Why the Hawley hype?

[Saint Milei]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

Certainly, I'd agree with you that the Republican congress was responsible for balancing the budget, It's one of the reasons why I voted for John Kasich in 2016 primaries, he was the house budget committee chairman. Of course, it was much easier to balance the books when the economy was booming in the 1990s.
Regarding Obama, the deficit did in fact go down, he didn't impose major cuts, but he did raise taxes. And the economy was growing hence budget revenue increased. The graph shows the budget deficit since 1981.

Look at the actual numbers. Remove the fact that the stimulus occurred and you will see deficits rose under Obama. The first deficit he had was over 600 billion. That's more than any year for Bush

[Rover]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

Certainly, I'd agree with you that the Republican congress was responsible for balancing the budget, It's one of the reasons why I voted for John Kasich in 2016 primaries, he was the house budget committee chairman. Of course, it was much easier to balance the books when the economy was booming in the 1990s.
Regarding Obama, the deficit did in fact go down, he didn't impose major cuts, but he did raise taxes. And the economy was growing hence budget revenue increased. The graph shows the budget deficit since 1981.

Look at the actual numbers. Remove the fact that the stimulus occurred and you will see deficits rose under Obama. The first deficit he had was over 600 billion. That's more than any year for Bush

That is true but the deficit went up due to many factors, including decisions taken by Obama during 2008-2010 but it also increased due to the fallout of the recession.
In all fairness to Obama he did inherent a dreadful economic situation from Bush, many tough decisions had to be taken during obamas first term, the stimulus package sadly wasn't successful.
I honestly believe had McCain won he would've bailed out the auto industry and passed some form a stimulus package. Such decisions would see the deficit increase.
North of the border in Canada the Canadian Prime minister Stephen Harper bailed out the automobiles, even though Canada wasn't hit hard by the 2008 financial crisis like us.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

Certainly, I'd agree with you that the Republican congress was responsible for balancing the budget, It's one of the reasons why I voted for John Kasich in 2016 primaries, he was the house budget committee chairman. Of course, it was much easier to balance the books when the economy was booming in the 1990s.
Regarding Obama, the deficit did in fact go down, he didn't impose major cuts, but he did raise taxes. And the economy was growing hence budget revenue increased. The graph shows the budget deficit since 1981.

Look at the actual numbers. Remove the fact that the stimulus occurred and you will see deficits rose under Obama. The first deficit he had was over 600 billion. That's more than any year for Bush

That is true but the deficit went up due to many factors, including decisions taken by Obama during 2008-2010 but it also increased due to the fallout of the recession.
In all fairness to Obama he did inherent a dreadful economic situation from Bush, many tough decisions had to be taken during obamas first term, the stimulus package sadly wasn't successful.
I honestly believe had McCain won he would've bailed out the auto industry and passed some form a stimulus package. Such decisions would see the deficit increase.
North of the border in Canada the Canadian Prime minister Stephen Harper bailed out the automobiles, even though Canada wasn't hit hard by the 2008 financial crisis like us.

Clinton is as much to blame as Bush as is both parties in Congress for the 2008 Financial crisis. The derivatives that caused the exposure financially to so many firms were legalized in the late 1990s via the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Passed in the dead of night by voice vote and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The legalization of Mortgage Backed Securities, the repeal of glass steagal, the pushing of bad mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all had their beginnings in the 1990s. It is true that Bush's ownership society push combined with Greenspan's low interest rates played a role in stoking the blaze, but as far back as 2003 Bush, McCain and others tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie only to be blocked by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Hillary Clinton. Then in 2008 they turn around an demand to know why Bush hadn't acted sooner. Dodd was also implicated in the Countrywide Financial scandal at the same time, where had received a loan at sub market rates, along with a few others. This combined with his essentially abandoning Connecticut in 2007 to camp out in Iowa, iis why for most of 2009 Rob Simmons was considered a likely pickup in CT for the Republicans. But Dodd dropped out and Simmons got outspent by Linda McMahon in the primary.

[Rover]

@DeadPrez
You raise good points, but regarding balancing the budget, I don't think the GOP are interested in balancing the budget.
I was born in 1990, in my lifetime the budget was balanced under Clinton in the 1990s. Then Bush came the surplus turned into a deficit. Obama reduced the deficit, Trump came and the deficit went up again.
GOP tried to cut spending, Bush seriously tried to privatize social security but he failed. The military eats up a large portion of the budget and for the GOP cutting the military budget is a big no-no.
Trump introduced unpaid-for tax cuts, that saw the deficit go up again.
Ironically for all talk of fiscal responsibility from the GOP, the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible than the GOP in the past 30 years.

