Serious Q for Republicans
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:12:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Serious Q for Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
Author Topic: Serious Q for Republicans  (Read 6559 times)
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2017, 11:03:04 AM »
« edited: February 08, 2017, 11:08:08 AM by RINO Tom »

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes. Cheesy

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

People like me, specifically, voted for Hillary because they thought Trump was quite literally unfit for office, beyond politics.  Hardly a comment on my political ideology.

Conservatism comes in many forms, and different voters prioritize different parts.  My sister's best friend's dad, who lives in Zionsville, IN (a suburb of Indy) and owns his own business is extremely conservative but doesn't think cultural things being legislated through the government is a worthwhile fight; he is just as conservative (I'd argue more) than some culturally conservative guy who rails against elites, wants to limit free trade and thinks, "yeah, ya know what?  The Democrats WERE right about taxing those evil millionaires a little bit more!"

A "low-tax liberal," as you describe such a person, is more conservative than a xenophobic liberal who shouts conservative as loud as they can, which is what this mythical "Working Class White" voter you fetishize about is.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2017, 11:13:40 AM »

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes. Cheesy

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

People like me, specifically, voted for Hillary because they thought Trump was quite literally unfit for office, beyond politics.  Hardly a comment on my political ideology.

Conservatism comes in many forms, and different voters prioritize different parts.  My sister's best friend's dad, who lives in Zionsville, IN (a suburb of Indy) and owns his own business is extremely conservative but doesn't think cultural things being legislated through the government is a worthwhile fight; he is just as conservative (I'd argue more) than some culturally conservative guy who rails against elites, wants to limit free trade and thinks, "yeah, ya know what?  The Democrats WERE right about taxing those evil millionaires a little bit more!"

A "low-tax liberal," as you describe such a person, is more conservative than a xenophobic liberal who shouts conservative as loud as they can, which is what this mythical "Working Class White" voter you fetishize about is.

Why don't we all just be across-the-board conservatives on both the economy and social/cultural issues? Smiley  Smiley
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2017, 11:21:27 AM »

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes. Cheesy

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

People like me, specifically, voted for Hillary because they thought Trump was quite literally unfit for office, beyond politics.  Hardly a comment on my political ideology.

Conservatism comes in many forms, and different voters prioritize different parts.  My sister's best friend's dad, who lives in Zionsville, IN (a suburb of Indy) and owns his own business is extremely conservative but doesn't think cultural things being legislated through the government is a worthwhile fight; he is just as conservative (I'd argue more) than some culturally conservative guy who rails against elites, wants to limit free trade and thinks, "yeah, ya know what?  The Democrats WERE right about taxing those evil millionaires a little bit more!"

A "low-tax liberal," as you describe such a person, is more conservative than a xenophobic liberal who shouts conservative as loud as they can, which is what this mythical "Working Class White" voter you fetishize about is.

Why don't we all just be across-the-board conservatives on both the economy and social/cultural issues? Smiley  Smiley

Because actual Trumpists (not counting the tons of people that voted for him, not endorsing his "movement" but to stop Hillary) aren't conservatives; they share nothing in common with the tradition of the Republican Party.  They just want an outlet for their anger over cultural change and what they see as an inadequate America, compared to some romanticized golden age.  Some had legitimate concerns, some are just intolerant.  Either way, they don't get to start being the RINO police, as they're all at LEAST as "not sufficiently conservative" as people like John Kasich or Marco Rubio.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2017, 11:48:07 AM »

I don't respond to EHarding when he rambles about his devotion to this ideal of white America and his constant fears of "New Mexico" America but a funny thought about the white vote struck me. Atlasia is vastly majority white, American, and would run into the 60s-70s leftist. I can't help but wonder if Atlas liberals represent the constant of 35-38% whites who vote Democratic in federal elections. If that's the case, Atlasia Democrats and minorities might be enough to derail EHarding's hopes. Cheesy

Oh, and Trump won 18-29 whites by less than Romney did. They were 47-43% Republican, compared to 51-44% Republican in 2012.

-It's called Massachusetts. I know it exists, and why: the marriage gap+liberal elitism. I prefer current New Mexico to current Massachusetts, but only due to the rent differential.

