Except I think you're actually wrong. For the most part while the different Republicans want different things, their goals are not generally mutually exclusive - which is the case for some of the Democrats (explain any way to rationalize Kentucy blue collar coal miners and California environmental activists).
How is a neocon goal of aggressive foreign presence not mutually exclusive from the core principles of Libertarianism?
Because US libertarians are focused on Domestic not International issues. Sure they are non-interventialist, but the primary focus they seem to have is on the economic expenditure. It's literally something that they'd trade for almost any other goal.
I think it's in the nature of an aspirational rather a core goal.
How do you square socially moderate business interests with the social goals of the religious right? It's not hard to find mutually exclusive goals (and marriages of convenience) on either side.
Maybe lay out what you see as in direct conflict on this one. I think the religious right's goals conflict everyone else's but they are the ultimate in a group that has no other home. There's literally nothing they have in common with the Dems. At best the Dems could hope they schism into their own party "splitting" the Repub vote, not that they'd switch sides.
Blue collar workers may have an interest in higher minimum wages and don't all subscribe to trickle-down economic practices, Ser. Some of them think otherwise. You are just inserting your policy preferences as "obviously correct to everyone", but again, reasonable people disagree and aren't crazy for it.
Blue collar workers have an interest in higher wages, the vast Democratic core of Blue collar workers make well above the minimum wage. You are actually conflating a different issue here.
And to be clear, of course I'm inserting my opinion into this conversation. It's literally my opinion that blue collar workers socially better align with the Republicans, they are socially conservative gun owners that don't have a high affinity for identity politics. Historically they've voted on their economic affinity with the Dems - which is based on union support - but if the Dems campaign against their industries it breaks that economic argument. If Republican plans generate wage gains and new jobs in those industries, even if they don't support the unions, it's question of rationality whether that causes Blue collar workers to notice they'd be better off as Republicans.
As for black voters - good luck with that. They will never vote for the same party that white nationalists vote for. Keep dreaming.
They already do. White nationalist participation is about equal in the two parties (multiple studies have demonstrated that white racism is about equal in the two), notwithstanding the media hard sell to the opposite.
Maybe one day they'll realize that "Republican racism" is a media myth and look at the real gains that Republican policies bring them.
Honestly, it's a leftist delusion that Republicans somehow want bad things for our black communities. We want them to have great jobs, economic success and safety, and we honestly think our policies are going to bring that about.
If your only response is "what about racism?" maybe you should rethink your messaging.
Actually it's the opposite of "not having principles". It's just having a distinct and different set of principles!
No, we're using the term differently. I'm flat out stating that Republicans don't believe what they believe because of "loyalty," they believe what they believe because of substantive underlying principles that demand that result. This is not pyschology, this is logic.
You may judge loyalty harshly, as I do, but there are arguments in favor of it as a guiding principle as well... one of which is being able to get together and achieve things. If you are a self-proclaimed R supporter who doesn't see value in Loyalty, then that makes you rather strange.
Of course I value loyalty, as does every human being to some extent. That doesn't mean, as you are implying, that I adopt positions out of loyalty to a greater group. Again, this exists as argument to establish that the "other" is acting on an unsound and unconsidered basis. Therefore, arguments about the facts and reasoning need not be made as they will just be ignored.
It's literally an academic defense of not having to actually defend one's own position.
The best face I can put on the Democrat voters is that their vision of morality is based on feelings. Sincere ones I grant you, but still feelings not logic. Their leaders, to me, are the most cynical politicians on earth totally committed to power without regard to any principal.
Well, you're certainly describing one particular faction (and one I am constantly at war with). But it's a spectrum. Most of the D voters I know personally aren't all "feelings" based but are logic based. Most Bernie supporters certainly weren't there for identity politics but because they had economic policies they wanted to support. I think perhaps it's easy when you disagree with an idea to presume that it is just "feelings" that got someone there.
Well, Bernie supporters to me are a good case. What you say defined them? Is it a commitment to socialism? To me that's the ultimate in feelings versus facts. Every part of the concept of socialism is built on feel good principals, it all sounds like the nice lessons we learned as children, sharing for all, no one left behind, leveling the playing field, taking from those who refuse to share (even though they benefited from society), but it ignores reality, which is pretty much an extensive record of economic destruction and human misery. It's pretty much the defining philosophy for the road to Heck being paved with good intentions.
The recent kerfuffle over a Clinton staffer aside, I know which party I would expect to deal with someone accused of harassment and which party I would expect to press on anyways. For goodness' sake, look who almost won in Alabama. That's not normal.
I think I went through an extensive analysis of Alabama before. But you literally just cited to an example where the Republicans in an
overwhelming red district did not elect a person because they were accused of harassment. Where they literally sacrificed their federal political voice in a Senate that is barely in the control of their political party rather than put him in power.
Can you imagine a hard left district in CA putting a Republican in place in such a circumstance? I can't. Most likely, they would have forced the candidate out and replaced him (even if illegal - which they did in NJ a few years back).
But more to the point, I have zero doubts about Republican prosecutors taking harassment seriously. In my view, Democratic prosecutors bring way more political prosecutions than the inverse.
