rights, and support of eminent domain.

Or his disregard for first amendment freedom of the press, threatening to sue anyone who speaks ill of him once he's in power.

Or his support of continuing government subsidizing of Planned Parenthood (after earlier promising otherwise).  Or his inconsistent and ever-changing statements regarding immigration policy and second amendment rights.  Or his mushy statements regarding Supreme Court nominees.

The guy contradicts himself so many times it's impossible to know what, if anything, he actually stands for.

On 4/17/2016, 10:35:16, Ark said:

Too much for me to respond on an iPad... sorry to inform you but buying your own Ted Cruz is what businessmen do to make there lives easier.  You fund both sides so whoever wins is in your pocket. Its business, has nothing to do with ideology or liking people, it's so the thousands of people you hire can have a job next quarter. 

Cruz will not be the nominee. The social engineers in the establishment steering this election, or nomination rather, will not let him win. He's their lap dog and will do their bidding but he's just not liked. More probable Paul Ryan or some other hack gets in on the fourth ballot in the convention. Watch.

So Cruz is the Establishment's precious lapdog, yet they hate his guts? Of course.  Real logical.

Funny how the worst of the GOP Establishment don't have the same issues with Trump, who's expressed his eagerness to "get along with" and "cut deals" with everyone in our corrupt Congress.

Such as Mr. Establishment himself, disgraced ex-speaker and Trump's good golfing/texting buddy/bff Johnny Boehner, who calls Cruz "Lucifer."  It's pretty clear who the crooked congressmen prefer.

On 4/18/2016, 12:13:47, Maggyie said:

LOL why is Donald Trump going off the record with the New York Times? What's he telling them that he doesn't want you to know?

Shhh!  Do not question The Donald.

The Orange-haired One is Pure of Heart.

On 4/18/2016, 12:34:42, Peace said:

The point of the question was to probe whether you are an ideologue, and to probe whether you value your money and personal freedom more than you value the ability of other people to access basic medical care.

Because I am not an ideologue and because I value the ability of other people to access basic medical care more than money and personal freedom I can make both of these statements:

1) If a free market health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care I would support a free market health care system. 

2) If a universal health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care I would support a universal health care system. 

Both of those statements are quite easy for me to make.

A liberal ideologue would be able to make the second statement but could not bring himself to make the first.

A conservative ideologue would be able to make the first statement but could not bring himself to make the second statement.

Can you make the second statement or is it safe for me to assume that you are a conservative ideologue?

If you cannot not even make the second statement above then there truly is no reason to try to argue with you based on evidence or reason. Anyone who cares about reason or evidence would be wasting his time in interacting with you. So before I waste my time with presenting evidence I am rather interested in confirming or correcting my suspicion that you are an ideologue.

I agree with the premise of statement #1, but not statement #2.  To simultaneously hold two contradictory views is illogical.

I could care less what names you want to label me with.

And, no offense, but I really don't need to be lectured endlessly on "ideologues" and "politics trumping faith" by an Obama supporter.

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Socrates said:

I agree with the premise of statement #1, but not statement #2.  To simultaneously hold two contradictory views is illogical.

The two statements are not contradictory because they are both conditional statements. In simpler terms, both statements begin with the word "if".

As a very simple example:

1) If I am able to leave work by 7PM tonight I will see the 7:30 showing of Star Wars tonight.

2) If I am unable to leave work by 7PM tonight I will watch Star Wars this weekend.

As you can see, the two statements are not contradictory. And it is not illogical for one to simultaneously make both statements. The same is true for the two conditional statements that I posted above, although the two statements are slightly more complex.

If someone could demonstrate that a universal health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care than a free-market system, you would nevertheless advocate for a free-market system, would you not? This is seemingly because you value personal freedom more than you value the right of people access basic health care. Is this correct or is it false?

It is not a difficult thing to answer. You seem like a relatively smart person. I am sure that you have dealt with conditional statements and hypotheticals in many other contexts.

Therefore it seems to me that you are simply ducking the question, with all due respect. It seems that you simply do not want to admit that you value personal freedom more than you value basic human rights for all.

10 hours ago, Socrates said:

I could care less what names you want to label me with.

And, no offense, but I really don't need to be lectured endlessly on "ideologues" and "politics trumping faith" by an Obama supporter.

I support President Obama (and the Democrats generally) in the areas in which they take positions that I view as consistent with the Catholic faith and the Church's guidance. And so should you. For example, I think that their view on the death penalty, health care, and support for certain needy persons, is more consistent with our Church. I do not support them concerning things on which they clearly disagree with the Church (such as marriage, abortion, certain aspects of religious freedom, etc.)  The same is true of the Republicans. I support them in certain areas and I disagree with them in other areas.

