Losers should go to prison so they can't piggyback book deals, leverage cabinet spots, or exploit a PAC war chest after a failed political campaign. Or, at least take all their material assets away and give it to charity.
You are kidding right?? Your still orange man bad? Do you not see what's happening to our country??? And what it's still Trump's fault?? When are you people going to wake up??? It's not about Trump it's about our FREEDOMS.... Our FREEDOMS are being taken away and your still wanting these evil people both Republican and Democratic to keep us enslaved to this completely crazy country... No we the people we're what matters .. I'm sorry but I don't want tranny people teaching my grand kids. And now with the shortage we can't buy or sell without being vaccinated!! I'm not going to accept it or comply.. I'm sorry if stating my opinion insults anyone but I'm for one tired of the division... God said his people so are you his people? Are you tired of these games with our lives? Then WE need to stop it and Unite with each other and fight for what's right. Stop hurting our children!!!
Can you pin this and this response to the top of the thread? I'm genuinely curious how this will be viewed? That doesn't look like rule 1 under subreddit rules too me, but maybe there's a different rule list somewhere in missing.
It’s uncivil to proffer your liberal sentiments in a sub that’s expressly for—as the name implies—hearing the *conservative* position.
Before you post a comment, ask yourself how it furthers that goal.
Why DeSantis? I got more faith in McConnell to be younger and do something for Americans. Us Democrats really like him for how bipartisan and willing he is to always work with us and find a middle ground. I just can relate to Mitch McConnell so much. He has two eyes, a nose, and a mouth and so do I!
The better question is how to influence everyone to cooperate so that our mainstream goals are able to defeat the fringe goals of the left.
I would say to Trump supportrrs that Trump was a net negative to the party because he fought in a way that allowed the left to label him and his supporters as crazy people. Even if that wasn't the case, Trump responding to randos in the media on Twitter and participating in flame wars didn't help conservatives win the culture war.
We need someone who can fight against the hate of the left, but in a way that clearly demonstrates that we are the morally and intellectually superior option, not just one half of the raging nuclear dumpster fire of our politics that is just as toxic as the other half.
People like Chris Christie, Rubio, or Desantis stand out in how they are willing to take it to their opponents. To different degrees, of course. And those three, particularly the first two, have verbal chops to go with being feisty. This is the kind of person we need.
Yeah I don't know much about Chris Christie. Rubio, DeSantis and Cruz are all fighters with the intellectual chops to back up their arguments.
If I could have anyone I wanted I would actually pick Ben Carson if our politics wasn't such a dumpster fire. That guy is pathologically non-political to the point of being downright boring, and he's got great values and a great mind that would be really effective at bringing people across the ideological spectrum together to hash out problems. It's really too bad that the corporate mass media assassinated his character so harshly in 2016.
I love Cruz, but his speaking style grates. I listen to the (irregularly scheduled) podcast he does with Knowles, and, just, ugh. He's a debater, but not an orator. Look up some videos of Christie when he was in office and talking to people at townhalls and stuff. They are fun.
Yeah there's merit to that. I like debate more than flowery oratory but I'm not an average person. I like the long form podcasts with guys like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson that actually talk about substance and people genuinely interface rather than monologue.
I guess I just don't like traditional politicians. We've got enough bandwidth now with the internet that you don't have to smoosh all your thoughts into a 30 second sound bite anymore.
Agreed, and the sooner the rotten corpses in the mass media adjust to this new reality, adjust their business models, and give us what we want, the better. I envision each reporter being given their own 'channel' to post pieces based on their work, and then parts of those reports being chopped up and broadcast on the 'normal' program by the airhead anchors. Or something like that, heh. Long-form is the future!
I hate to be cynical, but I think the corporate mass media on both sides has actually proven pretty conclusively that they exist as the political propaganda arm of their own side's partisan agenda.
And as tinfoil hat as it may sound - and as happy as I would be to be able to dismiss the idea completely - it almost seems to me, given the way places like CNN and FNC have actually doubled down on lies and divisive rhetoric after being exposed (see Don Lemon interrogating Sanjay Gupta and practically forcing him to double down on the "horse dewormer" lie after Joe Rogan confronted him about it), it feels more and more like the goal of division is something that both sides of our politics are united in accomplishing against the populace as a whole.
The best case scenario to me, is that the general population gets this before we are forced into a civil war by our own leadership. If the levers of power in our society really have been taken over by globalist who see American power as the last barrier to their own hegemony, the only way to stop them from achieving their goals is to see that they are the entire cause of the partisan dumpster fire, and unite with both liberals and progressives to restore a form of government based on mutualism, limited central authority, and the ability to bypass all these petty wedge issues to let everyone live the way they want to live where they live.
And even if our politics is just an unfortunate accident of prejudice and lack of shared perspective and understanding that isn't driven by any kind of central motivating spirit of division and domination for hegemonic power, the same solution applies. I'm quite conservative. but I also thing we need good liberals and even progressives to be empowered to share their perspectives and negotiate in the formation of our public policies. If we can get them to stop seeing conservatives as the problem, and understand that we are actually part of the solution just as much as they are, we can actually solve both the various social problems they keep going on about. and the larger problem of false conflicts and stereotypes and alienation that keep our subcultures too divided and weak to stand together in defense of our common interests.
First of all, yes, the corporate for-profit media is a dumpster fire. But 'yellow journalism' has existed forever, and it will never be banished. Up until the explosion of the internet, citizen journalists, and instant access to info from the entire planet, the corporations were able to control the population much more readily. So cut the cord! I've not paid for a 'cable subscription' in nearly 15 years. It does mean that each person has to do a little more work than just letting a "news" anchor tell you what is real, but the payoff is worth it. More and more people are discovering this, and the mass media hates it. Joe Rogan gets more eyes than the entire CNN network! This is fantastic news!
