Ideological differences

131 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
Sure it does Harry. It most

Sure it does Harry. It most certainly does. Right now you don't know what you are talking about. You are just parroting shit that you have heard or read from propaganda sources. When you live life, you may not change what you say, but at least you'll know that it is all bullshit.

Harry33Truman's picture
Sargon's Law... YOU are

Sargon's Law... YOU are propagandized.

ZeffD's picture
Religion, nationalism and

Religion, nationalism and ideology are the three main causes of human conflict and the bases for the worst tribalism. I think that Trump supporters are followers. They follow a religion or what they imagine to be a coherent, shared, conservative ideology. Further, they see others as following an ideology or a set of beliefs too. I think that is a misleading way to look at the world. People should work on sound principles instead, not theology or ideology. (Nationalism isn't the cause of the toxic and polarised political dichotomy within the USA).

If all politicians were held to the same standard Trump would not be considered fit for political office. There aren't important ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans. Both believe that the USA is fairly democratic (compared with autocracies) and they both favor a republic. What divides USAmericans is that some see coherent, conflicting ideologies and think one ideology must win over another - a zero sum game. Others are trying to improve matters according to the issues which is far healthier and avoids the current aimlessly divisive approach.

mykcob4's picture
I disagree, Zeff

I disagree, Zeff
Conservatives are blind followers evident in the fact that Trump has made several gaffes that would obviously dismiss him if they were not blind followers. How many times have you heard that "If it was anyone but Trump, they would be thrown out..."?
The fact is that conservatives obstruct when they lose, rig elections, and serve only the most corrupt wealthy and large corporations.
The left side of the aisle has maintained an effort to help those that most need it while building up the middle class. Healthcare, education, environment, all issues that support the common people.
The left has TRIED to work with conservatives on many issues, but the right has been taken over by the irrational and childish Tea Party that now calls themselves the Freedom Caucus.
The Freedom Caucus is bent on bringing down the Federal Government. They are racist homophobic religious zealots. They want to return to a time that allowed slavery. Just look at the recent budget proposal, the health care reform proposal, the immigration ban, the several bathroom bans in multiple states. It's a war on the poor, gays, unions, workers rights, consumers rights, education, immigrants, the environment, and minorities.
There is no compromise, no discussion, no cooperation.
The left is trying to solve problems and addressing issues.
They right are just a bunch of racist thugs.
When will the right put America before the party? The answer is never. They value the State and it's corruption over the Fed.

Harry33Truman's picture
"The fact is that

"The fact is that conservatives obstruct when they lose, rig elections, and serve only the most corrupt wealthy and large corporations."

That reminds me of a video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ngCMsBogLo

BTW, You voted for Hillary Clinton, the biggest corporate shill alive you utter fucking moron

"The left side of the aisle has maintained an effort to help those that most need it while building up the middle class. Healthcare, education, environment, all issues that support the common people."

That's why the middle class is gone? Because government control over healthcare, education, and the environment has went down in the past 50 years? Actually it has gone up, and as it does, these things get shittier. Democrats don't care about "the common man." Just political power. As a matter of fact, that obamacare you praise so much was originally a Republican plan.

"The left has TRIED to work with conservatives on many issues, but the right has been taken over by the irrational and childish Tea Party that now calls themselves the Freedom Caucus."

You mean the ones that blocked Trumpcare? Also, this is called an ad-hominem attack.

"The Freedom Caucus is bent on bringing down the Federal Government. They are racist homophobic religious zealots. They want to return to a time that allowed slavery."

WTF. You went full retard again.

"Just look at the recent budget proposal, the health care reform proposal, the immigration ban, the several bathroom bans in multiple states. It's a war on the poor, gays, unions, workers rights, consumers rights, education, immigrants, the environment, and minorities."

I cant do it anymore, you are beyond me... If there were a retard asylum, like an insane asylum, but for the criminally stupid, you would belong there...

mykcob4's picture
1) Republicans blocked

1) Republicans blocked Trumpcare you idiot.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN16V149

2) Did I say I voted for Hillary? Nay way she isn't a corporate shill. You have been listening to right wing propaganda.

Everything else you posted is just the rant of an uneducated self-entitled little kid.

