Why the Hawley hype?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:29:44 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 7080 times)
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 #50 on: June 20, 2020, 05:00:39 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.

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.

I agree if we talk about libertarians running in general, but the most successful libertarian was Ron Paul, who used populism to create the new liberty movement. As a result, Ron had a hand in the Tea Party Movement (I consider him the founder/godfather), the alt right movement, and at least some hand in the growing movement to criticize Neoconservatism and Liberal Internationalism. Ron effectively was the bridge between Buchananites from the 90s, libertarians, and people dissatisfied with the Bush era. Rand distanced himself from the movement so I won't agree he did a decent job at being a libertarian populist, but it's definitely possible to do it. There's a bunch of articles about 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 #51 on: June 20, 2020, 06:30:04 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.

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.

I agree if we talk about libertarians running in general, but the most successful libertarian was Ron Paul, who used populism to create the new liberty movement. As a result, Ron had a hand in the Tea Party Movement (I consider him the founder/godfather), the alt right movement, and at least some hand in the growing movement to criticize Neoconservatism and Liberal Internationalism. Ron effectively was the bridge between Buchananites from the 90s, libertarians, and people dissatisfied with the Bush era. Rand distanced himself from the movement so I won't agree he did a decent job at being a libertarian populist, but it's definitely possible to do it. There's a bunch of articles about it.

I think the shift on foreign policy is certainly in large part because of Ron Paul and if nothing else that will be one of the liberty movement's lasting legacy at least for now.

Rand was always a mixed bag in that sense. You would think he was on to something and he would do something that just left you scratching your head. He has certainly used his influence to push several things in that direction though, such as surveillance.
Logged
Rover
Rookie
**
Posts: 177
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.18, S: -4.42

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: June 20, 2020, 07:55:36 PM »

@Octosteel and @ North Carolina Yankee you guys raise interesting points.
I don't know much about Hawley, but he seems like an interesting candidate for president, I'll look up "TR from a conservative's perspective", do you have a link to the book or is it on kindle?

@Octosteel regarding Trump I've always been skeptical about his ability to deliver any of his promises, because for one he has no governing experience. Though in all fairness to Trump, even let assume he tried to pass a big infrastructure package or a grand vocational apprenticeship program, the biggest obstacle like many have already mentioned would be House and Senate GOP.
Good thing Paul Ryan is no longer a house representative but still the freedom caucus has a significant presence in the house, I don't see them voting for an infrastructure program. They need to be booted out sooner rather than later.

The GOP has a big problem when it comes to healthcare, Obamacare isn't working well, there are a lot of people still uninsured and many people paying high premiums. What's the ideal plan?  I have no idea, but I don't think doing nothing works anymore. The party needs to assign a commission and study carefully what's works, it will take a while to formulate a plan that the party will broadly support and can be sold to the public.

I think Biden will probably win the presidency, the Democrats will keep the house and they might capture the senate. But I don't think Biden would be a happy president, his honeymoon will end the moment he's inaugurated. He'll be dealing with Covid19 economic and health fallout, criminal justice reform, Obamacare, and the left of the democratic party breathing under his neck. I also think he will be physically and mentally exhausted, he'll be inaugurated at the age of 78. He'll be having calls at day and night, meeting on weekdays and weekends, dealing with security, and every problem that arises, this takes a lot from any person. Just look at Obama when he inaugurated in 2008 and the last day of his presidency, he aged over 20 years in 8 years, his hair turned gray and wrinkles were visible all over his face. I'd be truly surprised if Biden was able to serve an entire term, without suffering great mental or physical breakdown, and I don't wish him that, I wish him a long, happy, healthy life.

The Democrats will be extremely joyful when they defeat Trump in November. Just like how many Republicans felt after 2016 winning the presidency by surprise, keeping the house and senate but 2 years later in 2018, the house was lost and the senate was narrowly kept, republicans realized very little been achieved, Obamacare hasn't been fixed or "repealed and replaced", Immigration reform hasn't been delivered and the tax cuts didn't really change public opinion much.

I suspect the Democrats will be equally disappointed by 2022. but who knows what will happen in the future.

I don't think the GOP will win in 2024 if they lose in 2020.
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 #53 on: June 20, 2020, 09:10:18 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.

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.

I agree if we talk about libertarians running in general, but the most successful libertarian was Ron Paul, who used populism to create the new liberty movement. As a result, Ron had a hand in the Tea Party Movement (I consider him the founder/godfather), the alt right movement, and at least some hand in the growing movement to criticize Neoconservatism and Liberal Internationalism. Ron effectively was the bridge between Buchananites from the 90s, libertarians, and people dissatisfied with the Bush era. Rand distanced himself from the movement so I won't agree he did a decent job at being a libertarian populist, but it's definitely possible to do it. There's a bunch of articles about it.

I think the shift on foreign policy is certainly in large part because of Ron Paul and if nothing else that will be one of the liberty movement's lasting legacy at least for now.

Rand was always a mixed bag in that sense. You would think he was on to something and he would do something that just left you scratching your head. He has certainly used his influence to push several things in that direction though, such as surveillance.