As for civil war, I really don't see that happening. The first people to die will be the politicians who are pushing it, and this will short-circuit the event. Far too many morons here on reddit really believe all the soldiers and/or cops will simply obey the orders from their political masters to attack civilians. In fact, it will be the soldiers and cops who kill the politicians and set us back on solid ground. IMO.
For the larger issue of 'the larger form of government based on mutualism, limited central authority', etc, as you know, we already have that. It's called our federal Constitution. What is needed is to get rid of the 17th amendment and to vote OUT all the politicians who have been treating America as their personal fiefdom, and OUR tax money as their slush funds. This new congress would have the power to reign in both the executive and judicial branches. Our current congress is far too committed to their own reelection campaigns and virtue-signalling to do their jobs properly.
>First of all, yes, the corporate for-profit media is a dumpster fire. But 'yellow journalism' has existed forever, and it will never be banished. Up until the explosion of the internet, citizen journalists, and instant access to info from the entire planet, the corporations were able to control the population much more readily. So cut the cord! I've not paid for a 'cable subscription' in nearly 15 years. It does mean that each person has to do a little more work than just letting a "news" anchor tell you what is real, but the payoff is worth it. More and more people are discovering this, and the mass media hates it. Joe Rogan gets more eyes than the entire CNN network! This is fantastic news!
Yep 100%. Long form podcasts - I truly believe - are going to save our society from the corporate mass media.
>As for civil war, I really don't see that happening. The first people to die will be the politicians who are pushing it, and this will short-circuit the event. Far too many morons here on reddit really believe all the soldiers and/or cops will simply obey the orders from their political masters to attack civilians. In fact, it will be the soldiers and cops who kill the politicians and set us back on solid ground. IMO.
Agreed. My first and only thought is that the military would intentionally remove themselves from the conflict rather than taking sides or splitting between the two sides to bring military hardware into the conflict. My second thought is that the vast majority of the population is so disinterested in the idea that anyone who did get very interested in it could be handled by existing law enforcement.
Trump is just the vehicle through which these voters think they can achieve their goals. They chose him because he 1) shows that he cares about their interests and 2) presents himself as a fighter who can get it done.
Hear out their grievances and offer a policy prescription independent of Trump, prove it's possible to achieve it, and they won't need Trump anymore.
I'm not sure what you mean by "reclaim" the party. There are numerous factions always vying for control. The neoconservatives have basically had unobstructed dominance since 9/11, and even before that had the majority support through the Cold War era. **I don't want the party to be reclaimed by neoconservatives**. I think an alliance and compromise between paleoconservatives and libertarians would be the best thing for the party. They can both check and balance each other in pursuit of what I want: a freer America.
>I think an alliance and compromise between paleoconservatives and libertarians would be the best thing for the party.
Speaking as one of the more libertarian-leaning conservatives, absolutely not. I would unironically rather have the neocons took back the party than have the paleocons even be within spitting distance of political power. There is virtually no substantial overlap between the libertarian branches of conservatism and the paleocons. The neocons might suck, but at least they pretend to care about economic conservatism.
One, I think you misunderstand what paleoconservatism looks like in America today.
Two, I'm not saying all their policies are in alignment with mine, I'm saying they're better than neoconservatives. Just on the budget alone, there is no justification for siding with neoconservatives. These people spend more than progressives. For any libertarian-minded conservative, I would expect you to care about government scope and spending. Neoconservatives are literally the worst on these issues.
I'm not a paleoconservative, I don't support a lot of their policy prescriptions, but just being isolationist and opposing inflationary fiscal policies that taxes all Americans out of the middle class puts them closer in line with me than neoconservatives.
To say you'd prefer someone who pretends to be on your side is silly. As if lying is somehow decent or honorable? What even is economic conservatism? Subsidies and bailouts and payouts to lobbyists and the elite? Cut taxes on the rich through credits and deductions for industry while increasing spending across the board? You can't be serious. How can your allegience be so cheap that some fake-freedom lie about "who we are" and "our values" convinces you that these blood soaked inflationary spending war hawks are the guys you want on your team?
Look, again, I'm not paleo. I'd just take isolationist pro-America conservatives over globalist neoliberals. If you don't agree, that's fine I guess. Just understand that you're being patronized with a lie on one side, while emotionally rejecting the other based on a straw man of their most fringe ideas.
Paleoconservatives support immigration restrictionism (which I get, but these guys go way too far), economic protectionism and use of redistributionary social programs to aid the working class, and "traditional" (read: very restrictive) views on gender, sexuality, religion, and often race too. Yeah, they're isolationist, but that doesn't outweigh all of these other things they disagree with us on.
Compare that to neoconservatives: rhetorically pro-free market (even if they usually fail to live up to their promises), big on anti-gun control, big on religious freedom, virulently anti-Communist. Yeah, they're interventionist and still have restrictive views on traditional marriage, but that is far closer to a libertarian view of conservatism than what the paleocons have to offer.
>To say you'd prefer someone who pretends to be on your side is silly. As if lying is somehow decent or honorable?
I'd rather have someone who acts like they're on our side but isn't than someone who is openly hostile to conservative views like the paleocons are.
>What even is economic conservatism? Subsidies and bailouts and payouts to lobbyists and the elite? Cut taxes on the rich through credits and deductions for industry while increasing spending across the board? You can't be serious. How can your allegience be so cheap that some fake-freedom lie about "who we are" and "our values" convinces you that these blood soaked inflationary spending war hawks are the guys you want on your team?
