Top products from r/Republican

>can you please clarify your ideological position

Sure.

I'm a paleoconservative deep ecologist. This means I adhere to the oldest values of American conservatism and pair them with an interest in environmentalism through a more wholesome design of society.

I moderate /r/new_right because the new right ideas are closest to paleoconservatism in some ways. I tried to write a description of new_right that encompassed all of the ideas that the movement has tossed around.

Beyond that, I think politics is a matter of strategies and not collectivist moral decisions, am fond of libertarian-style free market strategies, and take interest in many things, hence the wide diversity of stuff that I post.

I've learned that on Reddit it's important to ask for people to clarify definitions before ever addressing any question using those terms. If you want me to answer any specific questions, we need a clear definition first agreed on by all parties.

I recommend the following books for anyone interesting in post-1970s conservatism beyond the neoconservative sphere:

• Paul Woodruff, Reverence: Renewing a Forgotten Virtue
  
• Pat Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower
  
• Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies
  
• Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot
  
• Jared Diamond, Collapse
  
• Mark Steyn, America Alone
  
• Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
  
• Bruce Charlton, Thought Prison: The Fundamentalist Nature of Political Correctness
  
  Other than that, I'm pretty much a mainstream Republican. Not all links I post constitute endorsement, such as this fascinating article.

The first part of your argument you completely validate everything that I said. That is the reason for why there's a mandate in the first place: to tame the cost of health care.

> Again, the federal government is going to force Americans to buy a product from private corporations.

The federal government forces Americans to buy a lot of products from private corporations. You need electricity in your home, don't you? Your electric company is, most probably, a private corporation. You need to heat your home - either through heating oil or gas - that's accomplished via a private corporation supplying you that product, and there is no alternative. Phone service to communicate? Private corporation. Internet? Private corporation. Want to drive your car in NY state (and a few other states)? Need private car insurance. All of those things still don't have the the extensive cross-state influence that health care does. It is completely unique in that aspect.

> Is it a good thing that the federal government is forcing more people into this flawed system?

I take it that you're a libertarian. You do realize that wanting to change a system that was created by the private sector requires substantial regulation, right? It's similar to financial regulation, in that a system created by banks that is so inherently filled with risk requires substantial regulation to fix. Health care is similar because the risk of financial loss is spread out, thus costs rise across the board.

> hospitals (which have been pushed away from a charity or non-profit model by the federal government

Well, this is just factually incorrect. Hospitals becoming for-profit is just an aspect of the free market. It's capitalism, plain and simple. The same reason why a lot of new penitentiary systems are for-profit -- there's a lot of money to be made.

> Taxes were a small part of why the colonists revolted. The tyranny impacted them in far more areas than taxes.

What tyranny are you talking about?

> The Constitution is more about reigning in the federal government so that the states would retain power and be able to protect the citizens from another source of tyranny (the federal government)

What??? That was the exact point of the Articles, not the Constitution. The Articles were created with a deep skepticism of the federal government. Therefore, it gave individual states too much power and the federal government too little. Have you ever read The Federalist Papers? Those papers were essentially an appeal for less state power and more federal power and greatly contributed to the Constitution (heck, the guys who wrote The Federalist Papers had great influence in the writing of the Constitution and American life thereafter).

> taxes are just a small part of it.

Taxes are actually a major part of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, details what Congress may do pertaining to taxes, and there is also the "necessary and proper clause" or "elastic clause" which gives Congress considerably more leeway in terms of levying taxes (which SCOTUS has upheld).

I don't want to be mean or anything but please do some research before discussing topics in which you have limited knowledge of. There's a lot of good information out there that is just a few clicks away. Also, allow me recommend a solid American history book: America: A Narrative History.

I have an idea for you, which is what I did a few years ago: read a book written by a conservative politician expressing their views, and read a similar book by a liberal politician explaining their views, in either order. After reading both, you can then start to think about which issues you agree with Republicans on, and which you agree with Democrats on.

For example, I read this book, where Newt Gingrich explains Republican points of view pretty well, and this book, where Bill Clinton explains Democratic points of view pretty well. (Looking back, Back to Work maybe wasn't the best equivalent to Gingrich's book, since Clinton throws more numbers and statistics at you than actual explanations for why he thinks what he thinks. I was already pretty conservative by the time I read either, though.) Whether or not the other folks in /r/Republican think those books are actually the best to read for my suggestion, I don't know, but if you all disagree I'd love to hear some more suggestions for political reads.

Also, what /u/Wannabe2good said is also right, you don't just go out and "be" a Republican, you vote for Republicans, or Democrats, because you agree with their views on issues, which means you should know the ideas behind both sides of an issue before forming your own educated opinion. Unfortunately, many Americans don't do this, and will blindly vote for some politician just because they have an "R" or a "D" next to their name. Don't be like those people. Think about who you vote for based on your own values and opinions.