Harry33Truman's picture
There it is again! I haven't

There it is again! I haven't been listening to right wing propaganda, YOU have been listening to left wing propaganda.

A self entitled little kid? Excuse me? What do I believe I'm entitled to? Fucking nothing, I don't buy your bullshit so you made up an insult you thought sounded bad.

Harry33Truman's picture
There it is again! I haven't

There it is again! I haven't been listening to right wing propaganda, YOU have been listening to left wing propaganda.

A self entitled little kid? Excuse me? What do I believe I'm entitled to? Fucking nothing, I don't buy your bullshit so you made up an insult you thought sounded bad.

ZeffD's picture
I don't think we disagree

I don't think we disagree much on this, Mykcob. I am just trying to understand the polarisation in the US political body at present.

Comparing it with the UK, I note that Theresa May (UK PM) emphasised that she does not act on ideology but on principles and many (if not most) UK Tory politicians are proud of their liberal credentials. How different things seem in the USA where people talk unashamedly about having an ideology and where liberalism is used like a dirty word by many conservatives.

The GOP talk of "abolishing Obamacare" and tried to undermine the efficiency of the whole Act, whereas I think in the UK people would talk more constructively about improving or replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You and I might disagree is on how views are expressed? Where I suggest the language used matters you seem to see political correctness, 'woolly speech', or a wish to police how views are expressed. Okay, but somehow the polarisation of US politics needs to stop and ideology not liberalism should be the dirty word.
JMHO.

mykcob4's picture
You're right Zeff. Britain is

You're right Zeff. Britain is blessed with an effective education system whereas the USA is bombarded with pop culture. The problem in the US is that people on the right don't think. They take bumper-sticker slogans and buzz word propaganda as fact. They don't research anything.
The polarization of America rests solely on the right wing propagandist.
Right wing conservatives don't accept global warming. They believe in conspiracy theories. Movies that are entirely inaccurate made by Michael Bay have contributed to the problem. Then you have the commute crowd. Most of the US spend an extraordinary time in their cars. They don't listen to facts. They listen to "talk radio" which is filled will hate mongering conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh. Americans spend endless hours on social media (their Phone). Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat, dominate the information that they consume. When Russian hackers infiltrate and produce lies Americans just consume it without regard to facts or the truth.
You saw it with Brexit. Now multiply that by a hundred and you can get a picture of the misinformation that plagues the US.

Harry33Truman's picture
You have been believing

You have been believing hysterical left wing propaganda, so you project that onto those who do not accept your bullshit (libertarians and conservatives). The Russians didn't 'hack the election' the Russians can barely keep their country a float. You have been propagandized, not us- you have no regard for facts, not us. You need to shut up and accept the fact that most Americans are conservative or libertarian, and you are a minority. Libertarianism is the fastest growing ideology in America, and soon we will have the house, senate, and presidency.

mykcob4's picture
Bullshit Harry!https://www
Harry33Truman's picture
Let's see here, pcworld- a

Let's see here, pcworld- a SJW propaganda outlet, CNET- never heard of it, Reuters, wikipedia. The only credible source here is BBC, and its an article claing that someone of Russian decent engaged in hacking in Spain...

Can we please stop the slavophobia- you remind me of a neo-nazi.

Nyarlathotep's picture
pcworld- a SJW propaganda

pcworld- a SJW propaganda outlet

Uhh the "PC" in PC World stands for personal computer, not political correctness. It is not a political publication, it is a technology publication.

mykcob4's picture
It's not slavophobia, it's

It's not slavophobia, it's fact reported by every CREDIBLE news source in the WORLD and 17 American Intelligence agencies, 2 British intelligence agencies, and a German, and a French intelligence agency! Holy SHIT Harry the only one in the public eye that doesn't believe it's a fact is Trump, a pathological liar!

Harry33Truman's picture
These same sour es told us

These same sour es told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And what are French or German intelligence agencies doing investigating events occurring in the United States? I tend not to believe state agencies- like Nietzsche said, everything the state says is a lie.

LogicFTW's picture
I almost wish libertarians in

I almost wish libertarians in this country could have it totally their way for 10 years, in some country I do not live in. Then they can realize why a bare bone government idea does not work.