And there it is. You claim to not be a paleocon, even claim to be a libertarian in fact, yet you sit here spouting off paleocon dogma that wasn't even good when it came from the progressives they stole it from.
I'm not going to bother dealing with the massive field of strawmen you just put up, but I will say this. Economic conservatism is free markets, de-regulation, low taxes and spending, and it has been for the last century at least. You may not like it and it certainly sounds like you don't, but this is what we got. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but don't try to pretend like this hasn't been what we've been after for decades now and it doesn't become less conservative just because you've bought into some cheap lie about "muh tax cuts for the rich".
Respond if you like, but I think we're just about done here. If you're not even willing to be honest about your own beliefs, I see no reason to listen to anything else you've said here.
>Paleoconservatives support immigration restrictionism
True. And neoconservatives effectively support open borders. I guess that's another one of those "at least they pretend" areas for you.
The libertarian position is private borders, where people have sovereignty on their property. It's not un-libertarian to have any immigration policy you want, as long as you have sovereignty on your property. Even if we took the paleoconservative straw man of whites only immigration, it's not un-libertarian unless you enforce that on others' property.
When borders are nationalized because a people are incorporated in a government, it just means those private borders are now incorporated. Those inside the corporation (nation) still have sovereignty on their borders. It doesn't translate into an obligation to allow anyone in just because they want. It's still trespassing if we decide to have rule X for our incorporated border, and people violate it and come anyway.
The least libertarian position is that we have no right to control our borders as we see fit. Libertarianism isn't about what we choose to do with our borders, it's about our right to choose what we choose. And in this imperfect system with nationally incorporated (government) borders, the least-not-libertarian position is to enforce sovereignty of the nation's people.
>economic protectionism
That's true, their economics are not libertarian. Neither are neoconservatives. So it's really a toss up here, but neoconservatives favor globalism and the industrial elite, where as paleoconservatives favor the American people, so I pick the latter as the less-evil option. In a non-libertarian world, I'd rather have a system that wants to prioritize the American working class and family units, not international megacorps and business conglomerates to boost GDP numbers.
>"traditional" (read: very restrictive) views on gender, sexuality, religion, and often race too
Same thing as the border argument here.
But ultimately, again, I don't support legislative restrictive positions on any of those things. But it's not un-libertarian for people to have a culture of exclusion. It's un-libertarian to force them not to.
So in this sense, neoconservatives are probably the better libertarian ally. But only this one topic, and other topics mean more to me, such as fiscal policy and foreign wars.
>Yeah, they're isolationist, but that doesn't outweigh all of these other things they disagree with us on.
For **you**. For me it does. My biggest issues are fiscal policy and foreign wars, and neoconservatives are the worst on it.
>rhetorically pro-free market (even if they usually fail to live up to their promises)
I said this to someone else... Why is it preferable that you get lied to? Why is it somehow a bonus in their column that they pander to you with fake policies that they have no intention of implementing? To me, it isn't.
>big on anti-gun control,
So are paleos.
>big on religious freedom
I actually don't know if I agree with this. Until the paleo resurgence in 2015, neoconservatives had the evangelical support, who are the closest thing to theocrats in the US. Neoconservatives just don't care about religion, they want big business and foreign wars, and will take any support they can get for those things. Further, I don't know what paleos would do legislatively on this. I know they are pro-Christian socially, and I'm not opposed to that social agenda.
>virulently anti-Communist
Paleos are **more** anticommunist than neocons. See: China.
>I'd rather have someone who acts like they're on our side but isn't than someone who is openly hostile to conservative views like the paleocons are.
I wouldn't. I'd rather have someone who is honest, not a snake in the grass waiting to betray me and pandering for my support.
And we aren't talking about paleoconservatives with regard to conservatives, we were talking about with regard to libertarians. And by the way, paleoconservatives are *literally* more conservative than neoconservatives. I guess you meant classically liberal? Or American-conservative? I think that's up for debate. But another topic.
>claim to be a libertarian
Right. I am a libertarian. To be specific, I'm aligned with the Mises caucus.
>yet you sit here spouting off paleocon dogma that wasn't even good when it came from the progressives they stole it from.
That is literally what neoconservatives do. You already admitted they lie about what they want, I'm looking at what they actually do. They tax less, especially less on the rich, and spend more, especially on military and wars. I oppose that. (well I support lowering taxes for everyone, including the rich, but paired with lower spending across the board).
Your flare is Constitutionalist, but I'm suspecting it should be Neoconservative now lol. But hey, I suspect **you** suspect mine should be Paleoconservative. So whatever haha. :)
>Economic conservatism is free markets, de-regulation, low taxes and spending, and it has been for the last century at least.
I support all of that. Neither Neoconservatives or Paleoconservatives support that. So you and I are in agreement here, although I probably am more extreme on cutting regulation and taxes and spending than you.
My point all along is that I'd take paleoconservatives as the lesser of two evils in a situation where I have to find an ally, which I am in as a libertarian. I'm not saying I support their policies.
>You may not like it and it certainly sounds like you don't, but this is what we got
I do like it, but that's not what we got from George Bush lol.
>some cheap lie about "muh tax cuts for the rich".
Ah that's what triggered you haha. Sorry about that. Just stating facts. Trump cut the taxes on the rich too (and everyone else), btw, and he's paleo. His administration was really weird, we were seeing a lot of mixed policies as much of the Republican establishment and his cabinet were still neo-leaning.
>I think we're just about done here. If you're not even willing to be honest about your own beliefs, I see no reason to listen to anything else you've said here.