Rand definitely angered a lot of the Paul coalition. He was right about spreading ideas to minority voters but he nearly abandoned his libertarian base by doing that.
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 #54 on: June 20, 2020, 09:25:04 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.

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.

I agree if we talk about libertarians running in general, but the most successful libertarian was Ron Paul, who used populism to create the new liberty movement. As a result, Ron had a hand in the Tea Party Movement (I consider him the founder/godfather), the alt right movement, and at least some hand in the growing movement to criticize Neoconservatism and Liberal Internationalism. Ron effectively was the bridge between Buchananites from the 90s, libertarians, and people dissatisfied with the Bush era. Rand distanced himself from the movement so I won't agree he did a decent job at being a libertarian populist, but it's definitely possible to do it. There's a bunch of articles about it.

I think the shift on foreign policy is certainly in large part because of Ron Paul and if nothing else that will be one of the liberty movement's lasting legacy at least for now.

Rand was always a mixed bag in that sense. You would think he was on to something and he would do something that just left you scratching your head. He has certainly used his influence to push several things in that direction though, such as surveillance.

Rand definitely angered a lot of the Paul coalition. He was right about spreading ideas to minority voters but he nearly abandoned his libertarian base by doing that.

Attempting something novel is great, how you actually put it into practice now that is the real difficulty.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2020, 10:50:45 PM »

Hawley's a pretty meh candidate in his own right. Where he excels is that he's one of the few Republicans to understand that unrestrained capitalism has failed and that you need to actually offer economic concessions to the working-class beyond general race-baiting, and that winning over those kind of voters is the only way the party remains relevant medium-term. Trump also understood this in 2016 but was too lazy/didn't care enough to follow through when actually President.
Logged
Octowakandi
Octosteel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 316
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2020, 10:53:02 PM »

@Octosteel and @ North Carolina Yankee you guys raise interesting points.
I don't know much about Hawley, but he seems like an interesting candidate for president, I'll look up "TR from a conservative's perspective", do you have a link to the book or is it on kindle?

@Octosteel regarding Trump I've always been skeptical about his ability to deliver any of his promises, because for one he has no governing experience. Though in all fairness to Trump, even let assume he tried to pass a big infrastructure package or a grand vocational apprenticeship program, the biggest obstacle like many have already mentioned would be House and Senate GOP.
Good thing Paul Ryan is no longer a house representative but still the freedom caucus has a significant presence in the house, I don't see them voting for an infrastructure program. They need to be booted out sooner rather than later.

The GOP has a big problem when it comes to healthcare, Obamacare isn't working well, there are a lot of people still uninsured and many people paying high premiums. What's the ideal plan?  I have no idea, but I don't think doing nothing works anymore. The party needs to assign a commission and study carefully what's works, it will take a while to formulate a plan that the party will broadly support and can be sold to the public.

I think Biden will probably win the presidency, the Democrats will keep the house and they might capture the senate. But I don't think Biden would be a happy president, his honeymoon will end the moment he's inaugurated. He'll be dealing with Covid19 economic and health fallout, criminal justice reform, Obamacare, and the left of the democratic party breathing under his neck. I also think he will be physically and mentally exhausted, he'll be inaugurated at the age of 78. He'll be having calls at day and night, meeting on weekdays and weekends, dealing with security, and every problem that arises, this takes a lot from any person. Just look at Obama when he inaugurated in 2008 and the last day of his presidency, he aged over 20 years in 8 years, his hair turned gray and wrinkles were visible all over his face. I'd be truly surprised if Biden was able to serve an entire term, without suffering great mental or physical breakdown, and I don't wish him that, I wish him a long, happy, healthy life.

The Democrats will be extremely joyful when they defeat Trump in November. Just like how many Republicans felt after 2016 winning the presidency by surprise, keeping the house and senate but 2 years later in 2018, the house was lost and the senate was narrowly kept, republicans realized very little been achieved, Obamacare hasn't been fixed or "repealed and replaced", Immigration reform hasn't been delivered and the tax cuts didn't really change public opinion much.

I suspect the Democrats will be equally disappointed by 2022. but who knows what will happen in the future.

I don't think the GOP will win in 2024 if they lose in 2020.
It's called Theodore Roosevelt: Preacher of Righteousness. It's available on JSTOR for free if you have a university or library account.

I think the Freedom Caucus isn't the issue. They know that trump's base is their district's base and they are aware now (they weren't before 2016) that they weren't elected for their economic policies. That's why Mulaney the budget hawk is adding trillions to the budget and Mark Meadows is the Chief of Staff. The real problem is the general leadership and average GOP House member that still have their brains in the Reagan era. But I think if you have a strong republican president with a populist agenda he campaigned on, none of them want to lose their primary enough to oppose it.