If the GOP are serious about balancing the budget, then the party needs to embrace raising taxes on the wealthy and the upper-middle classes.
The military budget needs to be cut. Pentagon more than once recommended the number of bases in the mainland should be reduced, but many congress members been resisting such cuts, those cuts would save billions of $$$.

Pentagon Proposes Closing Almost 180 U.S. Military Bases
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-proposes-closing-almost-180-u-s-military-bases

Base closings ‘hot potato’ issue again as Pentagon insists new round could save tens of billions
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/base-closings-hot-potato-issue-again-as-pentagon-insists-new-round-could-save-tens-of-billions.html

Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/

Neither are gonna be easy choices. But cutting things like education, healthcare, or disability benefits are deeply unpopular with the public.

GOP obsession with tax cuts has become a problem. Tax cuts aren't as popular as they used to be, Trump tax cuts didn't change public opinion and they're blowing up the deficit.

I agree with what I bolded. It's the unholy alliance between the left and right in order to prevent budget cuts. Both get what they want: entitlement spending and military spending.

I don't agree Dems are better at balancing the budget. With Clinton, i must be stressed that the GOP forced him to balance the budget. The GOP rejected every budget Clinton proposed that would have increased deficits. And Obama didn't cut spending. Check the numbers again. Even when you ignore the stimulus, he increased spending.

Certainly, I'd agree with you that the Republican congress was responsible for balancing the budget, It's one of the reasons why I voted for John Kasich in 2016 primaries, he was the house budget committee chairman. Of course, it was much easier to balance the books when the economy was booming in the 1990s.
Regarding Obama, the deficit did in fact go down, he didn't impose major cuts, but he did raise taxes. And the economy was growing hence budget revenue increased. The graph shows the budget deficit since 1981.

Look at the actual numbers. Remove the fact that the stimulus occurred and you will see deficits rose under Obama. The first deficit he had was over 600 billion. That's more than any year for Bush

That is true but the deficit went up due to many factors, including decisions taken by Obama during 2008-2010 but it also increased due to the fallout of the recession.
In all fairness to Obama he did inherent a dreadful economic situation from Bush, many tough decisions had to be taken during obamas first term, the stimulus package sadly wasn't successful.
I honestly believe had McCain won he would've bailed out the auto industry and passed some form a stimulus package. Such decisions would see the deficit increase.
North of the border in Canada the Canadian Prime minister Stephen Harper bailed out the automobiles, even though Canada wasn't hit hard by the 2008 financial crisis like us.

Clinton is as much to blame as Bush as is both parties in Congress for the 2008 Financial crisis. The derivatives that caused the exposure financially to so many firms were legalized in the late 1990s via the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Passed in the dead of night by voice vote and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The legalization of Mortgage Backed Securities, the repeal of glass steagal, the pushing of bad mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all had their beginnings in the 1990s. It is true that Bush's ownership society push combined with Greenspan's low interest rates played a role in stoking the blaze, but as far back as 2003 Bush, McCain and others tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie only to be blocked by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Hillary Clinton. Then in 2008 they turn around an demand to know why Bush hadn't acted sooner. Dodd was also implicated in the Countrywide Financial scandal at the same time, where had received a loan at sub market rates, along with a few others. This combined with his essentially abandoning Connecticut in 2007 to camp out in Iowa, iis why for most of 2009 Rob Simmons was considered a likely pickup in CT for the Republicans. But Dodd dropped out and Simmons got outspent by Linda McMahon in the primary.

I just noticed your replay.
Many of those reforms had the support of the GOP in Congress. Republicans pushed hard for repeal of glass steagal. Bill Clinton signed them into law.
Much like NAFTA, it was heavily negotiated by George H Bush, Clinton made minor tweaks and signed it into law.

[Saint Milei]

Put like that, I'm totally fine with that -- because it preserves the two things I care about (fiscal/social conservatism) and keeps it alive without giving up on our values. That's completely different from what Yankee whats, which is simply giving into the left and supporting expansions of government and abandoning our principles on healthcare, marriage, taxes, free markets, etc.