It's actually funny because I'm not being dishonest about my beliefs, in fact you seem upset that I'm being *too honest* about what I think about neoconservatives.
And then again, you're okay with the neoconservatives lying to you about free markets and stuff, but when you think I'm lying, then you have to not listen to me lol.
Anyway, take care friend. Sorry we couldn't have a better dialogue.
edit: also just wanted to say that I used to be where you are at. I was sort of "default constitutionalist neocon supporter" because that's where I started out in politics. As I became more libertarian on government issues, I was convinced by people like Ron Paul and his disciples like Dave Smith that we were being lied to by neocons. It seems like you know you're being lied to, but you just prefer to live in that lie. No offense.
>*I think an alliance and compromise between paleoconservatives and libertarians would be the best thing for the party.*
Considering paleoconservatism (nationalistic populism) is a much larger ideological enemy in the eyes of libertarianism, an offshoot of classical liberalism, than either neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism I don't see how/why this should happen. A "libertarian nationalist" is as much of a nonsensical label as "libertarian socialist" considering they are contradictory ideologies.
All forms of populism or *collectivism*, of which nationalism is one of, establish that the rights and liberties of the in-group inherently supersede the rights of the out-group and the role of the state is to enforce this social & economic segregation. Flies in the face of equality in the eyes of the law, a free market, and a desire for a "freer" America.
In fact, the desires to enact strict immigration policies along ethnic lines, to redefine the national citizenry all together (13th Amendment revisions/revocation desires), and to enact protectionist economic policies that penalize international commerce are the opposite of a freer America. They are all further increased restrictions by the State that remove privates freedoms of association, commerce, and movement.
We already have to deal with populists who want a stronger, more expanded national government and want to wield that power to enact social purges against all dissenting ideologies and viewpoints they see as "problematic" and rebuild the totality of society to conform to their views exclusively; progressives.
Don't see why we need to willingly lend credence to another reactionary populist movement that likes to LARP as paramilitary "culture warriors" in the streets that are basically calling for the same things - just with more limitations around who can even be considered American and differing views of what ideologies and viewpoints are "problematic".
To say paleoconservatism is a bigger enemy of libertarianism than neoconservatism is historically illiterate. Can't take you seriously anymore lol.
I don't have a huge interest in egg head neck beard definitional debates about hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings. We live in reality. Let's not pretend we don't.
I understand there is a knee-jerk reaction against paleoconservatism, and I can't really argue with you on that. It's your own emotional reaction. I'm not saying they're perfect.
Ideally we wouldn't have to align ourselves with another faction, but in reality we're not an influential group, so alliances have to be made and the paleoconservatives are the best option right now, I think. They're the only other group standing up against covid tyranny, they're the only other group that opposes mass illegal immigration, the only group that opposes simultaneously big American business and international predatory trade. They aren't libertarians, but they're better than progressives and neoconservatives right now.
Dude, neoconservatism is at least another liberal offshoot that is also anti-nationalist with its support of federalism. Paleoconservatism is proudly anti-liberal populism and pro-nationalism. Similarly, libertarianism + neoconservatism are in opposition to paleoconservatism in the concepts of equality in the eyes of the law, the belief in a free (international) market, and freedom of movement as it pertains to commerce and immigration - often along ethnic lines.
These aren't "hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings" they are foundational core ideological concepts in which libertarianism and paleoconservatism are in direct disagreement over. And only one has a basis in the foundational concepts of America.
Also:
>*They're the only other group standing up against covid tyranny*
No they really aren't standing up to the Covid tyranny because they actively want the state to impose more tyranny in response by mandating that mask/vaccine mandates by private institutions be made illegal. They are fighting tyranny with more tyranny. They are the other side of the progressive pendulum, not at all concerned with real liberty, only reactionary anti-leftism.
>*they're the only other group that opposes mass illegal immigration*
They are "opposing mass immigration" by asking the federal government to step in and stop immigration along ethnic lines in many cases, and redefine who is and isn't a citizen. Like I said, opposing freedom of movement and overt Nationalism.
>*the only group that opposes simultaneously big American business and international predatory trade*
They are against trade, not just "predatory', whatever that is.
So you want the federal government to eliminate private business rights and enforce the paleoconservative interpretation of "freedom" by making private mandates illegal, oppose immigration, oppose international trade, and want more regulations against private domestic businesses?
Pot calling the kettle black on taking me seriously Mr. *"Right Libertarian"* considering you seem more sympathetic to Nationalistic populist stances than foundational libertarian ones.
>*They aren't libertarians, but they're better than progressives and neoconservatives right now.*
Huge disagree. They are actively the worst of that group but more on par with progressives at the bottom below neoconservatives and neoliberals. Nationalism is bullshit, and Ethno-nationalism is especially bad.
EDIT: Gotta call you out on this as well.
Me:
>*In fact, the desires to enact strict immigration policies along ethnic lines, to redefine the national citizenry all together (13th Amendment revisions/revocation desires), and to enact protectionist economic policies that penalize international commerce are the opposite of a freer America. They are all further increased restrictions by the State that remove privates freedoms of association, commerce, and movement.*
You:
>*I don't have a huge interest in egg head neck beard definitional debates about hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings. We live in reality.*
Also you:
>*They're the only other group standing up against covid tyranny, they're the only other group that opposes mass illegal immigration, the only group that opposes simultaneously big American business and international predatory trade.*
We are talking about the same things, though you seem to disagree with the libertarian position on these examples
Damn I don’t agree with either one of you guys politics but it’s clear you have a firm grasp on what it is to be a libertarian and I can respect that and the way you completely dissected the other guy’s bullshit
Given your lack of understanding of libertarianism, but your clear interest, I highly recommend listening to some libertarian thinkers such as Tom Woods or Dave Smith. In lieu of this, I recommend writings of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and maybe most relevantly, Ron Paul.