Okay, look I'm currently taking environmental science and my textbook says global warming is happening and humans are causing it. It is not a liberal textbook and even explains what it calls junk science that is generally funded by fossil fuel manufacturers push climate change denial. The problem is clear. I know all about those cycles as well and so does my text book. This is different though, if you are a man of science then please look at the science.

http://www.good.is/posts/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money/

There is a real problem here it must be dealt with for future generation. If you don't believe it's happening you are going against what academia has to say about it because this is what my college and everyone in my classes believes.

http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Science-Toward-Sustainable-Edition/dp/0321598709

The rich and powerful have found ways of manipulating the masses so that they will be on their side. Go read about Eddy Bernays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

if you have a couple dollars to spend Adam Ruins everything did a great video on how the telcom mergers that have already happened have been a step to far. (unfortunately the one part of that video that isn't free to watch is the part that covers it.)

https://youtu.be/ApMrczWqtmo?list=ELweFMwP-075DqQ79y2kQpEw the good part starts around the 6 min mark.

the sources he lists in the video are free to read though. Here are the relevant sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/upshot/why-the-us-has-fallen-behind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html

http://www.newamerica.org/oti/policy-papers/the-cost-of-connectivity-2014/

http://gizmodo.com/5830956/why-the-government-wont-protect-you-from-getting-screwed-by-your-cable-company

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/price-gouging-cable-companies

http://scrawford.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/The-communications-crisis-in-America-final.pdf

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/1/8321437/maps-show-why-internet-is-more-expensive-us-europe-competition

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

https://www.amazon.com/Captive-Audience-Telecom-Industry-Monopoly/dp/0300153139

But the long and short of it is that that unless we bring the hammer down on these telcom companies hard, IMO, they will just keep trying to do what they do. I can't fault them for that... it makes them money... its the equivalent of taking a dump on free market principles but it makes them money. But as the punishment is not as severe as the profits gained from the crime, companies will continue to operate in the manner that makes them the most money. Breaking them up seems to be the best way to make them loose the amount of money where they wont try to do this again.

It sounds like you would be very interested in this book.

Details. It's a free book, by the way.

https://www.amazon.com/Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-Democrats-Republicans-Absorbent/dp/B07PF21TL1/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=socialist+toilet+paper&qid=1558290483&s=gateway&sr=8-4

​

Socialists...

​

I think they just want some free shit.

​

These might look good streaming over their rallies.

You mean Liberal Fascism, right?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Elements-Style-Fourth-Edition/dp/020530902X

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203

You're a whiny fucktard. Don't go around whining about information sources when you won't even try to Google any real information. Romney's entire economic plan has been available for free on the Internet for over a year now.

http://www.amazon.com/Believe-America-Romneys-Economic-ebook/dp/B005LEY5Q0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346800330&sr=8-1&keywords=mitt+romney

Addressing your "better alternative" statement: I'm starting to think that America needs to create a system that can incarcerate the mentally ill and drug addicted for short-term evaluation and treatment, leading to mandatory long-term treatment when necessary.

My city is overrun by drug-abusing and mentally ill homeless people. Part of this is due to some very stupid propositions voters have approved over the past few years, but much of it is due to the fact that there is no way to compel people to get treatment for these disorders. As a result, they commit petty crimes, squat illegally on public land, create unsafe and unsettling public areas, and continue to suffer under their own illness (be it drug addiction, schizophrenia, or any number of other conditions).

America used to have an institutional culture that was set up to care for patients long-term. These institutions had farms and were somewhat self-sustaining. They gave patients jobs and a sense of purpose. Obviously, there were abuses that we could work to prevent. But there are many Americans who need that level of support.

There's a book about the old system that I found very interesting.

> no one knows or cares who he is.

Arrogant Millennials only know about the "The Apprentice".

However, many adults have known about Trump for 30 years or so.

For example, the bestselling "Art of the Deal" was published way back in 1987.

George H.W. Bush's book with Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor), A World Transformed, is basically a foreign policy memoir he wrote in 1998. In it he details reasoning for not going further in ways that that almost makes him seem like an oracle.

>While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the (Persian) Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Emphasis in the quote is mine. Highly recommended read.

You're conflating issues, really, and have no historical basis for your positions.

Here is a fantastic book on Lincoln and what kind of man he was.

[Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know About Dishonest Abe] (https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Unmasked-Youre-Supposed-Dishonest/dp/0307338428/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)

I'm not going to sit by while you repeat things your government teachers told you.

The letters written by the southern soldiers and their commanders tells a wholly different story about why the war was fought.

It was a war to defend their countries (i.e. the states.) The Constitution was ratified separately by the 13 countries (the word "state" at that time was used to describe places such as France, Spain, etc.) coming together.

If they were not separate countries, they would have simply held one ratifying convention in a chosen national capital, and that would have been it.

Again, the reasons for secession are not important, as the legal and moral basis was sound all on its own. The north instigated and provoked a war to justify imprisoning the people of the south into a union which they wanted no part.

For less than the cost of the Civil War on the North's part, they could have offered the slave owners double to triple the value of their slaves. England ended slavery without a civil war, and so could of Lincoln. He simply was blood and power hungry.