It is easy to say I do not want to be taxed or told what to do. But when everyone else can do the same and you reduce the state down to almost nothing, you end up with the wild west.

Things like Flint Michigan go from happening once in a blue moon in a poor/struggling county to all the time.

Do you know why the FDA was created? The EPA? It was to protect the people a service FOR the people. Sure we can all point to cases where these organizations had bloat and over stepped their bounds, but have you try visiting a country that had little to no government, lived among the people like the people there do?

The funny part to me has always been, the idea of minimal government always greatly benefits the extremely rich, but hurts and takes away services to the poor and working class. Why do so many people vote against their own self interest? I can agree the middle class tax rate is too high, and the extremely rich have way to many loop holes they can take advantage of.

A strong, non financially motivated government really is the majorities best hope at stemming back the forces of capitalism tendency to wealth concentration.

Harry33Truman's picture
Sorry- but not having the

Not having the government fuck everything up would benefit everyone. Things were far better when we had less government, and since implementing libertarian policies implies NOT forcing anything on you. You should go ahead and try your ideas someplace else.

Capitalism is just a manifestation of economic freedom. It's a good thing, not something you can 'push back' against.

Finally, lie bertarians do not want 'bare bone government,' we want the government to only serve its legitimate functions. These functions wee laid out here:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/locke-the-two-treatises-of-civil-gover...

If you want to see what libertarians actually believe read this:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.pdf-arc...

LogicFTW's picture
What time do you want to go

What time do you want to go back to in US history when there was less government? Before the formation of the IRS?

What "small" government country do you guys point to as the ideal that is around today?

I admittedly do not want to read books to find out the details of what libertarians want. If you are willing to point me to a site that has a short concise list, that would be helpful.

I have a confession, I make and have a lot of money. I am currently in the 2nd highest tax bracket, honestly a small government with a corresponding small to nonexistent taxes would put a lot more money in my pocket. I can "buy" my way out of a lot of the problems that a skelton government would create, but I have friends and family that are not so fortunate. And I am also not the kind of person that wants to take apart public safety nets just so I can save a few bucks on taxes. I also give money away, in part to lower my overall tax burden and so I can choose where my dollars go instead of the black hole that is the government. (Especially its military spending that I do not agree with.)

There is certainly plenty of waste or "pork" in the government, but wiping out most of the government is not the correct solution, accountability and getting money out of politics is.

Again it is easy to hate paying taxes and to blame the government, blame the poor as "takers" etc.

For all the people that think things were better back in the 19th century in the US, they are looking at the past with serious rose tinted glasses.

Harry33Truman's picture
"What time do you want to go

"What time do you want to go back to in US history when there was less government? Before the formation of the IRS?"

No particular point. When Classical Liberalism came into exiatance, its proponents devised a number of reformations- during the 19th Century many of them were enacted, but not all. However, we can see that each of these policies were implemented numerous times before and were very successful. New recommendations have arisen from Friedman, however, according to our more current situation, and many were enacted- the abandonment of the bretton woods system, the abandonment of quotas and import restrictions, among others- and these have worked. For the current moment, however, the following provisions should be enacted:
1. The simplification of the tax code. Abolish the corporate tax as well as all other taxes, and replace them with a flat tax of 25% on all income above an exemption of 20,000$ per person per household.
2. The abolition of all aid to the poor programs and their replacement with a Negative Income Tax.
3. The simplification of regulations, and the replacement of regulatory agencies to enforce these regulations, with enforcement by a single regulation enforcement agency, which must try violators in a court of law.
4. The abolition of the Federal Reserve System, and its replacement with a fixed growth rate of the money supply at 3% annually.
5. Allowing people to opt out of the Social Security System.
6. The abolition of Selective Service and the draft.
7. The repeal of all laws that infringe upon individual liberty such as the patriot act.
8. Freezing the government budget, save adapting it to the growth of the money supply.
9. The implementation of school vouchers and health and dental insurance vouchers.

"What "small" government country do you guys point to as the ideal that is around today?"

We are merely advocating a series of policies with the goal of maximizing individual freedom. I can point to countries which have tried each individual policy, but thus far no country has enacted all if them.

