Why the Hawley hype?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:53:40 PM
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)
  Why the Hawley hype?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: Why the Hawley hype?  (Read 7079 times)
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2020, 04:46:36 AM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

What happened during your upbringing to make you think big government = communist?
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2020, 05:32:20 PM »

Anyway, people are underestimating Cruz. There's a reason his podcast was so very successful, he has kept his conservative Tea Party 2016 base, and he has grown it now to include more Trump 2016 supporters with his support for the President.

Cruz wouldn't even win Texas in a general election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas#Republican_primary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2020, 05:38:26 PM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2020, 05:45:50 PM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

What happened during your upbringing to make you think big government = communist?

I read history, understood the trends of power, and realized that expansions of government reduce the freedom of the individual and slowly build up so much concentrated power in the state that statism and communism become harder and harder to prevent. Through punitive taxation, the creation of the nanny state, and the reduction of personal responsibility, bigger and bigger government is a stepping stone to tyranny.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2020, 08:14:15 PM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

I’m afraid you used too many big words for your fellow North Carolinian here.

Anything the government does is bad and communist.

Conservativsm=Freedom.

Got it?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2020, 01:34:06 AM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.
Logged
Saint Milei
DeadPrez
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,007


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 19, 2020, 05:21:46 AM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.
Logged
Saint Milei
DeadPrez
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,007


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2020, 05:28:17 AM »

I didn't answer the question before, but Hawley has hype because 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".

How is Haley a juggernaut? Unlike Hawley, DeSantis and Crenshaw she was already in elected office in 2015, and in an important primary state, no less. If she's so great, why didn't she run for president then? By 2024 she will have been out of elected office for nearly a decade. The only thing that's changed in her favor is being appointed UN Ambassador, but if that makes you a juggernaut someone should speak to juggernaut Samantha Power.
She didn’t run because in 2012, she would’ve been a one term Governor who wasn’t well known. In 2016, she continued to not be a big name and she would’ve run against a Senator from her home state and 15 other candidates including fundraising powerhouse JEB Bush, establishment favorite Marco Rubio, Evangelical favorite Ted Cruz, and multiple tell it like it is candidates

In 2024, she has a national brand and many big names including Nick Ayers wants to work for her. Also, is well liked by the establishment and not hated by the grassroots

But why was she not a big name in 2016 but suddenly is in 2024? What has she done in the interim that is so remarkable? And how do we know the field won't be equally crowded in 2024?

She was in the news all the time because she was an ambassador. She's a woman who constantly makes statements that gain a lot of traction. Her support for tearing down confederate statues while also trying to push the GOP in a more racially tolerant direction also makes her attractive. It's not hard to see the difference. Nikki is easily one of the most recognizable figures now. Any kind of publicity is good publicity. She's also done enough to associate herself with the neocon establishment
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2020, 09:19:01 AM »


I wanna live in your alternate universe, man
Logged
Octowakandi
Octosteel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 316
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 19, 2020, 10:00:57 AM »

Hawley is like the only chance the GOP has of becoming the big majoritarian working class party in the next decade that the Trump experiment took a step towards in campaigning and failed miserably in governing. He's the only candidate I'm really excited about in that sense. This is all assuming a Trump loss by the way. If Trump pulls out a win, then the whole working class party thing gets pushed back two decades due to this incompetence and the losses sustained during his reign.

Also, before I explain my reasoning, I want to say that I completely agree with Yankee on everything he said. It's been apparent for a while that the GOP is the party of no ideas and what ideas they do have are pitifully insignificant due to trying to work within the confines of the GOP orthodoxy.

The problem is that as the GOP approaches the 2024 primaries, everyone is going to agree that Trump led a revolution in GOP thinking and every candidate will promise to MAGA. The question is what does that mean. For instance, I really like Nikki Haley and think she's straight up the most electable choice. She has been a great example of a Republican triangulating all the parts of Trumpism with traditional Republican beliefs. But I don't think that's enough for the GOP to move forward. I think she'll be too moderate on economic issues or just be bog standard. Her beliefs are not such that she'll really gravitate to economic policies that actually help the people that are struggling in this country. I feel like Trump, she would pass tax cuts but not family leave or lowering prescription drugs (actual popular policies, I know!). She may win two terms, have high approvals, but does nothing to winning more people to the GOP in a long term way.

Pence is the same issue except even less electable and exciting. He'll be Trumpist on the wall, China, fighting the media, and that'll be it.

I think Cotton is also in the same boat. He's positioned himself as a populist and one most like Trump, but I don't see it at all and I don't think the voters will be fooled either. He's a neocon that wants to build a wall. It genuinely seems the only aspects of Trumpism, which in this case I'll use @krazen1211 and his "definition":

Quote
'Trumpism' is the fact that the pre Trump GOP was too eager to invade foreign nations, is far too eager to help rich people and business interests, and doesn't advance the causes of social/cultural conservatism. Take those as vague definitions intentionally.

The only aspects of Trumpism Cotton takes is immigration and being aggressive in attitude. He wouldn't even pull troops out of other theaters. He would accelerate the loss in the suburbs and among college whites without gaining much for the party.

You have guys like Rubio and DeSantis who are more on the right boat, but I don't know how much of a guiding philosophy they have. Rubio especially seems to have made a pragmatic conversion to Trumpism although he genuinely has reform tendencies. I don't think he knows why we need reform or what kind of reform we need beyond vaguely "making things better." DeSantis similiarly feels that way to me but I don't follow him as well. I get a focus group feel from his convictions (aka he has none) considering he went from a Freedom Caucuser to whatever he is now.

And that leaves us with Hawley. He has a philosophy. The man wrote a book on TR from a conservative's perspective which is how Truman has viewed TR. 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.

And he does all this while being able to verbalize it in a way that doesn't just come off as your boomer uncle like Trump does so I think he could win suburbs and college educated voters as well.

Anyway, that's my rationale behind Hawley, but I can totally see how someone who is very still attached to traditional Republican beliefs would look at the guy and go "what's the big deal?"
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2020, 05:53:28 PM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.

It's not really assuming anything about ideology, though the right does get very libertarian when it comes to resisting proactive preclusion of the growing left-wing tide.

Most people don't view things in an ideological lense, especially issues like drug prices. All they now is prices are rising 12,000% in some cases with no natural restraint on prices other than people dying. Classical liberalism doesn't have a good answer to that.
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2020, 06:40:30 PM »

Hawley terrifies me and I am convinced that he will become President. His record isn't spotless (e.g., being anti-RTW and signing onto ACA lawsuits) but he knows rhetorically how to paint himself as a worker friendly trad-con. He's been in the Senate for a year and a half and he's already become basically the Senate figurehead for the "traditional" social conservative movement. My sense is that there are plenty of people in the intellectual trad con world who already adore him (e.g., the press they've given him after the Bostick case).

I think he has much better odds of capturing the post-Trump GOP mantle than someone like Haley or Cotton. Haley is basically an establishment-foisted stiff who is squishy on Trump and will reek of an unpopular establishment. Cotton is hawkish, disdainful of the WWC outside of culture war red meat, and uncharismatic. If he didn't light himself on fire in 2016 I could actually see the Rubio of 2019/2020 being competitive in a national primary but people's memories aren't that short.
Logged
Octowakandi
Octosteel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 316
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2020, 06:46:01 PM »

Hawley terrifies me and I am convinced that he will become President. His record isn't spotless (e.g., being anti-RTW and signing onto ACA lawsuits) but he knows rhetorically how to paint himself as a worker friendly trad-con. He's been in the Senate for a year and a half and he's already become basically the Senate figurehead for the "traditional" social conservative movement. My sense is that there are plenty of people in the intellectual trad con world who already adore him (e.g., the press they've given him after the Bostick case).