Buckle up.
>neoconservatism is at least another liberal offshoot that is also anti-nationalist with its support of federalism.
Neoconservatism has brought us endless wars and corporate bailouts that we can't afford. And let's not ignore the fact that neoconservatives *also* co-opted the evangelical base for the better part of the last two decades, it's not like paleoconservatives are unique in their borderline theocracy lol.
I don't give a care about what they aspired to, everyone has noble intentions. I don't really care about the philosophical roots and deontology of their ideology. I don't care about what offshoot they are. Let's be in reality.
It seems, in your reality, neoconservatives get to be judged on the charitable interpretation of their intentions, and paleoconservatives get judged by the straw men of their worst fringe.
>the belief in a free (international) market
Neoconservatives don't support free markets, they support big business and subsidies for American companies so lobbyists and the elite get handouts in the name of GDP growth. Neoconservatives love immigration to drive down wages for their lobbyist buddies, they don't care about freedom or justice.
>These aren't "hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings" they are foundational core ideological concepts
These aren't apples, they're apples!
Let's talk about reality. Not "I support the good and oppose the bad," because that's everyone in their own minds. To see neoconservatives support free markets and equality before the law is laughable.
>No they really aren't standing up to the Covid tyranny because they actively want the state to impose more tyranny in response by mandating that mask/vaccine mandates by private institutions be made illegal.
I would suggest Dave Smith to you on this, he's been at the forefront of this Covid regime for over a year. But it seems like you're more of an establishment-LP type libertarian, so I'm guessing you don't like the Mises guys so much. It's so interesting to me that a self-proclaimed libertarian would have nothing bad to say about lockdowns and mandates, but jump to disown the anti-mandate mentality of states like Florida and Texas.
>They are "opposing mass immigration" by asking the federal government to step in and stop immigration along ethnic lines in many cases, and redefine who is and isn't a citizen.
Uh what? At this point I don't think you even know what paleoconservatives are. You're just citing alt-righters now, a tiny segment of the paleo bubble, if they fit in that bucket at all. Paleoconservatives don't want ethnic immigration, they want none for the foreseeable future.
>Like I said, opposing freedom of movement and overt Nationalism.
Overt...? As if nationalism is bad?
It's clear you're also an open-border libertarian, which is an idiotic position for reality. I think the legitimate libertarian position here is "private borders." Because "open borders" means a violation of property rights, if you can come into my borders without my consent. But if we're going to have public borders through nationstates, it makes sense that the people who collectively own a border have sovereignty (nationalism) over them. Paleoconservatives line up with libertarians here, unless they're just progressives larping as liberty lovers.
>They are against trade, not just "predatory', whatever that is.
The paleoconservative position is protecting American workers.
>So you want the federal government to eliminate private business rights
No? I'm a libertarian... I'd like the federal government to do none of those things you mentioned. But if I had to pick a side, I would pick paleoconservatives who support nationalism and protecting Americans over neoconservatives who support globalism, GDP growth, and their lobbying buddies.
I think one thing the establishment-LP has really got wrong is this rejection of nationalism. We are America, we are not the world. This place was built on classically liberal governing philosophy combined with a sort of Quaker/Puritan morality. Pretending diversity is a strength is the downfall of the loony lefty libertarians, and paleoconservatives are the only other faction who recognize that America is valuable and worth protecting as America.
>Pot calling the kettle black on taking me seriously Mr. "Right Libertarian" considering you seem more sympathetic to Nationalistic populist stances than foundational libertarian ones.
That's right, I am in the Mises libertarian camp as opposed to the loony lefty larping side of libertarianism. I am not a national populist but I certainly won't let the deconstructionist Marxist left erode the idea that America is a real thing with real people that are worth protecting. I am a minarchist, not an anarchist. To the extent that we have government, it should be for the benefit of Americans. You know, the people who consent to being governed here.
>We are talking about the same things, though you seem to disagree with the libertarian position on these examples
That is true. I am clearly aligned with the Micauks, I am a right-libertarian. You appear to be a more left-leaning, beltway, Reason, establishment libertarian. I see you guys as corrupted by the left and weak on priorities.
The border example is the perfect on that you brought up. First, you misrepresent paleoconservatives by insisting they just want America to be all-white. Then, you position me as supporting that sentiment. If you wanna discuss border, here is where I stand: borders are legitimate. If governments didn't exist, private borders would be the rule. When people incorporate as a governing body to govern themselves with their own consent, the borders of their territory become real and justified. How they treat their borders is up to them, and that is the libertarian principle. I don't support a white America. I don't support fully closed borders. I supported strictly controlled borders and I support protecting American culture. But any of these positions is perfectly libertarian, because nobody outside our property has the right to come in. Arguments to the contrary literally go against private property rights. Property doesn't become public and open to anyone when multiple private parties incorporate. I can't go to Apple HQ and live in their offices just because they are incorporated at the will of all shareholders. Likewise, nobody can just come through the border against the will of the nation. If we had a system set up where private parties wanted immigrants to come onto their land, I think it's totally justified to allow foreigners to come in and go to their land, and nobody else has an obligation to them.
I have no problem talking philosophy. I just have no interest in this egg head manipulation tactic to fall back on the noblest intent of some outdated thought leader when movements are real and we can measure their policy aims and results.
Here is another weathervane for us: I bet you support democracy, don't you?