"I admittedly do not want to read books to find out the details of what libertarians want. If you are willing to point me to a site that has a short concise list, that would be helpful."

https://www.lp.org/platform/

"I have a confession, I make and have a lot of money. I am currently in the 2nd highest tax bracket, honestly a small government with a corresponding small to nonexistent taxes would put a lot more money in my pocket. I can "buy" my way out of a lot of the problems that a skelton government would create, but I have friends and family that are not so fortunate. And I am also not the kind of person that wants to take apart public safety nets just so I can save a few bucks on taxes. I also give money away, in part to lower my overall tax burden and so I can choose where my dollars go instead of the black hole that is the government. (Especially its military spending that I do not agree with.)"

That is exactly where your taxes go- a black hole. I believe that you are more capable of helping those friends and family members of yours who need help than the government is. Think about it- who would spend your money better on helping them? You or Uncle Sam?

"There is certainly plenty of waste or "pork" in the government, but wiping out most of the government is not the correct solution, accountability and getting money out of politics is."

I want to qhipe out the failed areas of government, and those which interfere in individual freedom. For example- only 30% of welfare funding goes to welfare recipients because there is no oversight as to what States do with the money. Welfare also traps people in poverty through the 'welfare cliff,' and so I would like to replace it with a negative income tax.

"Again it is easy to hate paying taxes and to blame the government, blame the poor as "takers" etc."

In ever blamed the poor for anything- they are the primary victims of these policies. The minimum wage for example, means that anyone worth less than 10.50$ a hour doesn't have a job. Protectionist policies make goods cost more, and thus make real wages lower, as lower income earners are able to afford less with their wages.

LogicFTW's picture
This is actually a decent

This is actually a decent response. Thanks for typing out and/or copy pasting that list.

On point one, would corporations get taxed 25% on revenue? Not taxed at all? On profits? I assume all tax loopholes are wiped out by the simple tax. All income is taxed 25% on any income above 20,000, with a household adding to it, aka if dad makes 100k a year, but supports a wife and 3 kids he does not get taxed at all? If he makes 120k a year in same scenario his tax bill is $5000? (a bit over 4.1% effective tax rate.)

Negative income tax? If you make less than 20k a year the difference is made up by uncle sam paying out? Or some percentage of? With no medicare/medicaid, it will likely cost someone in their 70's more than 20k a year in medical bills/premiums alone. So I assume it is more of: if people do not have a large secured nest egg by the time they have to retire, they just do not get health care?

3: I like this idea, but it would make for an awful big entity, but I think it would cut down on the waste some.

4. federal reserve does need to go, but the government does need flexibility to set the rate it prints money. No way the fed (a private company/bank) will ever give up its power and stranglehold though. Would probably require a full on global economic melt down 10x the 2008 financial crisis.

5. I am for people opting out of social security, BUT, soon as it became an option social security will instantly go bankrupt, screwing over everyone that paid into the system, and probably also cause global financial collapse. It would have to happen very slowly and in phases.

6. we have not had a draft in what 50 years, but sure no problem. With the rise of drones and robots, we would not need to do a draft ever again anyways.

7. Patriot act needs to go, think just about everyone agrees on that.

8. Dunno why you need to freeze the federal government. Maybe if all other efforts to rein in deficit spending fails.

9. The florida school voucher system crashed and burned hard in florida. Not sure how health voucher system would play out, but, the voucher systems as is is vulnerable to corruption and abuse, perhaps a better voucher system can be made. Also not sure how a health voucher system would change things from what they are now in the health system.

30 percent of welfare spending actually makes it to recipients, I assume what you said is true, and if so, that needs to be fixed... right away.

The minimum wage debate is an interesting one, but if we go into that that deserves its own reply, this one is getting plenty long enough.

Harry33Truman's picture
"On point one, would

"On point one, would corporations get taxed 25% on revenue? Not taxed at all? On profits?"

A corporation is a made up entity. The corporation itself would not pay any taxes, but its revenues are paid out to it's shareholders, who would pay taxes on those revenues. What this does is simplifies taxation and attracts foreign investment, which will drive up wages, since capital employs labor, and an increase in capital being invested will thus increase the demand for labor.