I think he has much better odds of capturing the post-Trump GOP mantle than someone like Haley or Cotton. Haley is basically an establishment-foisted stiff who is squishy on Trump and will reek of an unpopular establishment. Cotton is hawkish, disdainful of the WWC outside of culture war red meat, and uncharismatic. If he didn't light himself on fire in 2016 I could actually see the Rubio of 2019/2020 being competitive in a national primary but people's memories aren't that short.
I think Haley has done a good job appealing to both sectors and represents a Nixon to Trump's Goldwater in the form of triangulated policies which may be necessary to win a primary and general. I'm not convinced the GOP is ready to go full Hawley yet since the party clearly hasn't let go of their traditional economics. It'll take a little longer. Hawley could still win but it's a much riskier choice, like Reagan in 1968 over 1980.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2020, 07:18:07 PM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.



What? How are you trying to connect husbands fighting with their wives and using drugs to the market meeting supply and demand and getting rid of wasteful jobs? Should we still be employing all those poor laid off candlemakers from before we discovered electricity, because they're "good middle class jobs?" And "at the expense of ten million middle class jobs?" How do you think those jobs are created in the first place? Do you think they grow on trees?

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.


If you mean to say that the Chinese government is putting into place unfair trade rules that tariff American products without our past governments having had the guts to fight back, yes. That's not an argument for strangling the rights of farmers to sell their goods in the EU though, or to deny free markets and implement socialized medicine.

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.


I completely agree on the danger of democracy and the tyranny of the majority; it is why I find the label of Republican to be so apt. Yet still, this is a complete and total non sequitur -- your argument is simply that unrestricted democracy can be taken too far, so thus capitalism and free markets are being taken too far today. It does not hold up under even the most base of analysis.

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.


Are you kidding me? Do you so fail to understand basic economics that you can honestly assert this? Yes; demand for life saving drugs will and is by nature high. But you seem to think that demand operates in a vacuum, as the Keynesians do, which is simply not the case. The issue with the drug market today is in the field of supply, where well connected corporatists block supply from rising to meet demand with artificially placed government regulations that block new drugs and suppliers from meeting the market. And not only would your "solution" fail to address the actual root cause of the problem, but it would actually make it worse -- just as in rent control or other similar examples, price ceilings simply act to distort the natural seeking of market equilibrium by eliminating the further incentives for new research and production, leaving us with the kind of stagnating drug market we see in so many European countries today. Just as rent control is the easiest way to destroy a city, so is price capping the easiest way to destroy the drug market.

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

I think I'm beginning to get it. It is not even that you genuinely think these ideas work or make sense, it is that you are so damn scared of losing. You've lost all your courage to stand for principle. You're already ready to bend the knee and sell out. It is simply pathetic.
Logged
QAnonKelly
dotard
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,995


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.50

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2020, 11:33:48 PM »


Well that’s TMI about your relationship.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2020, 12:42:49 AM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.



What? How are you trying to connect husbands fighting with their wives and using drugs to the market meeting supply and demand and getting rid of wasteful jobs? Should we still be employing all those poor laid off candlemakers from before we discovered electricity, because they're "good middle class jobs?" And "at the expense of ten million middle class jobs?" How do you think those jobs are created in the first place? Do you think they grow on trees?

The Second half here, indicates full well you understood the connection. Unemployment is disruptive and detrimental to the cohesion of society, it also leads people to seek answers in the extremes. Fascism, Socialism and Communism. It is how we got Donald Trump.


Its not that you don't eliminate candlemaking it is that you have some kind of an answer other than "Move" or "learn to code", both of which people will just say F you and start to look for extremes that will give them the answers they want to hear, case in point, Trump's nomination.

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.


If you mean to say that the Chinese government is putting into place unfair trade rules that tariff American products without our past governments having had the guts to fight back, yes. That's not an argument for strangling the rights of farmers to sell their goods in the EU though, or to deny free markets and implement socialized medicine.

I mean to say that I don't buy the neoliberal white washing of our history, as we have already discussed. I started off learning history first with no ideology pushing me one way or the other. It is simple fact that we went from being a backwater to the most powerful economy in the world while having strongly protectionist policies and China has gone from the bottom of the pack to the largest while engaging in similar tactics.

Clearly, something is getting lost here in the narrative that free trade is the best course, at least for a developing economy. Beyond that for the sake of those industries that we want to see grow and prosper, we need to at least shield them from dumping and currency manipulation. How you do that is a matter for debate and discussion but if you cannot even have that conversation because it is being shouted down by the neo-liberal consensus then you are stuck at square one. Blindly adhering to free trade (unilateral disarmament) while China continues to take us to the cleaners with their one sided trade war they were waging for the past 25 years.

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.


I completely agree on the danger of democracy and the tyranny of the majority; it is why I find the label of Republican to be so apt. Yet still, this is a complete and total non sequitur -- your argument is simply that unrestricted democracy can be taken too far, so thus capitalism and free markets are being taken too far today. It does not hold up under even the most base of analysis.

No, I merely established in that section that both can be taken too far, not are. Notice the word "can" appears above in relation to the economy in my words as written. In other sections though I have given examples where it is being taken too far today.


Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.


Are you kidding me? Do you so fail to understand basic economics that you can honestly assert this? Yes; demand for life saving drugs will and is by nature high. But you seem to think that demand operates in a vacuum, as the Keynesians do, which is simply not the case. The issue with the drug market today is in the field of supply, where well connected corporatists block supply from rising to meet demand with artificially placed government regulations that block new drugs and suppliers from meeting the market. And not only would your "solution" fail to address the actual root cause of the problem, but it would actually make it worse -- just as in rent control or other similar examples, price ceilings simply act to distort the natural seeking of market equilibrium by eliminating the further incentives for new research and production, leaving us with the kind of stagnating drug market we see in so many European countries today. Just as rent control is the easiest way to destroy a city, so is price capping the easiest way to destroy the drug market.

I don't give a crap about Keynesian versus Supply side, its all bullsh@%t. Its like fighting over which wing of the plane is more important and frankly both economic schools of thought should be taken out to the wood shed and killed with a dull axe.

I am a fiscal conservative in that I support balancing the budget or at least getting it close to balance. I think you should promote long term both supply and demand, supply through business creation and entrepeneurship, and demand through beneficial infrastructure projects that are paid for that will generate long run economic growth. The Erie Canal created the Midwest as an economic powerhouse, the Highways created the suburban sprawl, both of which were paid for. Neither of which was an unfunded mandate, or paying people to dig useless holes like Keynes talked about.

Quit trying to other me and make me out to be a leftist because I am not your kind of conservative. We would do so much better, if we spent more time trying to actually do things like balance the budget instead of constantly arguing with the mirror on the wall over whose is the fairest of them all and seeking to exterminate those that don't pass muster.

This constant purity seeking is Soviet in origin and frankly I have no desire for any kind of conservatism that seeks to emulate Vladimir Lenin's tactics. They have clearly lost the plot at some point.


Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2020, 12:57:11 AM »
« Edited: June 20, 2020, 01:02:32 AM by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

I think I'm beginning to get it. It is not even that you genuinely think these ideas work or make sense, it is that you are so damn scared of losing. You've lost all your courage to stand for principle. You're already ready to bend the knee and sell out. It is simply pathetic.