Oh I think Biden will have a very hard time. The left is united against trump and will break into a lot of infighting once Biden is in charge if he's not everything they dreamed of and Biden will be less adept at coalition management to Obama who could be all things to all people. Biden is older than Paul von Hindenburg when he was elected President. It's not going to be fun for him


I feel the GOP can pull it together by 2024. They have more of a unifying message that they realize has popular support than they ever did in 2008 or even 2010 when they won their majority. Because I don't think the 2022 GOP will be waging war against it self the way it was doing in 2010.
Logged
Rover
Rookie
**
Posts: 177
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.18, S: -4.42

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: June 21, 2020, 12:04:27 AM »

It's called Theodore Roosevelt: Preacher of Righteousness. It's available on JSTOR for free if you have a university or library account.

I think the Freedom Caucus isn't the issue. They know that trump's base is their district's base and they are aware now (they weren't before 2016) that they weren't elected for their economic policies. That's why Mulaney the budget hawk is adding trillions to the budget and Mark Meadows is the Chief of Staff. The real problem is the general leadership and average GOP House member that still have their brains in the Reagan era. But I think if you have a strong republican president with a populist agenda he campaigned on, none of them want to lose their primary enough to oppose it.

Oh I think Biden will have a very hard time. The left is united against trump and will break into a lot of infighting once Biden is in charge if he's not everything they dreamed of and Biden will be less adept at coalition management to Obama who could be all things to all people. Biden is older than Paul von Hindenburg when he was elected President. It's not going to be fun for him


I feel the GOP can pull it together by 2024. They have more of a unifying message that they realize has popular support than they ever did in 2008 or even 2010 when they won their majority. Because I don't think the 2022 GOP will be waging war against it self the way it was doing in 2010.

Thanks, I'll read it soon.
I strongly agree with you in regards to GOP leadership. The GOP establishment does recognize that the nation changed a lot demographically since the 1980s, but they fail or perhaps choose not to acknowledge that the priorities of the voters have changed and the GOP base has changed as well. Since 1988 the republican party has not won a majority of the vote except once in 2004.
The GOP until Romney kept running on the 1980s platform. It isn't a winning strategy anyone. I do think a time in the wilderness might help the GOP.
I strongly believe what would really help most is reforming campaign spending, Koch brothers and other GOP donors do not represent average republican voters and have a lot of influence over GOP candidates. GOP candidates spend a lot of time trying to appease both the donors and the voters and they end up in an impossible position.
The primaries also need to be more rigorous. Candidates like Marjorie Greene shouldn't be allowed to run on a Republican primary race in the first place.
Let also be honest, GOP has a problem with a significant chunk of its primary voters. They elect extremist that couldn't win a general contest.

I think it will be interesting to watch how Joe Biden governs and how he will handle different factions within his party.
Logged
UkrainianRepublican
Mr.Marat
Rookie
**
Posts: 85
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: June 21, 2020, 01:06:50 AM »

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.
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 #59 on: June 21, 2020, 02:31:42 AM »

Quote
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.

We can't beat socialism by imposing policies that don't work. Giving into the mob, giving away our principles -- we've seen how it works. If we know raising taxes and hurting economic growth reduces opportunity and will just hurt the very people you're trying to convince to stay away from socialism, why are you endorsing that?

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

Considering every single politician you endorse is advocating for exactly those tariffs, perhaps you ought to rethink that.

Quote
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".

Bullsh**t. You spend half your time talking about how capitalism and free markets causes husbands to beat their wives, then claim to be defending capitalism? High tariffs and taxes and government regulation and control are the opposite of what you're now claiming to support.

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

Yes, and you can't have a dinosaur without the egg. The point is both cycles work together lol.

Quote
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.

Because the two projects you listed are wasteful too lol.

Quote
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.

You just totally ignored the question lmao, which was "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
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.

Are you incapable of reading what I actually said? My point was that while neither Romney nor Bush is my kind of conservative, I still accept them as part of the conservative movement because they are genuine conservatives -- unlike you.

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

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

But your plans would unintentionally do exactly that, by giving up half the game before we even start and then surrendering once the battle has just barely begun. And hell, even if you succeeded, your corporatist policies would just attack the very people you're trying to help and harm our cause.

Quote
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.

Are we talking about Denver Riggleman? No. We are talking about how I think you and politicians who share your beliefs ought to be voted against up and down the ballot, and that I think Josh Hawley ought to be primaried right back to the AGs office. And PLEASE don't compare yourself to Riggleman, a man who, while I opposed him, had real principles and courage instead of cowardice.

Quote
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.

You are the danger our Founders warned against -- the man who would sacrifice not just his, but all of ours, liberty for a little temporary safety.

Quote
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.

Threats for the truth? Abuse of position? Disgusting.

Quote
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.

"the left"

Put those compass results up there. Please.

Quote
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.

I am sorry to hear to about your mothers passing.

I strongly disagree however, with your assertion that you do not back down from fights. You may not think of it in those terms, but that is clearly what your ideology about. Its even clear in how you speak about it -- not in terms of right and wrong like Grassroots does, but in terms of how we will lose if we don't side with you.

Quote
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.

Yes, you are out of touch. You may not be out of touch in the same way that some Washington insider is, but you and your beliefs are completely out of touch. You speak of economic despair -- but when (pre-Corona) 68% of people say it is "a good time" to find a job, just 19% think the economy is the most important problem we face today, 62% say economic conditions are good or excellent, and 59% still think it's even getting better on top of that, that's just totally out of common with the average American. You have an unrealistic conception of what Americans actually think today.

