1 million more Texans have registered to vote since Beto/Cruz race

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

Frankly, it sounds like you have already lost faith in democracy.

I'll say this.  America has not yet gotten to the point of being a 1 party state, not even close.  I hope that isn't our destiny.  But if we are destined to become that Id much rather it be a right wing one party state than a left wing one. TX>CA

This is overwrought.  We didn't become a 1 party state after Reagan-Bush or FDR-Truman or the Republicans going 7 for 9 prior to FDR.  The opposition party simply adjusted their platform to pick voters off from the ruling majority.  You just don't seem to have any interest in doing that.  Even in the extreme scenario, Republicans would come back even from 8 years of Bernie followed by 8 years of AOC.  It would likely require a "the era of small government is over" speech from the next winning Republican nominee (consider that the British conservatives have held power a significant majority of the time since the 1945 Labour revolution, but they have left the NHS, etc. in place), but I have no doubt they would come back eventually.   

Partisan media has condition many conservatives to view its present form as the only form. This is part and parcel to the purity enforcement (which I would note is rather Soviet by default) and that then extents to historical revisionism that reevaluates the past through a historical lens (which is also rather similar to how Marxism treats history).

The problem is that this concept of ideology defies reality and human nature. If humans are evolving and gov't is naturally limited in power, then it unquestionably follows that politics is beyond the ability of resisting the sands of time, regardless of how forcefully rigid you exclaim your views, if that worked Ted Cruz would be President. Instead, the sands of time pick you up and move you to some place else.

The present political alignment is a snap shot in time. It is exists for a singular moment and like everything else in life, once it is over it is not coming back, so enjoy it.

In fairness I used to feel alarmed about these matters though not quite as much as BWP is. This changed when I finally came to understand politics as an organic process that adapts, evolves, dies and is reborn. Lets face it even aside from the partisan media, we do a horrendous job teaching this to people and thus leaving people susceptible to the view that there take on an ideology is the only take for all of history, which leads to the bending of history to support this warped view as I referenced above. Also, it should be noted that this problem exists on the left as well. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, the irony:

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

In one breath, he laments about half the country being ignored by politicians leading to the end of democracy, and in the other says conservatives should basically restrict voting until they win, so they can continue to ignore the majority of voters who don't want what the GOP is selling.

The conservative solution: end democracy in order to save democracy

Who knew it was so simple

At the end of the day, all that matters in politics is winning or losing. 

No, not really. How you get to that point actually matters a great deal. It's not a game. This is real life, with real consequences. Attempting to cripple the opposition's voting power using the power of the state is a dangerous way to consolidate power. What is your end game here? How long do you think you can do that before things get violent? How far are you willing to take that? Unless you want to go into a full blown authoritarian dystopia, you can't endlessly lie, cheat and steal your way into power with the goal of keeping your boot on the neck of your opponents.

Ironic that you would support abusing what are otherwise supposed to be free and fair elections in order to bring about not-so-free and not-so-fair elections to try and guarantee your side controls the levers of power. Somehow I doubt you'd feel this way if it was your party that was constantly having voting restrictions and other assaults on their ability to organize thrown at them.

All I have left to say is that you should not take democracy for granted. One day, your strategy could become mainstream, and not in your favor. And when you and those who share your beliefs have no way to translate them into law because once upon a time you decided winning hearts and minds was inferior to just stealing power, and lost, with the other side devolving into the same tactics, maybe you'll have some regrets. That's a real danger that comes with such a line of thinking.

Funny enough, you seem to get this on some level, because you were just talking about democracy being unable to survive if one party forces its beliefs on the rest of the country. You just can't seem to associate that with your own party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Absolutely that is a risky strategy.  But when you have nothing to lose, rolling the dice is the best option.  As you will acknowledge, every demographic trend is favoring the left in the long term.  Even if the 2 party system survives that, the Republicans of the future would have the same positions of the Dems today and it keeps going that way forever.  Then there are no more conservatives, just a nominal opposition party seeking to delay the inevitable which they never do.  We must hold our ground.