That 18-29 Whites number sounds dubious; HRC was a much worse candidate for young people than Barry O. The Upshot says White northern voters 18-29 without a college degree had the strongest anti-Dem trend of any age group:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html?_r=0

I'm sure your world is just as insulated as mine based off of all of these comments, but you act like there aren't just as many elitist conservatives as there are elitist liberals.  You're wrong.

-There are as many rich conservatives as there are rich liberals, but elitism isn't quite the same as wealth. Yes; conservative elitism still exists in the U.S.; the Mercers are a big example. Williamson TN and Delaware OH haven't gone Dem yet. But a whole lot of traditionally Republican elites really showed their true (liberal) colors when Trump appeared before them. Just look at East Grand Rapids.

Considering you can't put TRUE tolerance (not SJW crap) on a simple left-right scale, a lot of those people - in addition to being turned off by Trump's, err, less-than-sophisticated language toward certain Americans - opposed Trump on the grounds that he wasn't ENOUGH in line with conservative thinking on issues such as entitlements, trade and foreign policy, so that's just a load of shlt.  Your ideology and that of Trump's most loyal supporters might be in the right at the end of the day, but conservatism is not officially defined by whatever angry Whites are feeling, in fact quite the opposite.  White Southerners who felt left behind during the Great Depression weren't conservatives, period.  Non-college Whites who flocked to Trump, similarly, don't get to redefine an ideology to describe whatever the hell they think.

-RINO, people like you did not vote for HRC because she was an avatar of conservatism. Look at your political matrix score. Now look at mine. These people were merely Carter-hating low-tax liberals. I'm not a fan. As for the True Conservatives, every single county in Indiana that went for Cruz in the primary trended towards Trump in the general. And every county that trended against Trump in Indiana had a Kasich vote share above that of Indiana as a whole. It wasn't conservative Republicans that crossed party lines this year to vote for HRC. It was the least conservative portion of the party. Just compare Kasich and Cruz's congressional voting records.

People like me, specifically, voted for Hillary because they thought Trump was quite literally unfit for office, beyond politics.  Hardly a comment on my political ideology.

Conservatism comes in many forms, and different voters prioritize different parts.  My sister's best friend's dad, who lives in Zionsville, IN (a suburb of Indy) and owns his own business is extremely conservative but doesn't think cultural things being legislated through the government is a worthwhile fight; he is just as conservative (I'd argue more) than some culturally conservative guy who rails against elites, wants to limit free trade and thinks, "yeah, ya know what?  The Democrats WERE right about taxing those evil millionaires a little bit more!"

A "low-tax liberal," as you describe such a person, is more conservative than a xenophobic liberal who shouts conservative as loud as they can, which is what this mythical "Working Class White" voter you fetishize about is.

Why don't we all just be across-the-board conservatives on both the economy and social/cultural issues? Smiley  Smiley

Because actual Trumpists (not counting the tons of people that voted for him, not endorsing his "movement" but to stop Hillary) aren't conservatives; they share nothing in common with the tradition of the Republican Party.  They just want an outlet for their anger over cultural change and what they see as an inadequate America, compared to some romanticized golden age.  Some had legitimate concerns, some are just intolerant.  Either way, they don't get to start being the RINO police, as they're all at LEAST as "not sufficiently conservative" as people like John Kasich or Marco Rubio.

Honestly, if we're going to start tossing around who's a conservative and not, why don't we start with the fact that Trump is decidedly to the left on several issues that would delineate traditional conservative orthodoxy in this age; e.g, commitment to free markets (read: free trade), lower taxes (Trump has said that he is open to raising taxes on the rich and negotiating with the Democrats), minimum wage (again, Trump has indicated a willingness to see a higher minimum wage), opposition to authoritarian regimes that threaten the hegemony and stability of the United States (Russia). There is of course Trump's famous break with neoconservatism (the war in Iraq), which he concocted some conspiracy theory about.

By a lot of metrics, Donald Trump is no conservative. His supporters are people who want government to actively interfere in the economy to restore jobs that have been lost through automation and trade (more automation). And arguably, if we're going by Reaganite conservatism, the Gipper and G.W. both favored immigration reform.