Quote
Principles are timeless, policies have to evolve.

But you aren't just abandoning policies, you're abandoning principles too.

Quote
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 sid

Lmao, what?

I am 100% okay with compromise if it is necessary to save capitalism. I intend to run for office one day, and when I do you will not catch me calling for all the same policies I might personally believe in. But there is a difference between surrendering unwinnable fights and winnable ones, and it is one you seemingly fail to comprehend.

Quote
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.

The "cycle" I refer to is the cycle of political defeat and surrender you would usher in just as it was in the 1950s and 60s with your forefathers, the men of the dime store new deal, not some vague idea in your head. I am Barry Goldwater; you are Nelson Rockerfeller.

Quote
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.

Are you really calling 95% of the Republican Party corrupt? Are you seriously accusing me of being corrupt? And you have the gall to raise a stink about personal issues elsewhere? I favor the total abolition of corporate welfare. I favor the ending of all tax loopholes. I favor a constitutional ban on (already unconstitutional, but sadly not explict enough) bailouts. I stand for my principles because they are right, not for the very power I want to RID the government of but that you want to expand. Men who live in glass houses should not throw stones at men who live in steel ones.

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.

That is true -- I once had high hopes for him as well. I wonder what changed.
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 #60 on: June 21, 2020, 02:43:25 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.

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).

That's just quite simply a media mischaracterization, and it's part of how Democrats want to portray Trump supporters. Admitting that we are either truly fiscally or socially conservative and have real principles on both fronts makes us too relatable, whereas painting us as MAGA flag flying bumpkins who are part of "the cult of Trump" doesn't. Please, and I mean this honestly -- go out there. Attend a county GOP meeting. See who we are. Talk to actual Republican voters. Stop getting your stereotypes from Atlas/the Media -- come learn on your own terms, and make up your own judgement. If you really want to understand American politics today, its the least you can do.
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 #61 on: June 21, 2020, 02:50:46 AM »

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

Me too. I have Canadian friends -- they vote third party because the "Conservatives" are pro-choice. I always pledged to myself that I would do the same if Republicans ever started doing that too. Just as I would never vote for a pro-choice candidate, I will never vote for a high tax, big government, regulating petty tyrant like Josh Hawley.
Logged
Nightcore Nationalist
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,827


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2020, 03:58:05 AM »

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy.  
Logged
UkrainianRepublican
Mr.Marat
Rookie
**
Posts: 85
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2020, 04:15:35 AM »
« Edited: June 21, 2020, 04:38:39 AM by UkrainianRepublican »

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less Undecided
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 #64 on: June 21, 2020, 04:39:53 AM »
« Edited: June 21, 2020, 04:44:26 AM by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
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.

We can't beat socialism by imposing policies that don't work. Giving into the mob, giving away our principles -- we've seen how it works. If we know raising taxes and hurting economic growth reduces opportunity and will just hurt the very people you're trying to convince to stay away from socialism, why are you endorsing that?

Where did I endorse raising taxes? I oppose deficit funded tax cuts, because interest and inflation also function as a tax and hurt economic growth, but I have not supported tax hikes for the sake of tax hikes. Though I would entertain taxes for the simple purpose of painfully showing people the hard way that the programs they want aren't free and that they can't just "cut foreign aid" to cover it all. If we had a balanced budget amendment, they would be far more discerning.

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

Considering every single politician you endorse is advocating for exactly those tariffs, perhaps you ought to rethink that.

Who?
Quote
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".

Bullsh**t. You spend half your time talking about how capitalism and free markets causes husbands to beat their wives, then claim to be defending capitalism? High tariffs and taxes and government regulation and control are the opposite of what you're now claiming to support.

I support regulated capitalism, I do not support laissez faire. Economic dislocation does destroy families, I have seen it first hand. Perhaps you should get out of your high end suburb and see what reality is like in the ex mill towns right here in NC.

Classical Liberalism and Capitalism are a form of liberalism and therefore it tends to be disruptive. The fact that growth and improvement requires such dislocation and that such a system does better than any alternative in creating said wealth means that such disruptive forces become necessary evils, but then it is incumbent on policymakers to mitigate said disruptive forces so families can grow and prosper and children have a stable environment to be raised in.

This is not a hard concept to accept, nor is it a stretch to understand why a conservative alarmed by the destruction of the family, society and the community would turn their guns on all forms of liberalism including the classical one, for all of the disruptive effects that liberalism as a unit has caused to traditional societal bedrocks.

Most every anti-gay conservative has identified the same problem as real, they have just misidentified the primary cause of the decline of the family. It is not the gay agenda, it is the decline of stable middle class jobs. And you know what naturally occurs as a result of these trends, dependency on Government entitlements. It is no accident that New Deal Democrats combined free trade support with mass wealth redistribution. Rather a regulation that preserves 20 million high paying jobs, then 20 million people going on welfare.