This is bullsh**t. I oppose single payer, I support market competition and I think taxes should be kept "as low as practical" while still being able to pay down our enormous debt to places like China, before they use it to start dictating policy to us. I support the right to self-defense/oppose the Assault Weapons ban and I am pro-life.

Frankly, I think Rand Paul was onto something in 2013 when he was trying to sell minorities on a consistent small government platform that runs the gambit of opposing foreign war, minimizing the policy/surveillance state, and scaling back the war on drugs. These policies are all BIG GOVERNMENT whether you want to admit it or not, excuse it or not, and they have all done horrendous damage to minority communities and families (we are suppose to be the small gov't and pro-family people, yet we condone violations of small gov't orthodoxy when it does tremendous damage but never when it might help said family structures. There is a clear double standard here).

Why is it you get to lecture me on deviating from small gov't principles on drug prices, but you get a free pass on big government when it comes to war, and the police?

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/05/recalling-the-days-when-democrats-cut-taxes.html

When JFK's tax legislation came before Congress, Democrats in the House voted for it 223-29 and in the Senate 56-11, while Republicans voted against it in the House 126-48 and for it in the Senate 21-10. The GOP candidate for president in 1964, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, voted against.

This article was composed by Larry Kudlow by the way.

Fiscal conservatism is not the same as supply side economics, and in fact you could argue they are at contrary purposes. Fiscal conservatism is not spending more than what you have, and working to pay down the national debt. Supply side economics calls for deficit funded tax cuts to grow the economy as a stimulative measure. There are two problems with this, 1) unless you have the political capital to actually restrain spending and lets face it, they don't as Rover and Deadprez pointed out, it will always increase the debt and 2). The benefits always flow to those areas that are already doing well, namely those places that are at the vanguard of social liberalism these days for the most part. If you think about it, you are subsidizing the destruction of traditional marriage this way.

I am a market conservative. I believe in abolishing the income tax, entitlement reform, reducing the size of government, and repealing and replacing Obamcare.

But I am also a social conservative. As I have said on other occasions on this forum, I believe in punishing abortion with the death penalty. I believe life begins at conception. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support school prayer.

Those two things are not contradictory, and I don't only care about one or the other. I care about them both very deeply, and I know that at least some of our Congressmen do as well.

They are not contradictory to you because you live in a sheltered situation in which you experience none of the negatives of the policies and thus cannot comprehend how it can be inconsistent in practice. How economical neoliberalism, incentivizes social liberalism. How a no knock raid on an innocent man suspected of drug possession that turns bad, can ruin a black family's world. How an unnecessary foreign conflict can break up and destroy a family. Hell, I even laid our a scenario, real life scenario that I practically experienced first hand as to how outsourcing can lead to financial strain, marital problems, abuse and drug/alcohol use and you rejected it and twisted it to claim I was a communist. Instability causes family decay, it is a simple concept and one that is all to real among those non-college whites you want to expand among.

At the end of the day, for all the lecturing me about being out of touch, you don't seem to grasp how these policies interact with real people, or the real damage that they can cause.

Just what do you think will happen when you expand among "non-college whites". I lived up north, I was born there, I can tell you how non-college whites look when you get out of the bible belt.
1. They are very secular, perhaps at most low frequency Catholic
2. They might be pro-life and pro-gun
3. They are most certainly protectionist and want the factories back
4. They want Social Security and Medicare protected
5. A large number of them would probably support Medicare for all when the rubber meets the road, or at least the concept in in a vacuum without consideration for the problems that would cause.

The right has a tendency to blame the social instability and lack of traditional values on cultural marxism, fatherless homes, drug use, and welfare, but in a lot of ways the neoliberalism and warfare state are just to blame. This is another reason I was easily influenced by Paul in 2010. It was easy to see how everything tied together when you aren't sheltered.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Put like that, I'm totally fine with that -- because it preserves the two things I care about (fiscal/social conservatism) and keeps it alive without giving up on our values. That's completely different from what Yankee whats, which is simply giving into the left and supporting expansions of government and abandoning our principles on healthcare, marriage, taxes, free markets, etc.

This is bullsh**t. I oppose single payer, I support market competition and I think taxes should be kept "as low as practical" while still being able to pay down our enormous debt to places like China, before they use it to start dictating policy to us. I support the right to self-defense/oppose the Assault Weapons ban and I am pro-life.