What the hell use is a conservatism that basically enables the socialist takeover of the country through its own incompetence and stupidity? My primary ideological underpinning is based on the study of Edmund Burke and how he rationalized opposition to the French Revolution, while supporting the Glorious and American (rhetorically) Revolutions. The main thing that it tells me is that the radicals of all kinds have to be stopped and the best way to stop a movement driven by building societal pressure for change is to release the steam out of the kettle. It doesn't have to be Bismarckian welfare state, but the same idea applies.

There are three things that separate us from being able to win on the budgets, on life, even on guns when you think about it, that is healthcare, climate change and gay rights. Frankly, there are some people on the right would gladly see the Democrats dominate for 40 years to get us to a point where America will desire conservatism of that sort again. The problem is 40 years of Supreme Court justices, working majorities and them solving these problems "Their way" will ensure that you have lost out on far more and that the conservatism that does finally get back into power will be completely unrecognizable to what I desire, much less what you would desire.

Once the left enacts single payer, there is no going back, it will be in place forever. If it means averting the single payer outcome, there is nearly nothing I wouldn't condone, because nothing would be as damaging to the health care sector and to the drug market as the gov't literally setting prices, dictating prices on everything. Compared to a regulation limiting price increases, that is on a whole different planet and if it alleviates the societal pressure for single payer then it will have done a service to conservatism on a range over other issues from life, to the constitution, to balanced budgets and especially on health care.

For years, you have been use to conditioning everything on an us versus them plane, and everyone that disagrees with you is either a liberal, a traitor or a coward. I have not violated any of my principles, because I don't define my conservative principles on the basis of martyrdom and suicide on every last point. I am not selling out Supply Side economics because I don't believe in supply side economics as being suitable to our current times. Conservatism has existed for hundreds of years, supply side economics has existed for just 40. Are you really going to write off everyone who came before Reagan as a socialist? Calvin Coolidge? Robert Taft? Even Barry Goldwater? Finally, the last thing I want to happen is see conservatism bend the knee for 28 to 40 years, because some people couldn't leave the gays alone and some others just couldn't get bast their ideological blinders for long enough to address the pressing economic despair.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2020, 01:05:39 AM »
« Edited: June 20, 2020, 01:10:15 AM by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Hawley terrifies me and I am convinced that he will become President. His record isn't spotless (e.g., being anti-RTW and signing onto ACA lawsuits) but he knows rhetorically how to paint himself as a worker friendly trad-con. He's been in the Senate for a year and a half and he's already become basically the Senate figurehead for the "traditional" social conservative movement. My sense is that there are plenty of people in the intellectual trad con world who already adore him (e.g., the press they've given him after the Bostick case).

I think he has much better odds of capturing the post-Trump GOP mantle than someone like Haley or Cotton. Haley is basically an establishment-foisted stiff who is squishy on Trump and will reek of an unpopular establishment. Cotton is hawkish, disdainful of the WWC outside of culture war red meat, and uncharismatic. If he didn't light himself on fire in 2016 I could actually see the Rubio of 2019/2020 being competitive in a national primary but people's memories aren't that short.
I think Haley has done a good job appealing to both sectors and represents a Nixon to Trump's Goldwater in the form of triangulated policies which may be necessary to win a primary and general. I'm not convinced the GOP is ready to go full Hawley yet since the party clearly hasn't let go of their traditional economics. It'll take a little longer. Hawley could still win but it's a much riskier choice, like Reagan in 1968 over 1980.

What the GOP really needs is someone that can meld Hawley and Rand Paul together. Trump kind of achieved the same concept when you consider his FP positions and how he handled bathrooms while running against Cruz in Indiana and of course the real main course on Trump, which was immigration and trade.

It had been my hope that John Kasich could pull this off as far back as 2013, a kind of combination of libertarianism on some areas and populism on others, but he fell into the Midwest McCain vibe and nobody really wants that at this point. I was the lone Kasich supporter on this forum for 2 years almost, when he was at like 1%, only to be horribly disappointed by late 2015.

There was time when it looked like it would be Rand Paul versus Christie, and I was prepared to back Paul in that struggle. The thing that bothers me with Paul, is that I am not fond of ideological grand standers and while I respect him for his principles, its rather off putting.
Logged
Saint Milei
DeadPrez
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,007


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2020, 02:16:01 AM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.

It's not really assuming anything about ideology, though the right does get very libertarian when it comes to resisting proactive preclusion of the growing left-wing tide.

Most people don't view things in an ideological lense, especially issues like drug prices. All they now is prices are rising 12,000% in some cases with no natural restraint on prices other than people dying. Classical liberalism doesn't have a good answer to that.

A classical liberal or a libertarian would point out government enabled the drug prices to rise by working with drug companies. A classical liberal or a libertarian would also point out drug companies lobby for the FDA to heavily regulate competition, resulting in higher prices due to a lack of competition. While this might be hard to sell to some people, it isn't a bad answer or no answer. It's just about wording it the correct way.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2020, 04:13:19 AM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.



What? How are you trying to connect husbands fighting with their wives and using drugs to the market meeting supply and demand and getting rid of wasteful jobs? Should we still be employing all those poor laid off candlemakers from before we discovered electricity, because they're "good middle class jobs?" And "at the expense of ten million middle class jobs?" How do you think those jobs are created in the first place? Do you think they grow on trees?

The Second half here, indicates full well you understood the connection. Unemployment is disruptive and detrimental to the cohesion of society, it also leads people to seek answers in the extremes. Fascism, Socialism and Communism. It is how we got Donald Trump.


Its not that you don't eliminate candlemaking it is that you have some kind of an answer other than "Move" or "learn to code", both of which people will just say F you and start to look for extremes that will give them the answers they want to hear, case in point, Trump's nomination.

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.


If you mean to say that the Chinese government is putting into place unfair trade rules that tariff American products without our past governments having had the guts to fight back, yes. That's not an argument for strangling the rights of farmers to sell their goods in the EU though, or to deny free markets and implement socialized medicine.

I mean to say that I don't buy the neoliberal white washing of our history, as we have already discussed. I started off learning history first with no ideology pushing me one way or the other. It is simple fact that we went from being a backwater to the most powerful economy in the world while having strongly protectionist policies and China has gone from the bottom of the pack to the largest while engaging in similar tactics.

Clearly, something is getting lost here in the narrative that free trade is the best course, at least for a developing economy. Beyond that for the sake of those industries that we want to see grow and prosper, we need to at least shield them from dumping and currency manipulation. How you do that is a matter for debate and discussion but if you cannot even have that conversation because it is being shouted down by the neo-liberal consensus then you are stuck at square one. Blindly adhering to free trade (unilateral disarmament) while China continues to take us to the cleaners with their one sided trade war they were waging for the past 25 years.

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.


I completely agree on the danger of democracy and the tyranny of the majority; it is why I find the label of Republican to be so apt. Yet still, this is a complete and total non sequitur -- your argument is simply that unrestricted democracy can be taken too far, so thus capitalism and free markets are being taken too far today. It does not hold up under even the most base of analysis.

No, I merely established in that section that both can be taken too far, not are. Notice the word "can" appears above in relation to the economy in my words as written. In other sections though I have given examples where it is being taken too far today.


Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.