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

Yes, and you can't have a dinosaur without the egg. The point is both cycles work together lol.

So you acknowledge that the economic is constantly evolving. We finally agree on something.

Quote
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.

Because the two projects you listed are wasteful too lol.

How so?

Quote
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.

You just totally ignored the question lmao, which was "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."

No I didn't. In some areas suburbs existed but were expanded afterwards, in others they were created fresh. This is a long post, so I shorted it to "varies by area", which is the correct answer.

Quote
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.

Are you incapable of reading what I actually said? My point was that while neither Romney nor Bush is my kind of conservative, I still accept them as part of the conservative movement because they are genuine conservatives -- unlike you.

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

You are not a conservative, you are a liberal. You just think that because it is a liberalism from eons ago that it gives you a get out of jail free card.

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

But your plans would unintentionally do exactly that, by giving up half the game before we even start and then surrendering once the battle has just barely begun. And hell, even if you succeeded, your corporatist policies would just attack the very people you're trying to help and harm our cause.

First you accuse me of boot licking to Washington insiders and now you accuse me of corporatism, I have been railing against favorable tax treatment for corporations and many other forms of corporate welfare for nearly a decade. I endorsed most of the tea party candidates because of this very point. Roll Eyes Who were you supporting in 2006 and 2010, might I ask?

Quote
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.

Are we talking about Denver Riggleman? No. We are talking about how I think you and politicians who share your beliefs ought to be voted against up and down the ballot, and that I think Josh Hawley ought to be primaried right back to the AGs office. And PLEASE don't compare yourself to Riggleman, a man who, while I opposed him, had real principles and courage instead of cowardice.

Obfuscation of the original point and I never compared myself to Riggleman. Also I have never endorsed Hawley, I have just have been trying to explain the motivations for his points and approach on certain matters. I actually disagree with statist turn on some other of his policies so it is a mixed bag, but he is better than Cotton in my opinion who is a complete basket case.

Quote
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.

You are the danger our Founders warned against -- the man who would sacrifice not just his, but all of ours, liberty for a little temporary safety.

What the hell are you talking about, I support reigning in the surveillance state, and avoiding foreign wars, which in every case enlarges the government by nature?

Quote
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.

Threats for the truth? Abuse of position? Disgusting.

Ah the martyrdom complex again. I am trying to give advise that you should take. Quit with the name calling and the personal insults before you do it to someone who won't hold back.


Quote
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.

"the left"

Put those compass results up there. Please.

I don't get my principles from an online test.

Quote
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.

I am sorry to hear to about your mothers passing.

I strongly disagree however, with your assertion that you do not back down from fights. You may not think of it in those terms, but that is clearly what your ideology about. Its even clear in how you speak about it -- not in terms of right and wrong like Grassroots does, but in terms of how we will lose if we don't side with you.

Of what good is it to shout how pro-life you are louder than the next guy. Until you get into power the killing of life continues unimpeded, but hey at least you can pat yourself on the back that you stood by your principles and didn't waver, meanwhile another 40 million die. I hope when it is all over, you guys are satisfied with your only accomplishment, grand standing.

Quote
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.

Yes, you are out of touch. You may not be out of touch in the same way that some Washington insider is, but you and your beliefs are completely out of touch. You speak of economic despair -- but when (pre-Corona) 68% of people say it is "a good time" to find a job, just 19% think the economy is the most important problem we face today, 62% say economic conditions are good or excellent, and 59% still think it's even getting better on top of that, that's just totally out of common with the average American. You have an unrealistic conception of what Americans actually think today.

People said the same in 2007 and in 2000, then the bottom fell out then too. For people like you the economy is doing well, for people like my family, we are making the same pay we were in the 1990s, with much higher prices. The current GOP establishment's policies serve to benefit people who are largely either Democrats or becoming Democrats in high end places like San Francisco, meanwhile the actual base of the GOP hasn't seen a pay rise in 20 years. They said go to college and people ended up loaded up with debt and making peanuts with fields now saturated beyond support with degrees (I didn't borrow a dime to get my degree). They said move and then you move and you find the same problems that you moved away from. Then they tell coal miners to learn to code.

It is no wonder that these people voted for Trump, a problem I warned about in 2012: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=146557.msg3145166#msg3145166

The only people I am out of touch with, is rich suburbanites.

Quote
Principles are timeless, policies have to evolve.

But you aren't just abandoning policies, you're abandoning principles too.

Not my principles of societal stability, responsible finance, constitutionalism and protecting the unborn.

Quote
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 sid

Lmao, what?

I am 100% okay with compromise if it is necessary to save capitalism. I intend to run for office one day, and when I do you will not catch me calling for all the same policies I might personally believe in. But there is a difference between surrendering unwinnable fights and winnable ones, and it is one you seemingly fail to comprehend.

So you are a hypocrite. Balls up and put your money where your mouth is.

Quote
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.

The "cycle" I refer to is the cycle of political defeat and surrender you would usher in just as it was in the 1950s and 60s with your forefathers, the men of the dime store new deal, not some vague idea in your head. I am Barry Goldwater; you are Nelson Rockerfeller.


