Is this forum lacking serious conservative posters or is the current state of the right just not serious? Can one defend current conservatism?
CPAC
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Is this forum lacking serious conservative posters or is the current state of the right just not serious? Can one defend current conservatism?
Actually, the shift underway moving to ward realignment ought to result in a change of the names of both parties. Republicans should be the Constitutional Party and Democrats should be the Progressive Party.
You're blaming people like Cortez for leaving behind a party comprised of people like you.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Eh there are some. I’m at my heart a conservative. I think you meant to say are there serious GOP posters. There are very few of them left. The rest are now just anti-liberals and Trumpers.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You’ve said this in the past and you’re still wrong. Palin’s selection as VP and then the Tea Party signaled the end of reasonable conservatives and gave way to the know-nothings. There was no going back at this point.
The hilarious irony is that the Tea Partiers, having fully destroyed the pragmatic GOP, have led the way to Trump, who’s reaching new heights of deficit spending. Well done.
I can defend current conservatism and have done so often. The constant problem is that many chose to define and confine conservatism for the sole purposes of deriding it using words like "arch," "social," "staunch," "extreme," with "racist," "homophobic," "alt-right," and "NRA" thrown in for good measure.
People who see conservatives that way are not interested in an intelligent discussion. They simply want an internet food fight. I used to be more vocal about conservatives and conservatism, but I now have decided to put on my old clothes and join the fight.
I've said this in the past too. What is wrong with Palin? The case against her is a construct by the media and her opponents. I'll agree that after the campaign, she became a lightening rod, and much of that was of her own doing, but at the time of her selection, she was an accomplished and effective female public servant who came from nowhere, and kicked white male corruption right in the ass. Yes, she took conservative positions, none of which were extreme.
He's got no game; he's only ever had misdirection and obfuscation.
GRIN. I was asked to join - and in essence was all but asked to be one of the moderators for - the alternative and declined because I knew it would predominantly be the conservatives-only shit show that it is. You and your compatriots over there are more than welcome to it.
In fact, since you don't like it here, please feel free to spend all your social media posting time over on the alternative. You won't be missed much.
I supported you joining. Your expressed feelings about me are not mutual. There are a couple of threads I think you might find interesting and could reasonably contribute to. I have no clue why you think it's a shitshow.
No thanks. Republican and Democratic fit the parties far more accurately than your suggested names.
I will stipulate, though, that a Constitutional Party likely should splinter off from the GOP so that the GOP can get back to being honest about itself and its policies rather than being beholden to a vocal minority that claims it wants to govern in accordance with the US constitution but doesn't know what it says.
I also wouldn't mind seeing a splinter off from the Democratic Party that is focused on more progressive policies . . . that way Democrats can govern from their center- to center-left position in cooperation and compromise with traditional Republicans and let the Progressives take the hits for policy initiatives that aren't mainstream . . . until they're ready for Democrats to adopt them.
I don't see this in the cards. The real problem we face in this country is the combination of tremendous income inequality and Supreme Court decisions that allow unbridled campaign spending. The GOP is chasing the money far rightward both foreign and domestic. The strategic response by Democrats is, properly in my view, to move much further left to develop policies to dramatically reduce income inequality and the role of money in politics. A significant reduction in income inequality combined with limits on the role of money will have the dual impact of forcing both parties to compete for voters rather than donors. That is when polarization will really decrease. Or...the GOP will move us along the path to authoritarianism and dispense with the voting altogether.
(1) I understood that when I declined.
(2) That's up to you. My sense of your posting here is that it is mostly bullshit for the purpose of degrading the conversation on the merits. That you may be capable of better is why I pick on you . . . but my interest level is declining because of the negligible to non-existent ROI from the effort. Instead, I'm finding other good things in life to focus on. You probably are too.
(3) I don't think so, which is why I declined to begin with. No reason for me to ruin for y'all in the way that y'all ruin this place.
(4) Primarily the same reason I think the conservative posting here all too often constitutes a shit show. You could name the common offenders in a heartbeat, I have little doubt.
Conservative, Neo-Conservative, Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, Alt-Right, Trumpism, are all born of the same cloth. When one fails the next is born. They continue to fail because they all share the same basic trickle-down economic principle. It has proven to be a simple rebranding strategy that is allowed to work because roughly 30% of the Republican electorate has been convinced by Fox News, et al. that the Democrat Party is evil, and isn't a viable alternative. Therefore, the next "Tea Party" will transform Republican politics and "this time" it will be different...until it isn't. This rebranding will apparently continue until we can cut taxes for everyone, especially the wealthiest among us, maintain/expand the largest military in human history, balance the budget, bring our national debt to zero, and in the case of Trumpism, do it without decreasing Medicare or Social Security.
If conservatism works, why do conservatives feel such a need to redefine themselves?
They're all authoritarianism rebranded . . .
. . . trickle down economics is just a slogan they've latched onto because it had popular appeal under Reagan and they don't know enough about economics to come up with actual policies, conservative or otherwise, to meet changing economic conditions.
I would add that we are still in the "Reagan economy". The effects of which, continue to compound year after year.
Income inequality is only a problem insofar as the lower incomes don't rise. Globalization inherently leads to massive wealth at the other end. This is not nitpicking, it's important because your assertion can lead to wrong conclusions and thus wrong solutions. That doesn't mean we don't need the many policy changes that Rock has listed.
Both Trump and Obama won without any dependence on unbridled campaign spending, so again your assertion is liable to lead to wrong conclusions and solutions.
This solution seems far more long-term (slow-developing) than Sope's. Sope's solution imo feeds right into what the vast majority of people would like: pragmatic solutions and honest politicians. My view is that politics are already shifting. The internet generation growing up, social media, #MeToo, AR-15 massacres, the Alt-right, and other factors are changing political dynamics. Trump's policies will fail to move the needle on the negative effects of globalization in our economy and people will demand real solutions. Globalization is still a relatively recent phenomenon and it takes time for societies to catch up with such monumental change. The real challenge in our society is creating an abundance of jobs that match the evolving world economy.