Are you kidding me? Do you so fail to understand basic economics that you can honestly assert this? Yes; demand for life saving drugs will and is by nature high. But you seem to think that demand operates in a vacuum, as the Keynesians do, which is simply not the case. The issue with the drug market today is in the field of supply, where well connected corporatists block supply from rising to meet demand with artificially placed government regulations that block new drugs and suppliers from meeting the market. And not only would your "solution" fail to address the actual root cause of the problem, but it would actually make it worse -- just as in rent control or other similar examples, price ceilings simply act to distort the natural seeking of market equilibrium by eliminating the further incentives for new research and production, leaving us with the kind of stagnating drug market we see in so many European countries today. Just as rent control is the easiest way to destroy a city, so is price capping the easiest way to destroy the drug market.

I don't give a crap about Keynesian versus Supply side, its all bullsh@%t. Its like fighting over which wing of the plane is more important and frankly both economic schools of thought should be taken out to the wood shed and killed with a dull axe.

I am a fiscal conservative in that I support balancing the budget or at least getting it close to balance. I think you should promote long term both supply and demand, supply through business creation and entrepeneurship, and demand through beneficial infrastructure projects that are paid for that will generate long run economic growth. The Erie Canal created the Midwest as an economic powerhouse, the Highways created the suburban sprawl, both of which were paid for. Neither of which was an unfunded mandate, or paying people to dig useless holes like Keynes talked about.

Quit trying to other me and make me out to be a leftist because I am not your kind of conservative. We would do so much better, if we spent more time trying to actually do things like balance the budget instead of constantly arguing with the mirror on the wall over whose is the fairest of them all and seeking to exterminate those that don't pass muster.

This constant purity seeking is Soviet in origin and frankly I have no desire for any kind of conservatism that seeks to emulate Vladimir Lenin's tactics. They have clearly lost the plot at some point.




I'm sorry, I'm having trouble responding just due to formatting. If any of my responses are weird looking, know that that is why.
Logged
Libertas Vel Mors
Haley/Ryan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,871
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2020, 04:56:15 AM »

Quote
The Second half here, indicates full well you understood the connection. Unemployment is disruptive and detrimental to the cohesion of society, it also leads people to seek answers in the extremes. Fascism, Socialism and Communism. It is how we got Donald Trump.


Your implication was that people only get laid off because of capitalism lol, and that "middle class jobs" wouldn't naturally arise or disappear vice versa with more economic regulation.

Quote
Its not that you don't eliminate candlemaking it is that you have some kind of an answer other than "Move" or "learn to code", both of which people will just say F you and start to look for extremes that will give them the answers they want to hear, case in point, Trump's nomination.

Again, this is what I'm talking about. Your case is not on the actual merits, it is that "if we don't do these evil things, we will lose elections" which...just isn't an appealing case to me. Principles first.

Quote
I mean to say that I don't buy the neoliberal white washing of our history, as we have already discussed. I started off learning history first with no ideology pushing me one way or the other.

As did I -- I was a history junkie first, and a political junkie only second on.

Quote
It is simple fact that we went from being a backwater to the most powerful economy in the world while having strongly protectionist policies and China has gone from the bottom of the pack to the largest while engaging in similar tactics.

But your assertion is now that those protectionist policies caused such growth, when study after study has shown that such policies actually do the opposite and hurt even industrial growth (due to the ever more complex nature of our global supply chain). This is simply wrong, and, to use a well-known concept, mixing correlation and causation.

Quote
Clearly, something is getting lost here in the narrative that free trade is the best course, at least for a developing economy. Beyond that for the sake of those industries that we want to see grow and prosper, we need to at least shield them from dumping and currency manipulation. How you do that is a matter for debate and discussion but if you cannot even have that conversation because it is being shouted down by the neo-liberal consensus then you are stuck at square one. Blindly adhering to free trade (unilateral disarmament) while China continues to take us to the cleaners with their one sided trade war they were waging for the past 25 years.

I completely agree -- if the Chinese tariff us, and we don't fight back, we are only screwing ourselves. But that doesn't excuse raising tariffs on places and countries that have no such policies, like our European allies.

Quote
No, I merely established in that section that both can be taken too far, not are. Notice the word "can" appears above in relation to the economy in my words as written. In other sections though I have given examples where it is being taken too far today.

But you haven't! All you have articulated is that people get laid off in a free market economy (yes -- supply and demand exist, and if you cannot meet the needs of actual consumers you should not expect them to support you) and that China engages in unfair trade practices -- not exactly conclusive proof of the evils of capitalism.

Quote
I don't give a crap about Keynesian versus Supply side, its all bullsh@%t. Its like fighting over which wing of the plane is more important and frankly both economic schools of thought should be taken out to the wood shed and killed with a dull axe.

To the extent I agree: the government should not prioritize any group economically, and should instead simply allow the free market to work naturally. At the same time, it is important for supply side economists to explain the simple reality that you cannot have the chicken without the egg.

Quote
I am a fiscal conservative in that I support balancing the budget or at least getting it close to balance. I think you should promote long term both supply and demand, supply through business creation and entrepeneurship, and demand through beneficial infrastructure projects that are paid for that will generate long run economic growth.
.

That is not how economics work. You cannot just waste government funds on projects for which there is no actual economic demand for, and which are more inefficient than private projects, and which take money away from and steal from private projects, and expect them to do anything more than serve as money sinks. Supply and demand are natural equilibriums of what some individuals want and what other individuals can produce; the government cannot simply artificially create either lol.

Quote
the Highways created the suburban sprawl, both of which were paid for. Neither of which was an unfunded mandate, or paying people to dig useless holes like Keynes talked about.

Are you really trying to assert that suburbs did not exist before highways, or that other forms of transportation (even highways themselves, of a sort) would not have been invested in if there was demand for them?

Quote
Quit trying to other me and make me out to be a leftist because I am not your kind of conservative.

Mitt Romney is not my kind of conservative. Jeb Bush is not my kind of conservative. You? You are not a conservative.

We would do so much better, if we spent more time trying to actually do things like balance the budget instead of constantly arguing with the mirror on the wall over whose is the fairest of them all and seeking to exterminate those that don't pass muster.

If to balance the budget we must sell out to people like you and betray all other principles, you'll never have my support.
Quote
This constant purity seeking is Soviet in origin and frankly I have no desire for any kind of conservatism that seeks to emulate Vladimir Lenin's tactics. They have clearly lost the plot at some point.

"Voting politicians that you disagree with out of office is Soviet in origin"

Hmmm, not really what I think of when I think Soviet.

Quote
What the hell use is a conservatism that basically enables the socialist takeover of the country through its own incompetence and stupidity? My primary ideological underpinning is based on the study of Edmund Burke and how he rationalized opposition to the French Revolution, while supporting the Glorious and American (rhetorically) Revolutions. The main thing that it tells me is that the radicals of all kinds have to be stopped and the best way to stop a movement driven by building societal pressure for change is to release the steam out of the kettle. It doesn't have to be Bismarckian welfare state, but the same idea applies.

Once again, my previous statements apply. You know what you are arguing for is wrong, but you rationalize it as necessary to stop even worse actors. I reject that premise -- principles matter, and I will not sell them out for the sake of a few %s of the margin. If it truly becomes necessary, we have the 2a for a reason.