The Rockefellers supported interventionism, I favor restraint. They favored the police and surveillance states, I don't. They were largely pro-choice and supported banning Assault Weapons, I oppose abortion and oppose AWB. The Rockefellers supported the neoliberal consensus on trade, I don't.

You guys are the new Rockefellers, and Supply Side economics is the new Keynesianism. That is the real cycle, you win the revolution and you become the new establishment for the next revolution to topple when your answers fail to address the current economic misery. Welcome to the next revolution. That is the real cycle.


Quote
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.

Are you really calling 95% of the Republican Party corrupt? Are you seriously accusing me of being corrupt? And you have the gall to raise a stink about personal issues elsewhere? I favor the total abolition of corporate welfare. I favor the ending of all tax loopholes. I favor a constitutional ban on (already unconstitutional, but sadly not explict enough) bailouts. I stand for my principles because they are right, not for the very power I want to RID the government of but that you want to expand. Men who live in glass houses should not throw stones at men who live in steel ones.

You are not 95% of the Republican Party, you are the former base, which is dwindling in influence and control and that is why Trump beat Cruz in 2016. If that weren't the case then Josh Hawley would be positioning himself as Cruz 2.0. The only reason he is taking this path is because that is where the fresh meat is. Put Paul Ryan or Nikki Haley up for the nomination and they would get destroyed by whoever the Trumpist faction endorses.

I am talking about corporate donors who are propping up, you Paul Ryan type guys. Once you can no longer deliver victory with your model, they will abandon you for whoever can win. Money chases power always. Money heavily backed the Rockefellers until they realized they were doomed and then it flooded toward Reaganism.

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.

That is true -- I once had high hopes for him as well. I wonder what changed.

He hired McCain's reject staffers and tried to rebrand himself as the Midwest John McCain.
Logged
Nightcore Nationalist
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,827


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: June 21, 2020, 04:43:14 AM »


Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just despise those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just don't want reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less Undecided


Why, though?  I mean, it doesn't bother me if you feel that way, but that's not a wise stance for any political party to make.  The US isn't like most of Europe which has several smaller parties with narrow, even niche coalitions.  The GOP has to work within the confines of the 2 party system.

Also, it would be a brazen mis-characterization to assume that the vast majority of 4 year degree voters are staunch supply siders and budget hawks.  The keynesian neo-liberalism that is the establishment norm (which most of these voters and the majority of the country supports) is not some right-wing view.  They probably heavily supported Reaganomics in 1985, and maybe even 1995, but the economics of Sowell/Friedman/Rothbard (which I've read alot in 2013-2015) are a minority position in the US, and has been for some period of time.
Logged
UkrainianRepublican
Mr.Marat
Rookie
**
Posts: 85
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: June 21, 2020, 05:03:03 AM »

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just despise those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just don't want reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less Undecided


Why, though?  I mean, it doesn't bother me if you feel that way, but that's not a wise stance for any political party to make.  The US isn't like most of Europe which has several smaller parties with narrow, even niche coalitions.  The GOP has to work within the confines of the 2 party system.

Also, it would be a brazen mis-characterization to assume that the vast majority of 4 year degree voters are staunch supply siders and budget hawks.  The keynesian neo-liberalism that is the establishment norm (which most of these voters and the majority of the country supports) is not some right-wing view.  They probably heavily supported Reaganomics in 1985, and maybe even 1995, but the economics of Sowell/Friedman/Rothbard (which I've read alot in 2013-2015) are a minority position in the US, and has been for some period of time.


Just it hurts me to realise that in 10-year time  people with views like me (I am looking at you, OSR and Mark Meadows) will be a minority that won't have any political representation.
And nothing can be done to stop this tide at all this time. Reagan Revolution era in Conservativism unfortunately nears it's end.

Well, I guess Libertarian Party would be cracking around 6-8%  by 2036.  Tongue
Logged
Nightcore Nationalist
Okthisisnotepic.
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,827


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: June 21, 2020, 05:14:55 AM »



Just it hurts me to realise that in 10-year time  people with views like me (I am looking at you, OSR and Mark Meadows) will be a minority that won't have any political representation.
And nothing can be done to stop this tide at all this time. Reagan Revolution era in Conservativism unfortunately nears it's end.

Well, I guess Libertarian Party would be cracking around 6-8%  by 2036.  Tongue

I know that feeling.  I was PO'ed for a long time at the GOP from around 2012-2015 for failing to follow Rand Paul's path in taking Tea Party conservatism, and taking a stance against the Bush/Obama surveillance state, the war on drugs, and the Bush/Obama interventionist foreign policy.  That could have turned the GOP post-Bush into a real juggernaut, what the hell were they thinking?  FTR, I voted Johnson in both 2016 and 2012 (I had only turned 18 7 months before that election.
Logged
UkrainianRepublican
Mr.Marat
Rookie
**
Posts: 85
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: June 21, 2020, 05:21:45 AM »



Just it hurts me to realise that in 10-year time  people with views like me (I am looking at you, OSR and Mark Meadows) will be a minority that won't have any political representation.
And nothing can be done to stop this tide at all this time. Reagan Revolution era in Conservativism unfortunately nears it's end.