Frankly, I think Rand Paul was onto something in 2013 when he was trying to sell minorities on a consistent small government platform that runs the gambit of opposing foreign war, minimizing the policy/surveillance state, and scaling back the war on drugs. These policies are all BIG GOVERNMENT whether you want to admit it or not, excuse it or not, and they have all done horrendous damage to minority communities and families (we are suppose to be the small gov't and pro-family people, yet we condone violations of small gov't orthodoxy when it does tremendous damage but never when it might help said family structures. There is a clear double standard here).

Why is it you get to lecture me on deviating from small gov't principles on drug prices, but you get a free pass on big government when it comes to war, and the police?

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/05/recalling-the-days-when-democrats-cut-taxes.html

When JFK's tax legislation came before Congress, Democrats in the House voted for it 223-29 and in the Senate 56-11, while Republicans voted against it in the House 126-48 and for it in the Senate 21-10. The GOP candidate for president in 1964, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, voted against.

This article was composed by Larry Kudlow by the way.

Fiscal conservatism is not the same as supply side economics, and in fact you could argue they are at contrary purposes. Fiscal conservatism is not spending more than what you have, and working to pay down the national debt. Supply side economics calls for deficit funded tax cuts to grow the economy as a stimulative measure. There are two problems with this, 1) unless you have the political capital to actually restrain spending and lets face it, they don't as Rover and Deadprez pointed out, it will always increase the debt and 2). The benefits always flow to those areas that are already doing well, namely those places that are at the vanguard of social liberalism these days for the most part. If you think about it, you are subsidizing the destruction of traditional marriage this way.

I am a market conservative. I believe in abolishing the income tax, entitlement reform, reducing the size of government, and repealing and replacing Obamcare.

But I am also a social conservative. As I have said on other occasions on this forum, I believe in punishing abortion with the death penalty. I believe life begins at conception. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support school prayer.

Those two things are not contradictory, and I don't only care about one or the other. I care about them both very deeply, and I know that at least some of our Congressmen do as well.

They are not contradictory to you because you live in a sheltered situation in which you experience none of the negatives of the policies and thus cannot comprehend how it can be inconsistent in practice. How economical neoliberalism, incentivizes social liberalism. How a no knock raid on an innocent man suspected of drug possession that turns bad, can ruin a black family's world. How an unnecessary foreign conflict can break up and destroy a family. Hell, I even laid our a scenario, real life scenario that I practically experienced first hand as to how outsourcing can lead to financial strain, marital problems, abuse and drug/alcohol use and you rejected it and twisted it to claim I was a communist. Instability causes family decay, it is a simple concept and one that is all to real among those non-college whites you want to expand among.

At the end of the day, for all the lecturing me about being out of touch, you don't seem to grasp how these policies interact with real people, or the real damage that they can cause.

Just what do you think will happen when you expand among "non-college whites". I lived up north, I was born there, I can tell you how non-college whites look when you get out of the bible belt.
1. They are very secular, perhaps at most low frequency Catholic
2. They might be pro-life and pro-gun
3. They are most certainly protectionist and want the factories back
4. They want Social Security and Medicare protected
5. A large number of them would probably support Medicare for all when the rubber meets the road, or at least the concept in in a vacuum without consideration for the problems that would cause.

The right has a tendency to blame the social instability and lack of traditional values on cultural marxism, fatherless homes, drug use, and welfare, but in a lot of ways the neoliberalism and warfare state are just to blame. This is another reason I was easily influenced by Paul in 2010. It was easy to see how everything tied together when you aren't sheltered.

Dependency is a problem that needs to be disincentivized but treating that in isolation from the things that cause dependency just grinds people into dust and leaves them even more dependent. It is a big reason why I have gravitated towards the Paul view on FP over the last ten years, at least to the extent of avoiding wars unless absolutely necessary. Wars create years of dependence and no one in good conscience would kick vets or their dependent children off, so it is best to just avoid the war to start with.

We were still paying out Civil War Pension to the disabled child of a civil war veteran as recently as a few weeks ago. Still several being paid out for the Spanish American War. Over 100 years later and we are still paying for the aftermaths of these conflicts in one form or another.