Quote
There are three things that separate us from being able to win on the budgets, on life, even on guns when you think about it, that is healthcare, climate change and gay rights. Frankly, there are some people on the right would gladly see the Democrats dominate for 40 years to get us to a point where America will desire conservatism of that sort again. The problem is 40 years of Supreme Court justices, working majorities and them solving these problems "Their way" will ensure that you have lost out on far more and that the conservatism that does finally get back into power will be completely unrecognizable to what I desire, much less what you would desire.

Lol, you're so out of touch. The only one of those issues where we have an actual majority is the balanced budget, and even then it is only in name only. Once again, you try to rationalize away selling out our principles as "necessary," failing to recognize that this is total warfare, not a skirmish. We cannot simply offer up our principles as sacrifices and expect mercy.

In a way, this actually reminds me of why I respect someone like Grassroots, who is simply an unabashed communist on fiscal issues and conservative on social issues, more than a sell out such as you. At least he argued for what he actually believed as a way to achieve it, not just to surrender like a coward.

Quote
Once the left enacts single payer, there is no going back, it will be in place forever. If it means averting the single payer outcome, there is nearly nothing I wouldn't condone, because nothing would be as damaging to the health care sector and to the drug market as the gov't literally setting prices, dictating prices on everything. Compared to a regulation limiting price increases, that is on a whole different planet and if it alleviates the societal pressure for single payer then it will have done a service to conservatism on a range over other issues from life, to the constitution, to balanced budgets and especially on health care.

Bro, pro tip: you don't need to type out so many words each time. You can just copy paste it, like this (here's a helpful draft)

"If we don't do (BLANK, insert morally evil thing that betrays our principles here) then the left will pass (insert even more morally evil thing)."

What you fail to recognize, however, is that they never stop. First it is "just" Medicare, expanding government yet again. Then it is "just" Medicaid, expanding government yet again. Then it is "just" Obamacare, and "just" price ceilings, and "just" a public option, and then it's "just" single-payer, and it never f**king stops.

Quote
For years, you have been use to conditioning everything on an us versus them plane, and everyone that disagrees with you is either a liberal, a traitor or a coward.


No. I disagree with many people. But at least someone like AOC or Grassroots has the courage to stand for what they believe in. You -- you -- are just a coward.

Quote
I have not violated any of my principles, because I don't define my conservative principles on the basis of martyrdom and suicide on every last point.


Yes, just to the point that they become unpopular in Washington breakfast nooks.

Quote
I am not selling out Supply Side economics because I don't believe in supply side economics as being suitable to our current times. Conservatism has existed for hundreds of years, supply side economics has existed for just 40.

Sure, the exact doctrine of "supply side" economics has just existed for 40 years. But the principles it rests on, of free markets and an opposition to government regulation and control, have existed from the very moment of creation.

Quote
Are you really going to write off everyone who came before Reagan as a socialist? Calvin Coolidge?

One of my all time favorite Presidents -- certainly the best in the 20th century.

Quote
Robert Taft?

Too protectionist, but still a FF. Would be aghast to see you arguing for big government and price regulation.

Quote
Even Barry Goldwater?

Barry Goldwater was the freaking man who introduced me to the conservative movement, of course he's a hero of mine. I am not nearly the purist you think I am -- Goldwater was pro choice, and Coolidge and Taft were racist protectionists, but I still support them anyway. But what I really can't support is your brand of socialist cowardice.

Quote
Finally, the last thing I want to happen is see conservatism bend the knee for 28 to 40 years, because some people couldn't leave the gays alone and some others just couldn't get bast their ideological blinders for long enough to address the pressing economic despair.

You just keep saying that, as if the cycle won't repeat, or as if free markets are not the only proven and practiced way of genuinely helping people and supporting economic growth.

Quote
What the GOP really needs is someone that can meld Hawley and Rand Paul together. Trump kind of achieved the same concept when you consider his FP positions and how he handled bathrooms while running against Cruz in Indiana and of course the real main course on Trump, which was immigration and trade.

You say that, as if we do not make up 95% of the party and the Hawleyites 5%, and as if even your boys like RINO Walter Jones are not regularly being replaced by real conservatives across the board lol.

Quote
It had been my hope that John Kasich could pull this off as far back as 2013, a kind of combination of libertarianism on some areas and populism on others, but he fell into the Midwest McCain vibe and nobody really wants that at this point. I was the lone Kasich supporter on this forum for 2 years almost, when he was at like 1%, only to be horribly disappointed by late 2015.

John Kasich expanded Medicaid, advocated for big government, betrayed the cause of traditional marriage, and stands for...well, essentially nothing. He is a pathetic, feeble, loser, who lied to Ohio voters.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2020, 05:14:04 AM »

Hawley is a neo-communist who favors big government regulation and intolerable left wing radicalism. I would vote for Donald Trump JR over him.

Hawley is the exact opposite of a communist or a radical.

In fact Hawley is operating as a Traditionalist Conservative, which is why he favors government action on some points. By doing so, he is hoping to release the societal pressure that absent action will just keep building and building until the other side gets to dictate the results on everything. That is how politics works in reality.

Hawley's premise is that you concede and co-opt the left on one or two points to save the rest of the conservative pie from complete annihilation.

What is radical is the radical adherence to economic libertarianism, which will cause an equal and opposite reaction in favor of socialism. It is worth remembering that Capitalism itself is a liberal concept and as such its creative destruction is naturally contrary to the interests of societal stability, family cohesion and religious faith all of which are tropes ingrained in the concept of Traditional Conservatism. Therefore a trad con would want to reign in capitalism and restrain it to serve the interest of preserving those three priorities: Stability, family and faith.

Just because someone isn't your kind of conservatism, doesn't mean they are socialists. There is more to politics than a simple linear spectrum based entirely on one's views of how big government should be.

No, economic freedom is not a radical ideal. It is traditional Americana, straight from the very start. From Washington and Jefferson to Goldwater and Reagan to Cruz and Walker, freedom has been paramount in American values. And to assert that capitalism, which has created the actual nuclear family and delivered prosperity for so many people worldwide, is harming the family, is ridiculous -- it is only with capitalism have we managed to achieve such standards of living as for the nuclear family to even become possible. Instead of digging ditches from sundown to sunset, the natural productivity of free markets allows for increased prosperity and economic growth. No, perhaps Hawley is not a socialist. I am used to speaking to those who are not very well politically informed, for whom more distant concepts are not best used in explanations. But Hawley is a freedom hating, wealth redistributing, distributist, and his success would come at the expense of all that makes America great.

The market seeks its own equilibrium, even if at the expense of ten million middle class jobs. Husbands who go home, fight with their wives in front of the kids, turn to drugs in despair, leading the wife to seek a divorce. Meanwhile the schools have lost their tax base, and the kids start hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Throw in the fact that said equilibrium is being skewed by the simple fact that we play by free market rules while China lives by neo-mercantilism, and essentially turning free trade into the unilateral disarmament of the previous cold war.

Anything good can be taken too far and that includes democracy itself. The Constitution was written to reign in "excess of democracy" and that was IIRC, Washington's words in the lead up to the convention. That is why diehard libertarians reject the Constitution as an illegal, reactionary counter coup by authoritarian elites to repress the freedoms won in the revolution, a view I don't share but it is out there.

If democracy and freedom can be taken too far (be it yelling fire in a crowded theater or voting to enslave people because they look different - Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass ftr), then surely capitalism, markets and free trade can be taken too far and need to be reigned in at times.