Trump is a populist conservative - no doubt he's conservative in a couple of areas, but to say that anti-Trumpists aren't conservative or somehow are not Republicans in name only is funny given Trump refused to commit to the GOP nominee if it wasn't him and broke with conservative orthodoxy multiple times.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2017, 01:30:47 PM »

Guys, let's look at the constituency correlations. Kasich voters tended to live around general election Obama voters to the greatest extent. Super Tuesday Rubio voters did so to a lesser extent; cf., Rubio's win in solidly Republican Williamson County, TN, but the correlation between White Obama vote in November 2012 and Rubio primary vote share is still very much positive (look at Atlanta, NoVa, etc.). Cruz voters tended to live in the most pro-Romney areas in November 2012. The typical Trump voter lived in a less pro-Obama county than the typical Super Tuesday Rubio voter, but in a more pro-Obama one than the typical Cruz voter. The ideologies are, thus, Kasich to the Left of Rubio, who's to the Left of Trump, who's to the Left of Cruz. Very simple, and consistent with a first impression.

TD, you're going to be the new BRTD by the time this is over.

RINO, Trump's positions simply are not that different from those of Coolidge. They are well within Fourth Party System GOP tradition. I mean, you even call yourself RINO Tom, and have a Political Matrix score clearly less conservative than mine, so your redefinition of low-tax liberalism as conservatism is a bit rich.

I voted for Trump in the primary because I did not trust Cruz with the nuclear button or to be genuinely independent of outside influences. I would have gladly voted for him over HRC had he been the nominee because of the Supreme Court, as unlikeable as he was.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2017, 01:35:51 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 01:46:45 PM by TD »

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 08, 2017, 01:38:52 PM »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2017, 01:45:23 PM »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

And wrong, LOL.

Anywho, I won't get into why I think being a protectionist in Coolidge's age is completely different than being one today (and, using Coolidge's own pro-business rhetoric on the issue, arguably closer to being for free trade today ... motive is ALWAYS more important than method, period), as I have discussed it so many times here.  Bottom line is that people like Eharding (and, ironically, Non Swing Voter on the other side of the aisle) are absolutely adamant that affluent Republicans - some of the voters who have been with the party the longest, LOL - will eventually just become straight-ticket Democrats, and the idea is ridiculous for a number of reasons that they aren't willing to listen to (two particularly funny ones are that this BS "college degree" correlation has a hell of a lot more to do with the AGE of the White voters in question than some magical political change that happens if you go to college and also that the exact types of people they think are going to be exiting the GOP HAVEN'T EXITED THE GOP AND ARE VERY INTENT ON STAYING, haha), but that is not the narrative either of those groups (Trumpist populists and self-deluded liberal hacks) want to push; neither furthers the grand battle they perceive themselves to be fighting.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2017, 01:53:56 PM »

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.

-What's your beef with Russia? That it's fighting ISIS too hard?
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2017, 01:55:53 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 02:11:43 PM by Eharding »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2017, 01:58:18 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 02:01:16 PM by Eharding »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

And wrong, LOL.

Anywho, I won't get into why I think being a protectionist in Coolidge's age is completely different than being one today (and, using Coolidge's own pro-business rhetoric on the issue, arguably closer to being for free trade today ... motive is ALWAYS more important than method, period), as I have discussed it so many times here.  Bottom line is that people like Eharding (and, ironically, Non Swing Voter on the other side of the aisle) are absolutely adamant that affluent Republicans - some of the voters who have been with the party the longest, LOL - will eventually just become straight-ticket Democrats, and the idea is ridiculous for a number of reasons that they aren't willing to listen to (two particularly funny ones are that this BS "college degree" correlation has a hell of a lot more to do with the AGE of the White voters in question than some magical political change that happens if you go to college and also that the exact types of people they think are going to be exiting the GOP HAVEN'T EXITED THE GOP AND ARE VERY INTENT ON STAYING, haha), but that is not the narrative either of those groups (Trumpist populists and self-deluded liberal hacks) want to push; neither furthers the grand battle they perceive themselves to be fighting.

-You know the state that voted Republican the most times was Vermont, right? It had a GOP Senator as recently as 2000. Times change.

Trump literally hired the CEO of ExxonMobil as his Secretary of State. He's one of the most pro-business presidents in history.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2017, 02:04:04 PM »

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.

-What's your beef with Russia? That it's fighting ISIS too hard?

I understand nations that interfere with Germany's, France, and our elections, plus opposition to NATO, plus doesn't want us in the Ukraine, or wants to expand its sphere and take away our influence and autocratic regimes are not much of a issue for you but they're an issue for me.