" I assume all tax loopholes are wiped out by the simple tax. All income is taxed 25% on any income above 20,000, with a household adding to it, aka if dad makes 100k a year, but supports a wife and 3 kids he does not get taxed at all? If he makes 120k a year in same scenario his tax bill is $5000? (a bit over 4.1% effective tax rate.)"

Yes, this will give massive tax breaks to the middle class, but the rich will have their taxes cut as well.

"egative income tax? If you make less than 20k a year the difference is made up by uncle sam paying out? Or some percentage of? With no medicare/medicaid, it will likely cost someone in their 70's more than 20k a year in medical bills/premiums alone. So I assume it is more of: if people do not have a large secured nest egg by the time they have to retire, they just do not get health care?"

This is a very complex issues with many aspects to it. Since government is a zero sum game (enable for someone to get a benefit, someone else must pay for it) while the market is not, and since government action requires the use of coercion, where as private institutions are voluntary, I tend to prefer private arrangements to state ones, in so far as this is possible. However, while government control may not be justified, government subsidation may. Thus I stated that people should receive vouchers to buy health and dental insurance with.educate, however, should be reformed so that it us a standard against which private companies must compete. Medicare should cost money, but this cost should be exactly equal to the value of the vouchers we are to issue. At, 3,000$ a year per person, and 300$ for dental care. Medicare should thus only cover what is neccessary.

"I like this idea, but it would make for an awful big entity, but I think it would cut down on the waste some."

As an individual, it would've much larger than any single agency we have today, but it would be much smaller than all of the agencies we have today. The reason for this is that, at the moment, regulatory agencies such as the EPA, ICC, or FTC can write their own laws and enforce them, and fine you without a hearing. The prohibition on excessive fines do not apply to these agencies. I find it very dangerous, for unelected bureaucrats to be able to write laws and enforce them, and haveno constitutional limitations whatsoever. For this reason, if say a person pollutes a river- rather than the EPA handling it, our regulatory commission would act as a police department of a sort, investigating the incident and prosecuting those guilty in a court of law, but without the ability to enforce the law themselves.
itfederal reserve does need to go, but the government does need flexibility to set the rate it prints money. No way the fed (a private company/bank) will ever give up its power and stranglehold though. Would probably require a full on global economic melt down 10x the 2008 financial crisis."

There are many issues with the government having flexibility with regards to how much money it prints, is that if it looks at every circumstance separately, it will tend not to look at the overall effect of a given action, but at each separate case. Milton Friedman explained it more in depth in chapter 3 of Capitalism and freedom, but essentially the creation of rules as opposed to authorities makes the misuse of power far less likely.

" am for people opting out of social security, BUT, soon as it became an option social security will instantly go bankrupt, screwing over everyone that paid into the system, and probably also cause global financial collapse. It would have to happen very slowly and in phases."

There are a lot of complex factors at work with it- SS taxes only fund a portion of its expenses, so its already less of an independent safety net and more of an unofficial national debt. I agree we would have to reform it in phases though.

"we have not had a draft in what 50 years, but sure no problem. With the rise of drones and robots, we would not need to do a draft ever again anyways."

43 years, at this point its more like those anti-sodomy laws that are still on the books in certain southern states, though they are no longer in effect. Either way, it still opens the door to a draft, and forcing young men to sign up for it still abridges upon their freedom- and its sexist.

"Dunno why you need to freeze the federal government. Maybe if all other efforts to rein in deficit spending fails"

Freze the budget. As in, if the budget is 4 trillion this year, it should be 4 trillion the next year, adapted to the growth of the money supply of course, so actually 4.12 trillion. Put a cap on the budget essentially.

"The florida school voucher system crashed and burned hard in florida. Not sure how health voucher system would play out, but, the voucher systems as is is vulnerable to corruption and abuse, perhaps a better voucher system can be made. Also not sure how a health voucher system would change things from what they are now in the health system."

There are other places where vouchers have been implemented successfully. Obviously they should only be able to be spent at approved schools which meet a minimum educational standard. If Florida didn't do that I can see why it failed.

A healthcare voucher system would give everyone a voucher worth enough money to buy a decent health insurance plan. If you implement other reforms to make healthcare and health insurance more competitive then the quality which could be got for these vouchers would go up as time goes on.