[Person Man]

I’ll jump in and bite- what are the attitudes and issues that all Republican voters have or should have in common whether they are primarily interested in maintaining healthy religious traditions(NYY,CC), autonomy from powerful forces outside of the community(Sanchez,DP), simply a strong work ethic(jaichind), or just wants to move as far away from a secular and administrative society as possible(MM)?

[Nightcore Nationalist]

The right has a tendency to blame the social instability and lack of traditional values on cultural marxism, fatherless homes, drug use, and welfare, but in a lot of ways the neoliberalism and warfare state are just to blame. This is another reason I was easily influenced by Paul in 2010. It was easy to see how everything tied together when you aren't sheltered.

I'm pretty sure NC Senator Yankee has mentioned this and Tucker probably has as well, but it's ironic how the GOP's inclination of low taxes and randian economic views has empowered and embiggened it's political adversaries, some of whom have supported and advanced cultural marxism.

The GOP needs to reign in the excesses of the world's system of neo-liberalism if it ever wants to maintain a viable future.  The Democratic party (which is heavily favored among the metropolitan upper classes) should as well, but wont, and can survive without doing so thanks to a more durable coalition.

I’ll jump in and bite- what are the attitudes and issues that all Republican voters have or should have in common whether they are primarily interested in maintaining healthy religious traditions(NYY,CC), autonomy from powerful forces outside of the community(Sanchez,DP), simply a strong work ethic(jaichind), or just wants to move as far away from a secular and administrative society as possible(MM)?

I can only speak for myself here, but the GOP has to prioritize national sovereignty (which is why I support Brexit), support an immigration system that works for citizens (and those who aspire to legally become) and the working/middle class, and not corporations, billionaires and NGOs.  Geopolitically, the GOP must support our eastern hemisphere allies like India, Japan, Australia and South Korea against an increasingly belligerent and thuggish Chinese government, which is run by the same Maoists now as it was 50 years ago.  The GOP must fight against corporate censorship (a massively understated threat to democracy) and cultural marxism/critical theory in the power structures of this country, while simultaneously making sure that police departments discipline and fire bad cops who abuse the public trust.  

Although I'm ambivalent on Abortion, most Republicans are pro-life and the Democratic party platform on abortion is very radical when compared to their own voter base, which is far more moderate.  And naturally (as the GOP always had), support the right of the individual to possess firearms.

Historically, the GOP has failed badly in my first paragraph.  I have no interest in the party whatsoever if it regresses to 2007, it doesn't deserve to survive then (and wont).  This is why I support the Hawley/Tucker types.

[Frodo]

Hawley will only back Supreme Court picks that have said Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided'

"I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated," Hawley, who has not yet had the opportunity to vote on a nominee to the high court since his election in 2018, told the Washington Post.

"I don't want private assurances from candidates. I don't want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I'm not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don't want any of that," he added. "I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided."

[SNJ1985]

Hawley will only back Supreme Court picks that have said Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided'

"I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated," Hawley, who has not yet had the opportunity to vote on a nominee to the high court since his election in 2018, told the Washington Post.

"I don't want private assurances from candidates. I don't want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I'm not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don't want any of that," he added. "I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided."

Cool. Another reason for me to support him.

[RINO Tom]

Hawley will only back Supreme Court picks that have said Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided'

"I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated," Hawley, who has not yet had the opportunity to vote on a nominee to the high court since his election in 2018, told the Washington Post.

"I don't want private assurances from candidates. I don't want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I'm not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don't want any of that," he added. "I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided."

Cool. Another reason for me to support him.

In addition to...?

[SNJ1985]

Hawley will only back Supreme Court picks that have said Roe v. Wade was 'wrongly decided'

"I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated," Hawley, who has not yet had the opportunity to vote on a nominee to the high court since his election in 2018, told the Washington Post.

"I don't want private assurances from candidates. I don't want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I'm not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don't want any of that," he added. "I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided."

Cool. Another reason for me to support him.

In addition to...?

Well, for starters...

he's culturally conservative and is willing to address the plight of Middle America, while also not coming across as an overly aggressive warhawk. Hawley will run on shifting foreign policy towards China, traditional values, bringing jobs back to middle america, tough on immigration, and criticizing the "failures of capitalism".

He recognizes how the GOP's policies have failed the very voters it supposedly champions. And he knows that house of cards can't last. Look at how he talks about anti-trusting the big tech companies. He seems like he'd actually want populist economic policies and wouldn't just talk abou them.