So I do not think that my faith and my politics are inconsistent. But if you think there any specific areas where I disagree with the Church, please identify them I will consider it. If I am in specific error I would like to correct myself.

You (and strict conservatives generally) seem to hold to a principle wherein private property and free-markets trump the universal destination of goods, and the Church has clearly spoken out against that. I believe that this is why it is so difficult for you to make statement #2 above.

So are you a strict conservative, as you claim, or are you not?

As another example, lets say that almost every person in the USA makes $50,000 a year and has enough money for basic food, shelter, health care and other basic necessities, except for two people. One of the two people is a starving man and the other is a billionaire who has money well beyond whatever he reasonably needs.

If the billionaire declines to give $10,000 to the starving person, can the state forcibly take the $10,000 from the billionaire and give it to the starving person so that he can feed himself? Or should the billionaire be free to do with his $10,000 as he pleases, either giving it to the starving person as a self-proclaimed form of "charity", or spending it on a new flat-screen TV?

[Ark]

Trumpian victory!

All Catholics and Christians of good faith have a duty to support Trump. He may be disliked but he is the lesser of two evils.

[Socrates]

On 5/2/2016, 10:20:47, Peace said:

The two statements are not contradictory because they are both conditional statements. In simpler terms, both statements begin with the word "if".

As a very simple example:

1) If I am able to leave work by 7PM tonight I will see the 7:30 showing of Star Wars tonight.

2) If I am unable to leave work by 7PM tonight I will watch Star Wars this weekend.

As you can see, the two statements are not contradictory. And it is not illogical for one to simultaneously make both statements. The same is true for the two conditional statements that I posted above, although the two statements are slightly more complex.

If someone could demonstrate that a universal health care system is more effective at giving the largest number of people access to basic health care than a free-market system, you would nevertheless advocate for a free-market system, would you not? This is seemingly because you value personal freedom more than you value the right of people access basic health care. Is this correct or is it false?

It is not a difficult thing to answer. You seem like a relatively smart person. I am sure that you have dealt with conditional statements and hypotheticals in many other contexts.

Therefore it seems to me that you are simply ducking the question, with all due respect. It seems that you simply do not want to admit that you value personal freedom more than you value basic human rights for all.

As I thought I've made clear plenty of times before, I do not believe socialism will in fact succeed in providing the best healthcare for all, anymore than it would bring the best anything else for all, so I see no point in entertaining a fantasy based on a false premise.

But, yes, if socialistic healthcare were in fact actually necessary to save lives, then it could be supported.  But I believe that notion is entirely false.

In short, I don't share your superstitious faith in politicians and bureaucrats to make wise and good decisions in spending other people's money on other people.  I also believe human freedom does in fact have value, and should not lightly be tossed aside in favor of schemes that grant yet more power to the insatiable federal leviathon.

Perhaps this reductio ad adsurdum will help you see the point:  If it could be scientifically proven that the government placing all citizens under 24-7 electronic surveillance and putting all people in padded cells would reduce the murder rate and other deaths, would you support it?  If you don't, would that mean you're a horrible selfish person who values personal freedom over human life?

But, frankly I'm getting rather tired of you dragging out this same dead horse to beat.  I can disagree with you without implying that you're a scumbag.

 

On 5/2/2016, 10:20:47, Peace said:

I support President Obama (and the Democrats generally) in the areas in which they take positions that I view as consistent with the Catholic faith and the Church's guidance. And so should you. For example, I think that their view on the death penalty, health care, and support for certain needy persons, is more consistent with our Church. I do not support them concerning things on which they clearly disagree with the Church (such as marriage, abortion, certain aspects of religious freedom, etc.)  The same is true of the Republicans. I support them in certain areas and I disagree with them in other areas.

So I do not think that my faith and my politics are inconsistent. But if you think there any specific areas where I disagree with the Church, please identify them I will consider it. If I am in specific error I would like to correct myself.

All partisan spin to the contrary, there's no actual specific policy issue where the Catholic Faith requires me to side with the Democrat Party.

However, the Church absolutely does teach that abortion (the murder of innocent unborn children) is an extremely grave evil which cannot be supported in any way, political or otherwise.  It is intrinsically evil under all circumstances.  The Democrats and your beloved Dear Leader both directly support this grave evil (along with a number of other grave intrinsic evils).

In fact, the Church has declared political support for the "right" to abortion or euthanasia to be an excommunicable offense, having far more gravity than other "political" issues.  (See this CDF document from Cardinal Ratzinger).

Perhaps you really sincerely believe that Obamacare or whatever will do such immense, wonderful, immeasurable good for everybody that it justifies indirectly supporting the slaughter of innocents.  Or maybe you're just ignorant.  I can't judge your inner heart and soul.  Yet, you're incredibly quick to accuse conservatives of "politics trumping faith."