This is because conservatism is not a real ideology.  If the ways of the past never evolved, slavery would still be in existence today and the only people who would be allowed to vote are white men who own land.  Conservatism literally had to fail in order for modern, free democracy to exist.

The role of traditional American conservatism is to place a check on this progress so that it occurs incrementally, as opposed to revolutionary means which run the risk of curbing constitutional rights and liberties.  We don't have a center-right party which represents that today, and in practice, the "conservatism" espoused by modern Republicans obstructs longstanding institutions (like the integrity and impartiality of the courts) for short-term power grabs.  Then when the other side uses that to their advantage, you cry foul.

So you are right.  There are no more conservatives.  Just small-minded contrarians and violent reactionaries.

Conservatism has forgotten what is most important, the things they claim to adore. The Constitution, Court, the checks and balances and so forth.

A shield is something that takes the arrows and the fire to protect something else. Because the right has come to view every component of their ideology as sacrosanct, they have resorted to using the constitution and institutional structures as a shield or a weapon to advance that agenda rather than letting them rise and fall with economic or social demands of a given time.

Just like anything that spearheads the attack or protects you from the counter attack, over time it gets shredded and in so doing Republicans have done more damage to the Constitution and to the institutional structures of the country then the Democrats ever have.

Desperation is the most powerful force in politics and rather then alleviate the desperation, they have cowardly hid behind the constitution to declaim any responsibility to political courage from having to deviate from the gospel to address a problem. The end result is not only is the desperation going to be addressed anyway, but the shield has been destroyed as well, in this case the constitution.

If you ever make an excuse for why something cannot be done, that excuse will become the target.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, the irony:

well given how the GOP openly flouts the law and is running amok like a criminal enterprise, I'm not surprised that blue avatars here are feeding off of it. but seriously, if Dems take Texas, which these types of numbers make seem less ridiculous, the GOP agenda is dead in its tracks.

If Texas falls, so does the country.  If roughly half the country becomes ignored at the federal level election after election they will lose faith in democracy.  A democracy can't survive in a corrosive environment like that long term. 

In one breath, he laments about half the country being ignored by politicians leading to the end of democracy, and in the other says conservatives should basically restrict voting until they win, so they can continue to ignore the majority of voters who don't want what the GOP is selling.

The conservative solution: end democracy in order to save democracy

Who knew it was so simple

At the end of the day, all that matters in politics is winning or losing. 

No, not really. How you get to that point actually matters a great deal. It's not a game. This is real life, with real consequences. Attempting to cripple the opposition's voting power using the power of the state is a dangerous way to consolidate power. What is your end game here? How long do you think you can do that before things get violent? How far are you willing to take that? Unless you want to go into a full blown authoritarian dystopia, you can't endlessly lie, cheat and steal your way into power with the goal of keeping your boot on the neck of your opponents.

Ironic that you would support abusing what are otherwise supposed to be free and fair elections in order to bring about not-so-free and not-so-fair elections to try and guarantee your side controls the levers of power. Somehow I doubt you'd feel this way if it was your party that was constantly having voting restrictions and other assaults on their ability to organize thrown at them.

All I have left to say is that you should not take democracy for granted. One day, your strategy could become mainstream, and not in your favor. And when you and those who share your beliefs have no way to translate them into law because once upon a time you decided winning hearts and minds was inferior to just stealing power, and lost, with the other side devolving into the same tactics, maybe you'll have some regrets. That's a real danger that comes with such a line of thinking.