There is no other outcome to the situation in healthcare drug prices then some form of gov't dictation. Either the left will do it via single payer, or the right can do it as a stand alone regulation as Hawley wants to do. Either way you slice it, people will only stand for this hostage style distorted market (the only way for demand to drop is for bodies to hit the floor so there is no natural restraint on prices). If you think "America's legacy" as a free country will stave off desperate people from seeking redress, the next decade or two is going to be eye opening.

If Conservatives don't adapt to this reality now, they are going to find themselves in the exact same place the New Deal Democrats found themselves in by 1985. Outside looking in, having failed to address the current economic misery.

This is all under the assumption that the U.S. is economically libertarian or even close to it. No radical libertarian on the right would argue this. In fact, no moderate libertarian economically would argue this. It would be a stretch to even say a die-hard fiscal conservative would argue this as well.  The closest instances of the U.S. having libertarian economics were in times where the family was stronger, cultural identity was in greater unison, and religious values remained strong.


If anything, the current situation we are in is exactly because we drifted away from classical liberalism. Libertarianism emerged because of the failures of government to address all the problems government created. Libertarianism became more radical when there was a greater case of businesses working with government to create unfettered corporatism that masked itself as unrestrained capitalism.

It's not really assuming anything about ideology, though the right does get very libertarian when it comes to resisting proactive preclusion of the growing left-wing tide.

Most people don't view things in an ideological lense, especially issues like drug prices. All they now is prices are rising 12,000% in some cases with no natural restraint on prices other than people dying. Classical liberalism doesn't have a good answer to that.

A classical liberal or a libertarian would point out government enabled the drug prices to rise by working with drug companies. A classical liberal or a libertarian would also point out drug companies lobby for the FDA to heavily regulate competition, resulting in higher prices due to a lack of competition. While this might be hard to sell to some people, it isn't a bad answer or no answer. It's just about wording it the correct way.

Libertarians often struggle to come across as populist, one of the things I did like about Rand in say 2013/2014 was his attempts to pull this off. "Not a dime from welfare, until all the corporate welfare is cut" was a very effective line.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2020, 06:09:33 AM »
« Edited: June 20, 2020, 06:16:30 AM by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
The Second half here, indicates full well you understood the connection. Unemployment is disruptive and detrimental to the cohesion of society, it also leads people to seek answers in the extremes. Fascism, Socialism and Communism. It is how we got Donald Trump.


Your implication was that people only get laid off because of capitalism lol, and that "middle class jobs" wouldn't naturally arise or disappear vice versa with more economic regulation.

Quote
Its not that you don't eliminate candlemaking it is that you have some kind of an answer other than "Move" or "learn to code", both of which people will just say F you and start to look for extremes that will give them the answers they want to hear, case in point, Trump's nomination.

Again, this is what I'm talking about. Your case is not on the actual merits, it is that "if we don't do these evil things, we will lose elections" which...just isn't an appealing case to me. Principles first.

Again this is what I am talking about. There is absolutely no concern for the consequences as it relates to the growing tied of socialism, or trying to avert that. It is just about keep shouting the same things as before only louder and maybe this time they will give you a different answer, politics doesn't work that way.

You either give the people what they want or they come after you with pitchforks.


Quote
I mean to say that I don't buy the neoliberal white washing of our history, as we have already discussed. I started off learning history first with no ideology pushing me one way or the other.

As did I -- I was a history junkie first, and a political junkie only second on.

Quote
It is simple fact that we went from being a backwater to the most powerful economy in the world while having strongly protectionist policies and China has gone from the bottom of the pack to the largest while engaging in similar tactics.

But your assertion is now that those protectionist policies caused such growth, when study after study has shown that such policies actually do the opposite and hurt even industrial growth (due to the ever more complex nature of our global supply chain). This is simply wrong, and, to use a well-known concept, mixing correlation and causation.

Quote
Clearly, something is getting lost here in the narrative that free trade is the best course, at least for a developing economy. Beyond that for the sake of those industries that we want to see grow and prosper, we need to at least shield them from dumping and currency manipulation. How you do that is a matter for debate and discussion but if you cannot even have that conversation because it is being shouted down by the neo-liberal consensus then you are stuck at square one. Blindly adhering to free trade (unilateral disarmament) while China continues to take us to the cleaners with their one sided trade war they were waging for the past 25 years.

I completely agree -- if the Chinese tariff us, and we don't fight back, we are only screwing ourselves. But that doesn't excuse raising tariffs on places and countries that have no such policies, like our European allies.

I never endorsed putting tariffs on European allies, not sure where you got that from.


Quote
No, I merely established in that section that both can be taken too far, not are. Notice the word "can" appears above in relation to the economy in my words as written. In other sections though I have given examples where it is being taken too far today.

But you haven't! All you have articulated is that people get laid off in a free market economy (yes -- supply and demand exist, and if you cannot meet the needs of actual consumers you should not expect them to support you) and that China engages in unfair trade practices -- not exactly conclusive proof of the evils of capitalism.

I am not out out to prove "the evils of capitalism" because again and perhaps I didn't make myself clear, "I AM TRYING TO SAVE CAPITALISM FROM ITSELF AND THE SOCIALISM IT IS GIVEN RISE TO".

Quote
I don't give a crap about Keynesian versus Supply side, its all bullsh@%t. Its like fighting over which wing of the plane is more important and frankly both economic schools of thought should be taken out to the wood shed and killed with a dull axe.

To the extent I agree: the government should not prioritize any group economically, and should instead simply allow the free market to work naturally. At the same time, it is important for supply side economists to explain the simple reality that you cannot have the chicken without the egg.

And you cannot have an egg without the dinosaur that first laid it.

Quote
I am a fiscal conservative in that I support balancing the budget or at least getting it close to balance. I think you should promote long term both supply and demand, supply through business creation and entrepeneurship, and demand through beneficial infrastructure projects that are paid for that will generate long run economic growth.
.

That is not how economics work. You cannot just waste government funds on projects for which there is no actual economic demand for, and which are more inefficient than private projects, and which take money away from and steal from private projects, and expect them to do anything more than serve as money sinks. Supply and demand are natural equilibriums of what some individuals want and what other individuals can produce; the government cannot simply artificially create either lol.

I literally just condemned the projects to nowhere inherent in the Keynesian model and yet you come back and accuse me of supporting such wasteful projects.

Quote
the Highways created the suburban sprawl, both of which were paid for. Neither of which was an unfunded mandate, or paying people to dig useless holes like Keynes talked about.

Are you really trying to assert that suburbs did not exist before highways, or that other forms of transportation (even highways themselves, of a sort) would not have been invested in if there was demand for them?

Varies based on the area, but regardless of whether it was state based roads previous or federal highways system afterwards, it is still gov't infrastructure.

Quote
Quit trying to other me and make me out to be a leftist because I am not your kind of conservative.

Mitt Romney is not my kind of conservative. Jeb Bush is not my kind of conservative. You? You are not a conservative.

I haven't supported Mitt Romney in 8 years and I never supported Jeb Bush. Really, you need to stop putting words in my mouth.

We would do so much better, if we spent more time trying to actually do things like balance the budget instead of constantly arguing with the mirror on the wall over whose is the fairest of them all and seeking to exterminate those that don't pass muster.

If to balance the budget we must sell out to people like you and betray all other principles, you'll never have my support.

There is no greater selling out of principle, then handing victory on EVERYTHING to the other side.

Quote
This constant purity seeking is Soviet in origin and frankly I have no desire for any kind of conservatism that seeks to emulate Vladimir Lenin's tactics. They have clearly lost the plot at some point.