Well, I guess Libertarian Party would be cracking around 6-8%  by 2036.  Tongue

I know that feeling.  I was PO'ed for a long time at the GOP from around 2012-2015 for failing to follow Rand Paul's path in taking Tea Party conservatism, and taking a stance against the Bush/Obama surveillance state, the war on drugs, and the Bush/Obama interventionist foreign policy.  That could have turned the GOP post-Bush into a real juggernaut, what the hell were they thinking?  FTR, I voted Johnson in both 2016 and 2012 (I had only turned 18 7 months before that election.
[/quote]

How tables have turned..... Ironically,  I am a neocon.
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 #69 on: June 21, 2020, 12:03:17 PM »

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just despise those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just don't want reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less Undecided


Why, though?  I mean, it doesn't bother me if you feel that way, but that's not a wise stance for any political party to make.  The US isn't like most of Europe which has several smaller parties with narrow, even niche coalitions.  The GOP has to work within the confines of the 2 party system.

Also, it would be a brazen mis-characterization to assume that the vast majority of 4 year degree voters are staunch supply siders and budget hawks.  The keynesian neo-liberalism that is the establishment norm (which most of these voters and the majority of the country supports) is not some right-wing view.  They probably heavily supported Reaganomics in 1985, and maybe even 1995, but the economics of Sowell/Friedman/Rothbard (which I've read alot in 2013-2015) are a minority position in the US, and has been for some period of time.


Just it hurts me to realise that in 10-year time  people with views like me (I am looking at you, OSR and Mark Meadows) will be a minority that won't have any political representation.
And nothing can be done to stop this tide at all this time. Reagan Revolution era in Conservativism unfortunately nears it's end.

Well, I guess Libertarian Party would be cracking around 6-8%  by 2036.  Tongue

OSR will be just fine, he understands Reagan the man and how he was able to build a strong winning coalition. You have to bring everyone along for the ride and work to make sure they all benefit. Once you start engaging in this game of I don't understand miners therefore I cannot share a party with you, the game is already up. Reagan figured out how to get both suburban bankers and the small town factory worker under the same roof. I might be out of touch with yours and Haley/Ryan's mentality, but I would never be caught dead refusing to share a party with you guys.

The funny part is I am not actually a populist, truth of the matter is populism scares the hell out of me as a Burkean Conservative and a believer in responsible finance. But if you don't address pressing needs, the people will find someone who will. Because conservatives failed to answer the dislocations caused by Free Trade, we ended up with our first protectionist President in decades and it can always get worse. If you really want to avert the next Trump, you have to make sure that your economic policies benefit the whole base, not one part (which is being squeezed by demographic change and liberalization) while telling the larger one to "suck it up" and learn to code.

Reagan understood how to do that. He put quotas on Japanese automakers, compromised with the Democrats to extend the life of social security and at the time ending stagflation benefited everyone not just suburbanites.
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 #70 on: June 21, 2020, 12:07:31 PM »



Just it hurts me to realise that in 10-year time  people with views like me (I am looking at you, OSR and Mark Meadows) will be a minority that won't have any political representation.
And nothing can be done to stop this tide at all this time. Reagan Revolution era in Conservativism unfortunately nears it's end.

Well, I guess Libertarian Party would be cracking around 6-8%  by 2036.  Tongue

I know that feeling.  I was PO'ed for a long time at the GOP from around 2012-2015 for failing to follow Rand Paul's path in taking Tea Party conservatism, and taking a stance against the Bush/Obama surveillance state, the war on drugs, and the Bush/Obama interventionist foreign policy.  That could have turned the GOP post-Bush into a real juggernaut, what the hell were they thinking?  FTR, I voted Johnson in both 2016 and 2012 (I had only turned 18 7 months before that election.

I am fairly confident that those three things will gain strength, we have already seen part of that via Trumpism at least on the surveillance state. It is difficult to remake a party overnight. Usually you have to capture the zeitgeist of the younger members of said party and then wait a few decades.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,218


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: June 21, 2020, 12:32:17 PM »

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just despise those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just don't want reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less Undecided


Why, though?  I mean, it doesn't bother me if you feel that way, but that's not a wise stance for any political party to make.  The US isn't like most of Europe which has several smaller parties with narrow, even niche coalitions.  The GOP has to work within the confines of the 2 party system.

Also, it would be a brazen mis-characterization to assume that the vast majority of 4 year degree voters are staunch supply siders and budget hawks.  The keynesian neo-liberalism that is the establishment norm (which most of these voters and the majority of the country supports) is not some right-wing view.  They probably heavily supported Reaganomics in 1985, and maybe even 1995, but the economics of Sowell/Friedman/Rothbard (which I've read alot in 2013-2015) are a minority position in the US, and has been for some period of time.


Just it hurts me to realise that in 10-year time  people with views like me (I am looking at you, OSR and Mark Meadows) will be a minority that won't have any political representation.
And nothing can be done to stop this tide at all this time. Reagan Revolution era in Conservativism unfortunately nears it's end.