Funny enough, you seem to get this on some level, because you were just talking about democracy being unable to survive if one party forces its beliefs on the rest of the country. You just can't seem to associate that with your own party. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Absolutely that is a risky strategy.  But when you have nothing to lose, rolling the dice is the best option.  As you will acknowledge, every demographic trend is favoring the left in the long term.  Even if the 2 party system survives that, the Republicans of the future would have the same positions of the Dems today and it keeps going that way forever.  Then there are no more conservatives, just a nominal opposition party seeking to delay the inevitable which they never do.  We must hold our ground.

This is because conservatism is not a real ideology.  If the ways of the past never evolved, slavery would still be in existence today and the only people who would be allowed to vote are white men who own land.  Conservatism literally had to fail in order for modern, free democracy to exist.

The role of traditional American conservatism is to place a check on this progress so that it occurs incrementally, as opposed to revolutionary means which run the risk of curbing constitutional rights and liberties.  We don't have a center-right party which represents that today, and in practice, the "conservatism" espoused by modern Republicans obstructs longstanding institutions (like the integrity and impartiality of the courts) for short-term power grabs.  Then when the other side uses that to their advantage, you cry foul.

So you are right.  There are no more conservatives.  Just small-minded contrarians and violent reactionaries.

"The role of traditional American conservatism is to place a check on this progress so that it occurs incrementally"
Thanks for making my point better than I could.  No actual conservative wants any part of that.  You perfectly proved the American right has nothing to lose.  The left will keep winning unless those victories are restricted. 

Most of the left's victories though are created indirectly by the consequences of the right's success. Just consider all of the Democrats elected as a result of the recession and what they passed and how that could have been avoided if Republicans and Democrats had listened to people like Byron Dorgan in in the late 1990's.

Likewise the damage done to the right because of the Iraq War, the elective product of over a decades worth of activism by neoconservative think tanks in DC.

Remove those two actions and you never have a President Obama.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To this point of controlled opposition, the problem is that the right has constituted now sucks at governing and frankly prefers to be in perpetual opposition. Then it doesn't have to take responsibility for anything, can block the other side and reap the political rewards for doing so.

The NRA, Rush (I hope he recovers despite my differences with him), the think tanks and pressure groups take in millions of dollars when a Democrat is President. A Democratic President is great for "their business", which is milking off the top of conservative outrage. This creates a perverse incentive to not cooperate but to impede the overall success of the movement and thereby create a group of devoted followers who are scared and frightened to the point that they willing part with their money so can Wayne La Pierre can build another palatial office.

If the Republicans and the Conservative movement had a tangibly-positive, center-right governing agenda then it would not have to worry about "OMG are we just controlled opposition?" It is funny you mention being generals in a game, because that question reminds me of the question, "Are we all just in one big computer simulation"?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To this point of controlled opposition, the problem is that the right has constituted now sucks at governing and frankly prefers to be in perpetual opposition. Then it doesn't have to take responsibility for anything, can block the other side and reap the political rewards for doing so.

The NRA, Rush (I hope he recovers despite my differences with him), the think tanks and pressure groups take in millions of dollars when a Democrat is President. A Democratic President is great for "their business", which is milking off the top of conservative outrage. This creates a perverse incentive to not cooperate but to impede the overall success of the movement and thereby create a group of devoted followers who are scared and frightened to the point that they willing part with their money so can Wayne La Pierre can build another palatial office.

If the Republicans and the Conservative movement had a tangibly-positive, center-right governing agenda then it would not have to worry about "OMG are we just controlled opposition?" It is funny you mention being generals in a game, because that question reminds me of the question, "Are we all just in one big computer simulation"?

Center-right is just another term for surrendering to the left.  Look at Germany, supposed center right Merkel had gay marriage legalized under her watch and let in millions of refugees.  With "center right conservatives" like that who needs liberals?  Same thing with rinos like Baker, Sandoval, Weld ect.  They have R's next to their names and win but govern like moderate dems.

Center right because I don't think extremism is healthy for our system long term. You can argue over where to draw the lines yes, but there are some things that require a balance and the right's answers to aren't the best. A good example from before is banking regulation.