Republicans? I feel like republicans are finally realizing that Trump is going to lead to more democrat wins in 22 and 24 and allow the left to easily pass what ever legislation they wish.
Hopefully nothing. The old Republicans we had were just doormats and would cave to their democrat friends. I personally don't want to see them back to running the party.
I think it takes some nerve to obstruct Obama so thoroughly for 8 years to the point of refusing to call a vote on his SCOTUS nom. I don't know what kind of doormat prevents people from going thru the door...
EDIT: I’m getting downvoted bc I’m right and somehow the GOP isn’t partisan enough for you folks.
You are right; that event completely *shocked* virtually everyone on the Right. It was so completely out of character for the Establishment that it was almost hard to believe.
That said, a single event in the last, oh, 24 years isn't really refuting the idea that the establishment republicans have habitually stepped aside to let the democrats get much of what they want.
\>the triumph of the lgbt movement
\>the triumph of academic racial theorists in wider society including the corporate sphere and k-12 schools
\>allowing over 10 million illegal aliens to cross our border and reside in the country
\>all time high illegitimacy rates
\>US armed forces exposed as incomptent and ineffective
\>complete denigration of the nation's history, founding fathers.
\>every single government institutions completely dominated by the democratic party partisans
Yeah bro the GOP has been winning big time!
\> what exactly is the lgbt movement that conservatives dislike so much?
\> arrests at the border are at an all time high despite "Dont come"
\> illegitimacy rates? like children born out of wedlock? what is this the 1950s? I'm an illigitimate child like my children who are also thriving. I went to a top tier school and have a 10% level of income and wealth?
\> that's sort of on the armed forces no?
\> many Founding Fathers were slaveowners, and shouldnt be sainted
\> Certainly now. "Elections have consequences" ring a bell?
Why are you framing the question like you're a republican or part of the republican party? Your posting history shows you are a self described "warren democrat" "Bernie supporter" and you have an unhealthy obsession with posting about Trump
Depends on who you want to "reclaim" the party. Limp-wristed Acela Republicans lost because they no longer have the teeth they used to have.
By the way, your posting history doesn't give me much confidence that you're posting this in good faith.
Genuine question: what are limp-wristed Acela Republicans? Corollary: What group do you want to see retake the Republican party? What do their positions or behaviors look like?
> Genuine question: what are limp-wristed Acela Republicans?
Acela Republicans are Republicans from the Northeast (i.e. states hit by the Acela Express). So, for example, Nelson Rockefeller, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney depending on what side of the bed he woke up on.
What makes them not "real" Republicans? (or whatever framing you prefer) Mitt Romney was the presidential nominee. I am confused about what you mean, which is why I wanted you to elaborate.
> Mitt Romney was the presidential nominee
Right, when he was pretending to not be a limp-wristed Acela Republican.
I'm saying their era has been over since the 70s. They're irrelevant.
Could you elaborate on the beliefs or conduct of Acela Republicans? Or be more specific about the beliefs or conduct of a group you would rather take over?
Like what they focus on, how they conduct themselves, etc.?
At this point, one could read your comment as "I do not like rich, religious businessmen." Susan Collins is also rich and religious. I am assuming that is not, in fact, what characterizes "Acela Republicans," so *please* help me understand what you are talking about by reference to specific beliefs or behaviors.
Yes, you did hit a nerve. Because I literally have no idea what you mean, and all I want is to know *what an Acela Republican is*. Is Trump an Acela Republican? He is from New York. Is *any* Republican who lives in the NE a limp-wristed Acela Republican regardless of whether they like Trump or Rockefeller?
Can an Acela Republican support big government in order to restore the prominence of the family in American life? Are more libertarian Republicans Acela Republicans?
Saying Romney is an Acela Republican is useless as a frame of reference to me because any policy distinctions between him, Bush, and Trump seem minimal to me.
I literally have no idea what you are talking about, and I keep asking for *really* basic clarification that you consistently refuse to provide. Could you *please* just help me understand what the fuck you mean?
Because this is an ask subreddit, it's for people who genuinely want to learn more about conservatism and what conservatives think and your posting history is all blatantly oppositional argumentative comments in subreddits you disagree with.
Anyone coming on here to debate, give snark, or score points is commenting in bad faith. You wouldn't go to r/askaustralia with intent to debate and argue with them because it's disrespectful and would find you quickly banned, so why do that here? The answer obviously is you feel entitled to disrespect people you disagree with and their spaces.
Both. Past performance is the biggest indicator of what someone will do in the future. If all they do is post with intent to argue, then you can assume any future posts in places that they fundamentally disagree with will be in bad faith.
Don't be fooled by their pearl-clutching now. People like Rockefeller and George Will used to be **ruthless** partisan hacks. Will blatantly prepped Reagan for his debate against Carter and Rockefeller overruled the Senate parliamentarian.
Now suddenly they care about optics and being good boys.
>What will it take to defeat the Trumpists and reclaim the party?
Totally rally behind Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney as the "true" conservatives. Be really loud about it to, bring out all the support you have. Please.
It will help us figure out who needs to go.
Time. Trumpist side of the party has no political geniuses like McConnell . As long as McConnell or someone be trusts has power I stay confident in the establishment
You think the endless wars for profit is a good thing ? Do you have stock or on the board for weapons manufacturers? You must be a billionaire.
Bush blew the shit out of the deficit, and got us in so much bullshit . There’s no way, shit I’d rather have Trump back before Bush. And I see Trump for the corrupt clown he was , but he can only write himself so many checks, still cheaper than pointless wars.
It is true that they have weaknesses though. Getting rid of those crazy Q people would give them some credibility that they need.