I'll just say that if you twice helped elect the most pro-abortion president in American history, you're in absolutely no position to cast stones.

 

On 5/2/2016, 10:20:47, Peace said:

You (and strict conservatives generally) seem to hold to a principle wherein private property and free-markets trump the universal destination of goods, and the Church has clearly spoken out against that. I believe that this is why it is so difficult for you to make statement #2 above.

So are you a strict conservative, as you claim, or are you not?

As another example, lets say that almost every person in the USA makes $50,000 a year and has enough money for basic food, shelter, health care and other basic necessities, except for two people. One of the two people is a starving man and the other is a billionaire who has money well beyond whatever he reasonably needs.

If the billionaire declines to give $10,000 to the starving person, can the state forcibly take the $10,000 from the billionaire and give it to the starving person so that he can feed himself? Or should the billionaire be free to do with his $10,000 as he pleases, either giving it to the starving person as a self-proclaimed form of "charity", or spending it on a new flat-screen TV?

Again, we've already been over that bullcr@p plenty, and I see no need to go over it yet again.  Your ridiculous scenario has nothing to do with reality or anybody's actual arguments (much less with "strict conservatives," whatever exactly that means).  Nobody's saying that hungry people should just be left to starve to death.  I won't waste any more time further addressing that idiotic and dishonest strawman.  Good day.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

But, yes, if socialistic healthcare were in fact actually necessary to save lives, then it could be supported.

OK. This is good to know. I honestly thought that you would answer the other way. If you had clarified this point in response to my initial inquiry, much of the discussion could have been avoided.

Quote

In short, I don't share your superstitious faith in politicians and bureaucrats to make wise and good decisions in spending other people's money on other people.  

I do not have any particular faith in the ability of politicians to spend money wisely. I beleive that accusation is a bit unfounded. I would, for example, rather see a guaranteed minimum income system be put into place than to continue to support certain welfare programs that restricts the decision making of the recipients (e.g. food stamps).

But your response is interesting nevertheless. I do not think that your problem is that the government is spending your money per se, or that the government is allocating resources less efficiently than they would be allocated in a free-market economy.

You do not seem to have any problem, for example, with the government taking your money and spending it on national defense and public infrastructure. Presumably, this is because these things benefit you directly, but please correct me if I am wrong.  At least by the way you phrase things, you seem to have a fundamental problem with the government spening "my money" for the benefit of "other people".  Isn't the main thing you hate is the fact that money is being taken out of your pocket and given to other people?

Quote

I also believe human freedom does in fact have value, and should not lightly be tossed aside in favor of schemes that grant yet more power to the insatiable federal leviathon.

Agreed.

Quote

Perhaps this reductio ad adsurdum will help you see the point:  If it could be scientifically proven that the government placing all citizens under 24-7 electronic surveillance and putting all people in padded cells would reduce the murder rate and other deaths, would you support it?

No. I would not support it.

Quote

If you don't, would that mean you're a horrible selfish person who values personal freedom over human life?

 No. It would not.

Quote

But, frankly I'm getting rather tired of you dragging out this same dead horse to beat.  I can disagree with you without implying that you're a scumbag.

For the record, I don't think that you are a scumbag. I did not think that your position on various issues was consistent with what the Church teaches. In particular, I did not think that you would support sociastic medicine under any circumstance, but I stand corrected on that point. And I did not think that you would support the redistribution of wealth of under any circumstance (apparently I stand corrected on this point as well).

Quote

All partisan spin to the contrary, there's no actual specific policy issue where the Catholic Faith requires me to side with the Democrat Party.

I would venture to say that this is true. I would also imagine that there are only a few dogmatic teachings that would require you to side with the Republicans (what is left of them) on any specific policy issue.

Quote

However, the Church absolutely does teach that abortion (the murder of innocent unborn children) is an extremely grave evil which cannot be supported in any way, political or otherwise.  It is intrinsically evil under all circumstances.  

Agreed.

Quote

The Democrats and your beloved Dear Leader both directly support this grave evil (along with a number of other grave intrinsic evils).

The pot calls the kettle black.

President Obama is not my "Dear Leader". I find it amusing that you are so offended by a supposed implication that you are a "scumbag" and so forth, but have no problem throwing around unfounded accusations of your own. I gave you the courtesy of asking you to clarify what your position was concerning my hypothetical. I would appreciate the same.

Quote

In fact, the Church has declared political support for the "right" to abortion or euthanasia to be an excommunicable offense, having far more gravity than other "political" issues.  (See this CDF document from Cardinal Ratzinger).

I agree that abortion is an issue that should be given greater weight when considering which political candidate to vote for. That is why I generally would not vote for a pro-choice candidate, unless faced with some compelling reasons to do so.