Russia is a menace. And yes, while you're for Mother Russia, I'll be happily in the anti-Russia conservative camp. Autocratic leaders who aren't for us (or willing to be for us) aren't really my thing.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2017, 02:10:32 PM »

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.

-What's your beef with Russia? That it's fighting ISIS too hard?

I understand nations that interfere with Germany's, France, and our elections, plus opposition to NATO, plus doesn't want us in the Ukraine, or wants to expand its sphere and take away our influence and autocratic regimes are not much of a issue for you but they're an issue for me.

Russia is a menace. And yes, while you're for Mother Russia, I'll be happily in the anti-Russia conservative camp. Autocratic leaders who aren't for us (or willing to be for us) aren't really my thing.

-What has NATO done since 1992 other than encourage Islamic terrorism? "Interfere" is anti-thinking, it is a word meant to obscure, not describe. How's the non-autocratic Libya working out?
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2017, 02:15:55 PM »

NATO has been involved in Bosnia. Generally, it's a nice European-American military alliance that keeps us fairly close. And it's a good organization to get Putin's hackles up and it bothers him. So I like NATO. Also you disliking NATO is a positive point for it.

"Interfere" isn't anti-thinking. I see you've adopted the 1984 Orwellian Trumpian thoughtspeak that means "Up is down." But no, in the real world, they interfere and try to swing these elections. I kind of have an objection. Now if you believe that we should be a satellite of Russia, we totally don't agree with the premise of this debate.

I see now you're a troll who likes autocracy. And that concludes my 30 seconds snarky answer/entertainment to you.

Moving along to more interesting things in life.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 08, 2017, 03:26:07 PM »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

Based on this post, all I can assume is that "whether or not they voted for Trump" is your only qualifier for "conservatism", which I still consider to be a very weird definition.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 08, 2017, 04:36:39 PM »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

Based on this post, all I can assume is that "whether or not they voted for Trump" is your only qualifier for "conservatism", which I still consider to be a very weird definition.

-Nope. I'm going by Congressional voting record here. Jeff Flake's conservative, for instance.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 08, 2017, 05:25:48 PM »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

Based on this post, all I can assume is that "whether or not they voted for Trump" is your only qualifier for "conservatism", which I still consider to be a very weird definition.

-Nope. I'm going by Congressional voting record here. Jeff Flake's conservative, for instance.

Okay, I'll bite. On which issues is Kasich not conservative on?
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: February 08, 2017, 06:02:47 PM »

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.

-What's your beef with Russia? That it's fighting ISIS too hard?

I understand nations that interfere with Germany's, France, and our elections, plus opposition to NATO, plus doesn't want us in the Ukraine, or wants to expand its sphere and take away our influence and autocratic regimes are not much of a issue for you but they're an issue for me.

Russia is a menace. And yes, while you're for Mother Russia, I'll be happily in the anti-Russia conservative camp. Autocratic leaders who aren't for us (or willing to be for us) aren't really my thing.

-What has NATO done since 1992 other than encourage Islamic terrorism? "Interfere" is anti-thinking, it is a word meant to obscure, not describe. How's the non-autocratic Libya working out?

Learn your history. NATO troops fought in Afghanistan to keep Taliban out of power, who were providing sanctuary to Al-Qaeda
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: February 08, 2017, 07:01:56 PM »

I don't know who BTRD is, in the first place, and second of all, I anticipate keeping my positions, just resisting your nationalist cult of the God-Emperor and his goons. I don't anticipate ever joining the Left in a formal position, and while I may vote Democratic to resist Trump, I certainly find myself feeling more conservative than liberal. (Of the neoliberal variety).

I assume that I rejoin the GOP once the crazy nationalists are thrown out of power in 2024 and we resettle into a more traditional dynamic. That would be up to the GOP to determine, however.

EDIT: I am somewhat open to Pence, provided he takes the necessary steps to repudiate Trumpism on Russia, et al.

-What's your beef with Russia? That it's fighting ISIS too hard?

I understand nations that interfere with Germany's, France, and our elections, plus opposition to NATO, plus doesn't want us in the Ukraine, or wants to expand its sphere and take away our influence and autocratic regimes are not much of a issue for you but they're an issue for me.

