Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[JimC]

Did Trump make some stupid comment about breast feeding women being an invitation to grope?

Wouldn't put it past him. He seems to want to see how far he can push his crazed comments before even his die-hard supporters say enough is enough...

Probably got a fair way to go; he hasn't claimed that all Muslims like buggering goats...

Yet...

[Brian Peacock]

This is what comes of defining one's politics by what one opposes - which is everyone who doesn't think the same as you I guess.

[pErvinalia]

I've heard of insider reports that say that if Trump or Cruz win the primaries, then there is a window in which the Republicans can unendorse them and they won't have time to register as Independents. And that is what the GOP is considering doing.

[Brian Peacock]

But who could they field in their place?

[pErvinalia]

One of the less insane nominees.

[Hermit]

But who could they field in their place?

Hillary Clinton would make a good Republican candidate. She did work for that side until 1970. Though she has changed her mind on some issues (Vietnam and race policy, for instance), I really don't know why she joined the Democrats.

[pErvinalia]

She fits in now. The dems are largely a right-wing party.

[JimC]

She fits in now. The dems are largely a right-wing party.

That's pushing it, surely. A tad right of centre by world standards, maybe...

[pErvinalia]

Pfft. Look at what the dems have allowed regarding internal spying, illegal foreign invasions, Guantanamo, the successor to the Patriot Act, obamacare (which is written for insurance providers). Some of their policies are centre right, but a lot of them are highly corporatist and neocon.

[Brian Peacock]

A neocon is just a libertarian with the balls to do something about it.

[pErvinalia]

Pretty much, yeah.

[Forty Two]

A neocon is just a libertarian with the balls to do something about it.

Neocons are not libertarian. Libertarian foreign policy stances are incompatible with neoconservative foreign policy stances.

While neocons tend to be somewhat supportive of classical liberal economics, which tends to be consistent with libertarian positions on that point, the rest of neoconservatism is diametrically opposed to libertarianism. Even on economics, libertarians tend to be against budget deficits and tend to be very much supportive of the ideas of Hayek, whereas neoconservatives are not. Libertarians agree that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom" as Hayek put it, but neoconservatives are not against the growth of government influence on society and public welfare.

[Strontium Dog]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

[Svartalf]

Neocons have always been Republican as far as Merkin politics are concerned, that is, the far right.

[Seth]

But who could they field in their place?

Hillary Clinton would make a good Republican candidate. She did work for that side until 1970. Though she has changed her mind on some issues (Vietnam and race policy, for instance), I really don't know why she joined the Democrats.

Because, like her husband, she's a megalomaniac, congenital, pathological liar, a leftist Progressive power-seeker, a control freak, nascent tyrant and just about as evil and self centered a person as has ever existed on this planet, that's why, so she fits well with the rest of the Democrat party who have similar intentions for the rest of us.