dmv wrote:
Woah, chill out. This response is an engagement, and I consider it bad taste.

I think you misconstrued my post, but in any event I apologise. You answered my question. I don't mean to engage you personally, but the ideas presented by the linked article in general.

What are you even saying here "If Republicans supported their political issues they would be Republicans" -- are you trying to argue a circular issue by proposing another one? What does "Democrat" or "Republican" mean if it isn't a platform of supported issues, and if we're willing to be flexible about this platform, what does the new label mean? If Republicans supported Unions' political issues, Unions would be Republican too.

Let me restate this. The arguement is that the Republicans are targeting trail lawyers BECAUSE they wish to reduce the amount of funding Democratic candidates receive, and trail lawyers are big Democratic supporters. This is as opposed to the perspective that Republicans are targeting trail lawyers because they beleive there is a genuine problem with liability law. I think this is a fallacy. For example, one could argue that Democrates are targeting gun manufacturors BECAUSE they wish to reduce the amound of funding Republican candidates receive, and gun manufacturors are big Republican supporters. This is as opposed to the perspective that Democrats feel there is a genuine social good served by gun control. To make the former arguement is to sidestep the real question in favor of making your opponent look evil.

RE: The politics of taxation