Well, I guess Libertarian Party would be cracking around 6-8%  by 2036.  Tongue
OSR actually isn't too dissapointed by whats happening in policy, hes more anti-trump as in Trump the man.
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 #72 on: June 21, 2020, 02:39:36 PM »

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy. 

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less Undecided


Honestly man, that's a really bad attitude. You don't have to be snobbish to be a conservative -- miners and other blue collar workers can advocate for and believe in free market and oppose government regulation (which actually disproportionately affects them by hurting them and killing their jobs) just as much as suburbanites can.
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 #73 on: June 21, 2020, 04:34:17 PM »

I'd  say simply. If Hawley manages to get nomination and his brand of populism takes over GOP, I will probably stop recognizing  myself as Republican. For me it's  economics or bust. I don't  think that surrendering economical issues for social is a viable path to go forward.

Although I am a foreigner, so, my word isn't  that much of say in this debate.

I understand your point of view (I was a libertarian from 2012-16 and a classical liberal up till a year ago), but to the point that NC Yankee has been saying this entire thread- The GOP has no path forward if it clings to tea-party supply side doctrine, as so many educated, suburban middle and upper middle class voters have left the GOP*  (most of whom aren't coming back) The GOP has to adopt more pro-worker stances to have a chance of building a coalition that can actually win elections and win over new voters who would otherwise refuse to vote for "the wall-st party" (which is a very silly narrative, but lots of people still believe it).

You don't have to go into hardcore Hawley-Tucker territory.  But the party has to move in that direction (which Trump mostly failed to do) in order to construct a winning coalition.


*Many nevertrumper republicans like to infer that Trump is 100% responsible for this trend and that until 2017 the GOP had rock-solid Suburban support.  Although Trump certainly accelerated this trend and deserves much of the blame, the trend has been happening since at least Obama's first term and can probably be traced back to the last days of the Bush era, in no small part due to social issues, the drug war, and the wars in the middle east.  The GOP didn't get the message after Obama won in 2008, and the 2012 autopsy failed to reign in the neoconservative foreign policy.  

Then, I guess, I am going to surely leave my sympathies to GOP aside. I simply don't want to be a part of party cruicial part of which consists of WWC and Blue Collars. I just can't bear those people for their social and economic stances. Being myself from upper-middle class family by standards of my country and a freshman college student who plans to live in suburb and being middle-class like my parents, I just сan't reach out to them. It's above me. Me and some miner HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO JOINT INTERESTS. And that's not changing.

If I ever end up in USA I will be voting for Libertarian Party. Sadly neoconservativism and Reaganism are dying  and I won't find a place for me in both parties in a decade or even less Undecided


Honestly man, that's a really bad attitude. You don't have to be snobbish to be a conservative -- miners and other blue collar workers can advocate for and believe in free market and oppose government regulation (which actually disproportionately affects them by hurting them and killing their jobs) just as much as suburbanites can.

Regulations harm all energy production for obvious reasons, but the real killer for coal is not regulations it is natural gas.

You will have noticed, that Trump has at various instances tried to prop up the coal industry with the support of both the owners and the miners. I do not support this action.

What should be done is an economic development program for Appalachia that combines tax, trade, infrastructure and skilled trades, without favoritism to specific firms.  The problem is this is considered "Industrial Policy" and even industrial planning and anything that doesn't fit the standard movement conservative boiler plate is off the table, leaving only wild men with extreme ideas to cater to this region and its votes. Which means they are going to keep voting for unstable, incompetent renegades as opposed to qualified Conservatives who if they need to break something at least understand how to minimize the damage. Trump, he just takes a sledge hammer to everything in his way.
Logged
Rover
Rookie
**
Posts: 177
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.18, S: -4.42

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: June 21, 2020, 06:02:21 PM »

Coal industry been struggling all around the world since the 1970s, it been happening in Northern France, southern Belgium, UK and in the Appalachia.

People are turning their back against coal for many reasons, back in 70s and 80s coal mines were becoming economically unviable and later the environmental issues were being taken seriously.

Coal mining also been proven deeply harmful to miners health-wise. Many miners were contracting pneumoconiosis, silicosis, diffuse fibrosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I watched a documentary a while ago of old miners in France discussing the health impacts breathing all toxic fumes did to their lungs and health, none of them wanted their kids to follow suit and work in the mines.

Sad thing, much of those mining communities won't ever recover, those mining towns were built around coal. Once the mines are closed the community falls apart, young people move away for better job opportunities and old people are left behind.
Unless a new industry is established, there is no future to appalachian coalfield towns. This is not unique to the coal industry. It been happening to other industries, i.e. the copper industry in michigan peninsula, the iron ores of Northern minnesota. Once the industry is gone, all is left are ghost towns.

There is no future for coal and once Joe Biden gets elected we will join the Paris accord again, many environmental regulations will have to be imposed causing many coal mines to close.
I don't agree with Hillary Clinton, particularly don't agree with how she said “We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business". But I do agree with her in investing heavily with renewable and green energy in the Appalachia.
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 0.136 seconds with 11 queries.