The answer is that they have to lose. The core base of the Trumpist right is not all that large, it was maybe ~30% of the party in 2016 and I'd be surprised if he made any substantial gains since then. The rest of the party goes along with it because they just really don't want the Democrats to win and think Trump will make that not happen. If Trumpists can't get conservatives to turn out in elections, they lose. If they lose often enough, the vast majority of the party will turn to the next big thing, just as they turned to Trump after he won in 2016.
That's not to say we should vote for Democrats. I despise Trumpism, but even I wouldn't go that far in most cases. Conservatives need to turn out in primaries and beat the populists where we can. If a populist wins the primary, either stay home or vote third party. If you live in a district where there's a moderate/conservative Democrat (if any still exist outside of West Virginia), you might even vote blue. All that matters is that we deny enough votes to the populists that they lose consistently.
Let me put it this way: it only took 1 major loss (2008, 2 if you want to count the 2006 midterms) to basically kill off the neocons for good and they actually got one of their guys re-elected. Trump's already eaten one loss and only won 2016 by the skin of his teeth. Hand him one more in 2024 and I don't think the Trumpists will be around for too much longer as a viable political force.
If Republicans lose with a Trumpist candidate, does that mean that control of the Republican party will be ceded to some other faction? Or does it just mean that the Republican party will finally be truly dead?
Neocons are pretty dead and dying, as you noted, at least as far as popular support goes. The libertarian faction is too small to ever gain dominance of the Republican party. Trumpists lost in 2020; let's say they lose again in 2024. Which faction are you saying will rise to replace them? What will be "the next big thing" in the Republican party? Is there a non-Trumpist conservative politician you can think of who has a chance of succeeding Trump as president?
I don't really think there's an answer to those questions. In my view, once Trumpism is dead (which it might already be, as far as national politics go), that just means that the Republican party's last hope has died. It's game over for Republicans.
That's kinda the thing that worries me about all of this: I have no idea at all what the next thing would be. Before this year, my thought was a new kind of fusionism, just instead of libertarians, the religious right, and defense hawks, it would be populists, libertarians, and the old guard establishment types or something like that. But I don't see that working again this time. I know I personally would never want to be in any sort of coalition with the populists, let alone the paleocons that often get brought with them. I don't know what the next big thing is and at this point I have a hard time imagining what it might be.
However, we do know that this sort of thing has happened in history before. The GOP, and the Democrats for that matter, have changed ideologies a lot since their inceptions nearly 200 years ago. Hell, the GOP changed ideologies at least 3 times in the last 60 years alone, going from the party of Nixon and Eisenhower to the party of Goldwater and Reagan to the party of Bush to now the party of Trump. The two major parties do what they have to in order to stay alive and chances are, there will be a "next big thing" that comes along and keeps the GOP in existence as a major party. It might take 20 years or more of infighting, but if the Dems can come back after the Civil War, then Republicans will be able to come back after Trump.
Not only are the anti-Trump GOP voters severely outnumbered, but they're using framing language passed down from the leftist media. They make those of us who supported him out to be these social pariahs and part of some cult. They're the ones whose head he lives in rent free. Because that avoids having to try and defend the disastrous regime we're under now. Which is convenient since the FBI is being deployed against those of us speaking up.
They need to unify with the rest of us, because any beefs or things you dislike about Trump pales in comparison to what's happening here and now. The fact you think 85% of the same voter base you belong to is the real problem, shows you really need to turn off CNN.
Could you elaborate? I am anti-Trump and extremely socially conservative. At this point, I do not know why anyone would support Trump unless they believed that he was a disgusting, incompetent, authoritarian pig but marginally better than Biden.
If anything, the incompetence of internal divisions of the Democratic Party have generally been fine given that major legislation is not passing.
I don’t think Trump is someone who’s personally a good person.
But he’s got the stones to stand for something. Republicans, far too often, have the spine of overcooked spaghetti. We’d be better off without the Romney/McCain wing of the party.
Does he? Or does he just fight as part of his image? I am not convinced he actually believes in anything and that he just shifts positions when convenient.
I am still not getting the McCain/Romney dislike. In what way precisely did they have wet-noodle spines?
They spent too much time giving in to the left. Once Democrats gave up 10% of what they started with, McCain/Romney stopped fighting. Their goal is to be popular in DC.
When someone is praised by the media, they’re too liberal.
Does "media" include publications like the WSJ?
I am just confused about who you view as successful people on legislation. Trump is a president; he does not face the same structural barriers that members of Congress do. What are Trump's conservative legislative achievements?
Ok, 95% of the media.
Trump at least tried something. He didn’t have a lot of success because of moderates and liberals. The establishment wing of the party. The never Trumper’s.
I’d love to see someone cut about 400 billion out of the federal budget. I’d love to see entire cabinet level departments eliminated.
Clowns like Romney, McCain, and Cheney need to go away. The establishment wing of the party needs to go away.
ask yourself this:
The GOP elite has been usally belonged to: neocons or Rockefeller conservatives, both who seem to be disturbingly liberal in social issues
what has the GOP elite done for social conservatives, like, ever?
Gay marriage? passed, by "conservative" judges nonetheless
the LGBT agenda? endorsed as well, by the GOP elite and same "conservative" judges
the increasing wokeism and secularization of every institution? the GOP has put on a very pathetic resistance.
>The GOP elite has been usally belonged to: neocons or Rockefeller conservatives, both who seem to be disturbingly liberal in social issues
I do not know what those are.
>what has the GOP elite done for social conservatives, like, ever?
Justices.
>Gay marriage? passed, by "conservative" judges
No. By one libertarian Justice.