Quote

Perhaps you really sincerely believe that Obamacare or whatever will do such immense, wonderful, immeasurable good for everybody that it justifies indirectly supporting the slaughter of innocents.  Or maybe you're just ignorant.  I can't judge your inner heart and soul.  Yet, you're incredibly quick to accuse conservatives of "politics trumping faith."

That criticism was directed at you in particular, but that is not to say that Democrats are not guilty of the same (they are generally more guilty of it than Republicans, in my opinion).

I think that the strict conservative position is inconsistent with the Catholic faith because it gives undue deference to private-property and free-markets. But I do not know if you follow the conservative position strictly, or make certain modifications based on what the Catholic Church teaches. That is why I asked you the hypothetical. You seem to follow the conservative platform lockstep, and I wanted to clarify whether that is the case. I would likely think that anyone who follows any of our political platforms (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever) would put politics over faith, to varying degrees.

As for the substance of your statement, I think it assumes that, all other things being equal, I would vote for a pro-choice candidate that supports universal health care over a pro-life candidate that supports free-market health care. This assumption would be incorrect. If faced with this choice, I would vote for the pro-life candidate, because it is the more important issue out of the two.

Quote

I'll just say that if you twice helped elect the most pro-abortion president in American history, you're in absolutely no position to cast stones.

Well then. Considering that is not the case, I will take that as a license to continue casting away.

Quote

Again, we've already been over that bullcr@p plenty, and I see no need to go over it yet again.  Your ridiculous scenario has nothing to do with reality or anybody's actual arguments (much less with "strict conservatives," whatever exactly that means).  Nobody's saying that hungry people should just be left to starve to death.  I won't waste any more time further addressing that idiotic and dishonest strawman.  Good day.

A strict conservative would be a person who strictly adheres to the conservative platform.

If you agree that the starving man in my hypothetical should not be left to starve to death, then in principle, you appear to agree that the state has the duty (or at least the power) to take your money and to give it to other people. You appear to beleive that in principle, taxes can be levied for the redistribution of wealth. If this is the case, then I would not consider you a "strict conservative" (and this would be a good thing).

Edited May 9, 2016 by Peace

[Socrates]

On 5/8/2016, 7:38:14, Peace said:

OK. This is good to know. I honestly thought that you would answer the other way. If you had clarified this point in response to my initial inquiry, much of the discussion could have been avoided.

I do not have any particular faith in the ability of politicians to spend money wisely. I beleive that accusation is a bit unfounded. I would, for example, rather see a guaranteed minimum income system be put into place than to continue to support certain welfare programs that restricts the decision making of the recipients (e.g. food stamps).

But your response is interesting nevertheless. I do not think that your problem is that the government is spending your money per se, or that the government is allocating resources less efficiently than they would be allocated in a free-market economy. 

. . . 

I thought I clarified my position long ago in another thread.

I don't have the time or interest to keep repeating this entire debate ad nauseum, but I'll just summarize by saying (again) that I support the principle of subsidiarity (look it up), and don't belief in general that we should give centralized federal government power beyond what is necessary.  I'm not totally convinced that a top-down federal gun-to-the-head approach is in fact necessary to get the rich (and others) to help feed the poor and starving.

And for the record, I think "corporate welfare" - government subsidizing favored corporations at the expense of others- needs to go long before food stamps.

 

On 5/8/2016, 7:38:14, Peace said:

Well then. Considering that is not the case, I will take that as a license to continue casting away.

 

I could have sworn I read in a post of yours somewhere that you twice voted for Obama.  But maybe I was hallucinating (proving that phatmass has, in fact, made me crazy).  If that's the case, and I'm mistaken regarding that, then I must take a lot of what I posted back.  Though your "politics trump faith" comments are still pretty asinine - though I've discussed that enough already.

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I thought I clarified my position long ago in another thread.

I don't have the time or interest to keep repeating this entire debate ad nauseum, but I'll just summarize by saying (again) that I support the principle of subsidiarity (look it up), and don't belief in general that we should give centralized federal government power beyond what is necessary.  I'm not totally convinced that a top-down federal gun-to-the-head approach is in fact necessary to get the rich (and others) to help feed the poor and starving.

And for the record, I think "corporate welfare" - government subsidizing favored corporations at the expense of others- needs to go long before food stamps.

 

I could have sworn I read in a post of yours somewhere that you twice voted for Obama.  But maybe I was hallucinating (proving that phatmass has, in fact, made me crazy).  If that's the case, and I'm mistaken regarding that, then I must take a lot of what I posted back.  Though your "politics trump faith" comments are still pretty asinine - though I've discussed that enough already.

OK. I will stop trying to give you a hard time about it. My bad.