"Voting politicians that you disagree with out of office is Soviet in origin"

Hmmm, not really what I think of when I think Soviet.

Because Riggleman was really actually voted out by the bulk of his voters as opposed to an inside hit job by a exclusive clique of party activists. Sounds rather Soviet to me. The Soviet allusion refers to Grover Norquist who has idolized Lenin's approach to party purity and used it for a model on how to enforce the no tax pledge.


Quote
What the hell use is a conservatism that basically enables the socialist takeover of the country through its own incompetence and stupidity? My primary ideological underpinning is based on the study of Edmund Burke and how he rationalized opposition to the French Revolution, while supporting the Glorious and American (rhetorically) Revolutions. The main thing that it tells me is that the radicals of all kinds have to be stopped and the best way to stop a movement driven by building societal pressure for change is to release the steam out of the kettle. It doesn't have to be Bismarckian welfare state, but the same idea applies.

Once again, my previous statements apply. You know what you are arguing for is wrong, but you rationalize it as necessary to stop even worse actors. I reject that premise -- principles matter, and I will not sell them out for the sake of a few %s of the margin. If it truly becomes necessary, we have the 2a for a reason.

My only overriding principle is societal stability. Everything else is done to serve that purpose or done in a way that won't do harm to that purpose.

I am not interested in 2nd amendment solutions because we have brains to address these problems before it gets to that point and also that is again detrimental to societal cohesion.

Quit defining my ideology based on your set of criteria, I reject your criteria and its legitimacy as I consider large elements to be either LIBERAL in origin or SOCIALIST enabling in their ends.

Quote
There are three things that separate us from being able to win on the budgets, on life, even on guns when you think about it, that is healthcare, climate change and gay rights. Frankly, there are some people on the right would gladly see the Democrats dominate for 40 years to get us to a point where America will desire conservatism of that sort again. The problem is 40 years of Supreme Court justices, working majorities and them solving these problems "Their way" will ensure that you have lost out on far more and that the conservatism that does finally get back into power will be completely unrecognizable to what I desire, much less what you would desire.

Lol, you're so out of touch. The only one of those issues where we have an actual majority is the balanced budget, and even then it is only in name only. Once again, you try to rationalize away selling out our principles as "necessary," failing to recognize that this is total warfare, not a skirmish. We cannot simply offer up our principles as sacrifices and expect mercy.

In a way, this actually reminds me of why I respect someone like Grassroots, who is simply an unabashed communist on fiscal issues and conservative on social issues, more than a sell out such as you. At least he argued for what he actually believed as a way to achieve it, not just to surrender like a coward.

Its not a good idea to result to personal insults, especially when talking with a moderator. Lucky for you, I am notoriously restrained and "conservative" in my approach. Others won't be.

You cannot sell out something you don't agree with. You keep acting as if your viewpoints are the starting points for me they aren't. I am a Burkean Conservative. I would have been perfectly content were I alive in the 1790's, to be a Federalist, and then a Whig after that. Size and scope of government are means to end, they are not the principles or values, they are tactics.

Quote
Once the left enacts single payer, there is no going back, it will be in place forever. If it means averting the single payer outcome, there is nearly nothing I wouldn't condone, because nothing would be as damaging to the health care sector and to the drug market as the gov't literally setting prices, dictating prices on everything. Compared to a regulation limiting price increases, that is on a whole different planet and if it alleviates the societal pressure for single payer then it will have done a service to conservatism on a range over other issues from life, to the constitution, to balanced budgets and especially on health care.

Bro, pro tip: you don't need to type out so many words each time. You can just copy paste it, like this (here's a helpful draft)

"If we don't do (BLANK, insert morally evil thing that betrays our principles here) then the left will pass (insert even more morally evil thing)."

I don't need your permission to type what I want. I have been typing what I want for twelve years on this forum, and I never let the left stop me back then and I am not going to let you stop me now.

What you fail to recognize, however, is that they never stop. First it is "just" Medicare, expanding government yet again. Then it is "just" Medicaid, expanding government yet again. Then it is "just" Obamacare, and "just" price ceilings, and "just" a public option, and then it's "just" single-payer, and it never f**king stops.

Quote
For years, you have been use to conditioning everything on an us versus them plane, and everyone that disagrees with you is either a liberal, a traitor or a coward.


No. I disagree with many people. But at least someone like AOC or Grassroots has the courage to stand for what they believe in. You -- you -- are just a coward.

Quote
I have not violated any of my principles, because I don't define my conservative principles on the basis of martyrdom and suicide on every last point.


Yes, just to the point that they become unpopular in Washington breakfast nooks.

I am almost 30 years old, I work for my upkeep, I pay my taxes, and I watched my mother wither away and die from long term chronic illness left untreated for years. I have been following politics since the end of the Clinton years/beginning of Bush's term. I have read Locke, Burke, Smith, Ricardo, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and so on, as well as numerous supreme court cases, briefs and opinions.

I have never backed down from a fight, and I have never, NEVER, condone kowtowing to Washington insiders and I resent you claiming otherwise. Most of them are the same out of touch fools who have gotten us into this mess and they are the reason why I voted for Trump in 2016 both times. What you don't grasp is that the conservative movement itself is now a part of that Washington establishment and is still operating as if it is 1985 with policies geared towards ending stagflation and aimed a voter base in Orange county that now largely resides six feet under.

You have the gall to say I am out of touch. Ridiculous, I am in touch with reality on the ground because I live it everyday. I don't have the luxury of getting paid millions of dollars by corporate special interests to give some worthless speech to a think tank that two people will watch and few alive today will reap any benefits from the ideas suggested.I spent most of 2013 - 2016 looking for a candidate would burn down the think tank/consulting class and I finally settled on Trump because he seemed more likely to do that then the Think Tank poster boy Ted Cruz.

I will never let you get away with trying to claim my priorities are pleasing the Washington insider class.

Quote
I am not selling out Supply Side economics because I don't believe in supply side economics as being suitable to our current times. Conservatism has existed for hundreds of years, supply side economics has existed for just 40.

Sure, the exact doctrine of "supply side" economics has just existed for 40 years. But the principles it rests on, of free markets and an opposition to government regulation and control, have existed from the very moment of creation.

Principles are timeless, policies have to evolve.

Quote
Are you really going to write off everyone who came before Reagan as a socialist? Calvin Coolidge?

One of my all time favorite Presidents -- certainly the best in the 20th century.

Quote
Robert Taft?

Too protectionist, but still a FF. Would be aghast to see you arguing for big government and price regulation.

Quote
Even Barry Goldwater?

Barry Goldwater was the freaking man who introduced me to the conservative movement, of course he's a hero of mine. I am not nearly the purist you think I am -- Goldwater was pro choice, and Coolidge and Taft were racist protectionists, but I still support them anyway. But what I really can't support is your brand of socialist cowardice.

You are the one who wants socialism, you said yourself you would rather the country be socialist then compromise on single point. You can talk all you want, but at the end of the day you are facilitating socialism. I wouldn't even be surprised if you become a socialist yourself, meanwhile, I will still be here trying save some form of capitalism only having to fight you from the other side.

Quote
Finally, the last thing I want to happen is see conservatism bend the knee for 28 to 40 years, because some people couldn't leave the gays alone and some others just couldn't get bast their ideological blinders for long enough to address the pressing economic despair.

You just keep saying that, as if the cycle won't repeat, or as if free markets are not the only proven and practiced way of genuinely helping people and supporting economic growth.