"The minimum wage debate is an interesting one, but if we go into that that deserves its own reply, this one is getting plenty long enough."

Agreed. I believe that wages should be negotiated on between employers and employees. I also support the use of collective bargaining and unions for negotiating purposes, for so as long as they are entered into voluntarily.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - The

Harry Truman - The corporation itself would not pay any taxes, but its revenues are paid out to it's shareholders, who would pay taxes on those revenues.

That would kill just about every corporation in existence, probably overnight.

----------
/e

Harry Truman - Since government is a zero sum game

Not even close. For fun, I recommend reading this article on zero-sum thinking.

Harry33Truman's picture
How? Thats how companies work

How? Thats how companies work. Their revenues have to go somewhere, when they do we tax it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The corporation itself would

Harry Truman - The corporation itself would not pay any taxes, but its revenues are paid out to it's shareholders, who would pay taxes on those revenues.

Harry Truman - How? Thats how companies work.

No Harry; that is not how it works. If we did that today at the corporation I work for, we'd have to file for bankruptcy by midnight. Some officers would be going to jail, perhaps even myself (although I'm probably not high enough up the food chain, so maybe I'd be safe).

I think what you are talking about is dividends not revenue. Here, we pay about 0.5% of our profits (not revenue!) as dividends; and in your plan that would be taxed at 25% on the shareholder. Meaning ultimately we'd be paying about 0.1% tax rate. Which is 2 orders of magnitude less than we currently pay; even with all the cheating that we do.

The world is not as simple as you think.

Harry33Truman's picture
The other 99.5% has to go

The other 99.5% has to go somewhere. But let's assume it pays no taxes- so what? Suppose it goes into expanding the buisness- this would employ more people and increase our growth rate. The purpose of abolishing the corporate tax rate is to attract foreign investment. Combine that with simpler regulations, we will have our industry back.

LogicFTW's picture
You changed it from share

You changed it from share holder dividends to revenue.

25% tax rate on revenue, would work, but yes, many corporations/companies/small business etc would go out of business overnight. Others would see a large windfall, just depends on what sort of industry/business practice they have.
25% tax rate on profits could work maybe, I think their would be a large tax shortfall for the federal government that would have to be made up somewhere, but if you shrink the federal governments balance by over 50 percent, maybe that would work. Would screw over a lot of long time tax payers and those that depend on social safety nets. Government spending in order: SS unemployment etc (and it's own debt) medicare/medicaid, the military, and spending on military. These 4 make up a little over 80 percent of spending. Most will tell you politically these 4 are "untouchable."

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015...

Some of the ideas listed are good ones, but they are almost impossible to get to without a major worldwide financial collapse. To the likes we have never seen. There may be ways to slowly get there without major collapse, but that a long and perilous road.

LogicFTW's picture
Power begets power. The

Power begets power. The powerful (usually the very very rich individuals and corporations,) will use that power to gain more power. It is a story as old as human history.

Those currently in power in the US (among other places in the world.) Have learned and effectively wield another few tricks to maintain and hold their power. The ancient trick of using fear is in copious use. The age old slight of hand of distracting people with shiny stuff while the real dirty work takes place in the background mostly unbeknownst to them. Taking advantage of humans emotions and animal like tendencies to do things that are not ultimately in their own best interest.

An easy example of this is all the people that think billionaires in general are the best of us instead of the worst of us.

I agree the far right are an extremely bad subset of politicians, but we all know just about all politicians are morally bankrupt, not good people and certainly not the people that should be in power. I am certainly more left the right, but I could write a book on all the awful things the left has done, just in the last decade. Not as bad as the right or the far right, but, I too am for: a radical re-haul of Washington DC

We can start with properly separating church and state again.

ZeffD's picture
"...we all know just about

"...we all know just about all politicians are morally bankrupt, not good people and certainly not the people that should be in power..."
I don't. I don't think I'm naive, just not so cynical. Otherwise I agree with LogicForTW.

LogicFTW's picture
I would love to be less

I would love to be less cynical of politicians, just the exceptions to the rule seems so rare.

Seems power corrupts, and many of the positions are seeked by people seeking power, being a good nice guy rarely gets you far in the political world unfortunately.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.