Russia is a menace. And yes, while you're for Mother Russia, I'll be happily in the anti-Russia conservative camp. Autocratic leaders who aren't for us (or willing to be for us) aren't really my thing.

-What has NATO done since 1992 other than encourage Islamic terrorism? "Interfere" is anti-thinking, it is a word meant to obscure, not describe. How's the non-autocratic Libya working out?

Learn your history. NATO troops fought in Afghanistan to keep Taliban out of power, who were providing sanctuary to Al-Qaeda

-And Afghanistan remains a terrorist haven.
Logged
blacknwhiterose
Rookie
**
Posts: 93


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: February 08, 2017, 07:23:16 PM »

As Hispanics assimilate (just like the Irish, Italians, and Jews did), they will become part of the white mainstream (at least the majority of Hispanics who have white skin), so America will never truly be majority-minority (or anywhere close to it).

Yeah but most of those groups assimilated during Plessy v. Ferguson which define race by white and black. Those days are long over. If your talking about Cubans and Puerto Ricans assimilating then your right but they were always white there is not much difference between them and peninsular hispanics. What the op meant was Mestizos who are genetically similar to what we call Native Americans. I doubt they will assimilate because 1 Mexico is right there and 2 most want to retain their Mexican/Mesoamerican identity. They will likely if not already go the way of African Americans were they do not assimilate with American culture but American culture assimilate with them. For example American culture has taken so much from African Americans in fashion, music, cuisine, and vernacular especially for a minority group. So much that they complain about cultural appropriation. That is the future of Hispanics Americans. If your are saying that Hispanics climbing up the economical ladder is somehow equivalent to the assimilation of white people that is not only idiotic but insulting.
           

I don't know about you, but where I've lived (Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, and Southern California), white-mexican dating/marriage is not uncommon.  Many of their children will dabble in Mexican culture, but many more probably won't even learn Spanish and may just identify as "white" with the census out of convenience.  Some Mexican Americans live on the East Side of L.A., some live in a small town in Iowa, some in the hills of Colorado.  They're already a lot more geographically dispersed than the African-American community has ever been, and consequently have different lifestyles, jobs, and economic interests.  They don't have the memory of slavery/jim crow and a subsequent Civil Rights Bill to put 90% of them on the same side of the political spectrum.  For these reasons, the hispanic vote, even the Mexican-Am vote in particular, is fundamentally different than the black vote, and as a result not monolithic.       
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: February 08, 2017, 07:53:09 PM »

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: February 08, 2017, 08:32:36 PM »

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

-By fits and starts, eventually. Not in 2024, but maybe 2036. The model for this is DuPage county, IL. Nearly the same percentage of Williamson County, TN voters went for HRC in 2016 as DuPage County, IL voters went for Michael Dukakis. Twenty years after 1988, DuPage County, IL voted Dem for the first time ever -and will stay that way on the presidential level for a long, long time. But I expect Delaware County, Ohio and the Texas suburbs to flip first. Who will be Texas's Democratic John Tower, I wonder?
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: February 08, 2017, 08:56:41 PM »
« Edited: February 08, 2017, 08:59:16 PM by Eharding »

If Kasich and Rubio don't count as "conservative" by your definition, clearly your definition is very narrow...

-Rubio's conservative, Kasich is not. It is, thus, notable, that Rubio (much as I dislike him) voted for Trump and Kasich didn't.

Based on this post, all I can assume is that "whether or not they voted for Trump" is your only qualifier for "conservatism", which I still consider to be a very weird definition.

-Nope. I'm going by Congressional voting record here. Jeff Flake's conservative, for instance.

Okay, I'll bite. On which issues is Kasich not conservative on?

-Immigration, Medicaid expansion, Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage, Common Core.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: February 08, 2017, 09:11:07 PM »

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

It is certainly what he wants to happen, but it obviously won't.  WWC voters will become Democrats before Williamson County types, easily.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: February 08, 2017, 09:19:14 PM »

EHarding, you keep mentioning Williamson County, TN as an example of an upper-income place that voted against Trump in the primary and then refer to these types of places as places that will eventually be Democratic strongholds.  Do you really expect Williamson County- which The Daily Caller ranks as the most conservative place in America- to become Democratic territory?

It is certainly what he wants to happen, but it obviously won't.  WWC voters will become Democrats before Williamson County types, easily.

I agree but what are Williamson types? Genuinely curious.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 12 queries.