You are right the cycle will repeat because people are too set in their ways and the Democrats will have their multi-decade run of power. And any semblance of a pro-life movement will be dead, along with the second amendment.

Quote
What the GOP really needs is someone that can meld Hawley and Rand Paul together. Trump kind of achieved the same concept when you consider his FP positions and how he handled bathrooms while running against Cruz in Indiana and of course the real main course on Trump, which was immigration and trade.

You say that, as if we do not make up 95% of the party and the Hawleyites 5%, and as if even your boys like RINO Walter Jones are not regularly being replaced by real conservatives across the board lol.

That only lasts as long you control the money. Once you fail to deliver wins and their precious tax cuts, they will abandon you and start throwing money at anyone that can get back into power. They are corrupt and their only principle is the bottom line, but you don't have any qualms about harnessing its power for the sake of control and you know what, it makes your arguments ring hollow.


Quote
It had been my hope that John Kasich could pull this off as far back as 2013, a kind of combination of libertarianism on some areas and populism on others, but he fell into the Midwest McCain vibe and nobody really wants that at this point. I was the lone Kasich supporter on this forum for 2 years almost, when he was at like 1%, only to be horribly disappointed by late 2015.

John Kasich expanded Medicaid, advocated for big government, betrayed the cause of traditional marriage, and stands for...well, essentially nothing. He is a pathetic, feeble, loser, who lied to Ohio voters.
[/quote]

That is beyond well established by now, but that wasn't the case back then. At the time he was a fiscal hawk with a blue collar background.


Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2020, 10:48:04 AM »

Hawley terrifies me and I am convinced that he will become President. His record isn't spotless (e.g., being anti-RTW and signing onto ACA lawsuits) but he knows rhetorically how to paint himself as a worker friendly trad-con. He's been in the Senate for a year and a half and he's already become basically the Senate figurehead for the "traditional" social conservative movement. My sense is that there are plenty of people in the intellectual trad con world who already adore him (e.g., the press they've given him after the Bostick case).

I think he has much better odds of capturing the post-Trump GOP mantle than someone like Haley or Cotton. Haley is basically an establishment-foisted stiff who is squishy on Trump and will reek of an unpopular establishment. Cotton is hawkish, disdainful of the WWC outside of culture war red meat, and uncharismatic. If he didn't light himself on fire in 2016 I could actually see the Rubio of 2019/2020 being competitive in a national primary but people's memories aren't that short.
I think Haley has done a good job appealing to both sectors and represents a Nixon to Trump's Goldwater in the form of triangulated policies which may be necessary to win a primary and general. I'm not convinced the GOP is ready to go full Hawley yet since the party clearly hasn't let go of their traditional economics. It'll take a little longer. Hawley could still win but it's a much riskier choice, like Reagan in 1968 over 1980.

Haley just doesn't seem like a candidate the base will like at all. Maybe she could have been a more effective Rubio in 2016 but like a lot of other people in the GOP she got sucked into and shredded by the Trump administration. She has a stench of weak and effete party elite about her when the base wants a brawler. I am sure she will have a ton of institutional support when she runs, but I don't think that's enough to win a GOP primary anymore.

The GOP is clinging to economic conservatism now; we'll see how long that lasts. Trump was the first breach in the wall, but he's too lazy and self-serving to see a lot of his 2016 campaign to fruition. This means he basically left it up to the people around him, which is why you have a Ryan/Reince 2017 tax bill. Turns out the GOP base was really only rhetorically interested in the fiscal conservatism now (e.g., moralizing about welfare cheats rather than actually being opposed to welfare itself). But I think once Trump has laid out a blueprint for how a politician can differentiate himself from a despised party establishment, Hawley is already showing signs that he is interested in exploiting it while pulling a "no true Scotsman" against people associated with Trump (like Gorsuch).
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2020, 02:06:42 PM »

Hawley terrifies me and I am convinced that he will become President. His record isn't spotless (e.g., being anti-RTW and signing onto ACA lawsuits) but he knows rhetorically how to paint himself as a worker friendly trad-con. He's been in the Senate for a year and a half and he's already become basically the Senate figurehead for the "traditional" social conservative movement. My sense is that there are plenty of people in the intellectual trad con world who already adore him (e.g., the press they've given him after the Bostick case).

I think he has much better odds of capturing the post-Trump GOP mantle than someone like Haley or Cotton. Haley is basically an establishment-foisted stiff who is squishy on Trump and will reek of an unpopular establishment. Cotton is hawkish, disdainful of the WWC outside of culture war red meat, and uncharismatic. If he didn't light himself on fire in 2016 I could actually see the Rubio of 2019/2020 being competitive in a national primary but people's memories aren't that short.
I think Haley has done a good job appealing to both sectors and represents a Nixon to Trump's Goldwater in the form of triangulated policies which may be necessary to win a primary and general. I'm not convinced the GOP is ready to go full Hawley yet since the party clearly hasn't let go of their traditional economics. It'll take a little longer. Hawley could still win but it's a much riskier choice, like Reagan in 1968 over 1980.

Haley just doesn't seem like a candidate the base will like at all. Maybe she could have been a more effective Rubio in 2016 but like a lot of other people in the GOP she got sucked into and shredded by the Trump administration. She has a stench of weak and effete party elite about her when the base wants a brawler. I am sure she will have a ton of institutional support when she runs, but I don't think that's enough to win a GOP primary anymore.

The GOP is clinging to economic conservatism now; we'll see how long that lasts. Trump was the first breach in the wall, but he's too lazy and self-serving to see a lot of his 2016 campaign to fruition. This means he basically left it up to the people around him, which is why you have a Ryan/Reince 2017 tax bill. Turns out the GOP base was really only rhetorically interested in the fiscal conservatism now (e.g., moralizing about welfare cheats rather than actually being opposed to welfare itself). But I think once Trump has laid out a blueprint for how a politician can differentiate himself from a despised party establishment, Hawley is already showing signs that he is interested in exploiting it while pulling a "no true Scotsman" against people associated with Trump (like Gorsuch).

If anything the opposite of what Haley/Ryan said above is now true. The GOP is now very dependent on ex Bill Clinton voters or their children based on the demographic trends. Already in the 2000s you saw a clash over wills over this manifested in the fight over pork. I often cite Mark Sanford, something of a mentor to the real Haley, and his words in the mid 2000s. Talking about how a lot of social conservative Democrats joined in the Bush era because of life, guns and gays, but continued their big spending ways as Republicans.

The problem for this old school Southern fiscal conservatism is that the base for it is narrowing as college educated whites shift Democrat, and those areas become increasingly diverse, they are trending heavily Democratic. For both Newt Gingrich and Mark Sanford, their former house seats are now in Democratic hands, a similar story in Texas. This means that by extension Nikki Haley is losing her base as well. They won the battle on pork but lost the war because of demographic change.

What Trump demonstrated is that the base of the GOP has been fundamentally altered by 2016, the culmination ironically of both Newt Gingrich and Bush's strategies from the 1990s and 2000s, which was to make the GOP a heaven for the Christian Right, including the more populist among them while alienating non-socially conservative elements of the fiscally conservative base. Yes people like Newt, Sanford and so forth were Reaganites and conservative on both, this strategy had the effect of tipping the balance away from the Reaganite balance.

The next GOP President is likely to be possibly even a product of said populist elements or at least has his base primarily compose of such voters, who then manages to somehow augment that coalition enough to win a majority.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« 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 0.161 seconds with 11 queries.