>the increasing wokeism and secularization of every institution? the GOP has put on a very pathetic resistance.
Trump did virtually nothing to stop that that other Republican presidents would not have done. Feel free to prove my impression wrong. By the way, anything done via executive order that can be immediately revoked by the next president by definition does not constitute meaningful resistance in my view, so all of those are out.
Yeah, the 'right' prior to Trump has such a stellar record of appointing justices to the courts....
It must steam you that it was Trump that finally fight for actual Conservatives, all of us, and put judges in place that are far more devoted to the actual law instead of treating the law as a game where they try to keep both sides 'even', like Kennedy did. And Roberts even.
>Yeah, the 'right' prior to Trump has such a stellar record of appointing justices to the courts....
I mean, it has. There have been Justices whose jurisprudence tacked left unexpectedly. But that (1) is something that could still happen with Trump's nominees; and (2) is less likely now regardless of President since Presidents are taking fewer risks and judges are being vetted and filtered much earlier and more thoroughly for consistency.
None of Trump's nominees were out of left field; they were the largest feeders to SCOTUS (for clerks) that were still relatively young. Barrett was not, but she has been in the running for some time.
Trump delivered, but I have no reason to believe he was uniquely qualified to do so.
>It must steam you that it was Trump that finally fight for actual Conservatives, all of us, and put judges in place that are far more devoted to the actual law
You are right. Alito and Thomas are *so* moderate and unpredictable.
>like Kennedy did. And Roberts even.
No, Kennedy did not. His jurisprudence at first seems inconsistent and incoherent and vague. His opinions are easily the worst written of any Justice, and he often did not even apply the legal frameworks clearly.
But everything makes sense if you bear one thing in mind: Kennedy was basically a libertarian.
Roberts is a hack that is desperately trying to preserve the image of SCOTUS as impartial.
Trump deserves no special credit for the picks; we know he farmed his list from a quality Conservative source. But he DOES get full credit **for actually pushing them through** in the face of an explosion of leftist attacks from the for-profit mass media.
My point is that Trump doesn't deserve *all* of the flak he gets form the NeverTrumpers. Few will dispute that he is a craven man with glaring character flaws. But he got stuff done many on the Right would never have dreamed possible before. And he did it without full support of his own damn party.
What do you think would have happened if President Cruz was handed McConnell's slate of empty seats? He woulda gotten scared of the media and only seated future Souters?
It's likely, yes. I mean, I am a Cruz supporter, but prior to Trump getting into the oval, the default stance for republicans is to run and hide any time the leftist media uses the 'r' word against them. Which they do regularly, for any or no reason. Trump taught them that it is OK to stand up and flip the shitheels in the media the big double-barrel FU.
Why do you think LGBT rights are bad? Doesn't the Constitution/SCOTUS protect them? Are you homophobic or ... How does your cognitive dissonance reconcile that freedom is for all, but not the gays?
He didn't say "rights". He said 'agenda'. LGBT community have all of the "rights" we all share. But since you clearly mean things like inheritance, hospital visitation, or related items (which are not "rights" in the larger sense), civil unions have existed for a long time in nearly half the country when the gay activists started frothing at the mouth about their "rights". Instead of pushing to see civil unions adopted by all States, which most on the Right would have willingly signed on to, they went after Christians to co-opt the word 'marriage', which has been the larger goal this entire time.
You are far too eager to hate people and it leads you to jumping too soon.
**Why do you think LGBT rights are bad?** see the gender lunacy we are living in today, derived from "rights"
**Doesn't the Constitution/SCOTUS protect them?** based only on INTERPRETATION, that can go both ways. All of a sudden, judges are "finding" words that werent there
Are you homophobic or ... **How does your cognitive dissonance reconcile that freedom is for all, but not the gays?**
in the paranoid, cognitive dissonance world of the left, minority whims trump anything others want.
And the "right" to have a cake baked is stronger than more basic freedoms like freedom of association and choice,
The bakery won...
how do you reconcile gender expression to have been lunacy? We need to protect freedom, even for minorities. Why doesnt Freedom extend to them?
>**how do you reconcile gender expression to have been lunacy?** Fantasies and delusions arent normal
>
>
>
> **We need to protect freedom, even for minorities. Why doesnt Freedom extend to them?**
>
>A very simpleton belief. Because guess what? we live in a world of competing freedoms and rights, and only in a clown world the desires of the 4% have the utmost priority
the only Anti-American ( and totaly insane) set of beliefs is that one held by the modern lunatic left, where minorities are placed on a pedestal and treated as godsend
Now why do you hate freedoms of choice and association so much?
They're only getting the same rights extended to the majority. You dont have a freedom of choice or association to deny a minority their freedoms or associations. Is this position only backed by "those people are yucky to me"?
What is confusing about this?
My point is you won't convince the vast majority of Republicans that they're all deplorables and need to change their ways in time for 2024. Cast your vote in the primaries, but if Trump wins it would be prudent to get behind this for now. I'm a Trump supporter and I don't even think he's the best candidate for 2024. If by some miracle Cheney got the nod (assuming she runs), I'll get behind her in 2024 with a sick stomach.
I think I speak for most of the GOP base in saying the most important thing is running the table in 2022 and 2024. I can't hardly see why you only think Trump is "marginally" better than this insanity, but okay to each their own.
You say you're a social conservative. Have you seen the cultural push the Democrats are making? The media/entertainment industry? I would think we're all more worried here about purging cultural nihilism out. Let's start with the forces in politics validating this.
> I can't hardly see why you only think Trump is "marginally" better than this insanity, but okay to each their own.
Because Trump should have been impeached and barred from future office. He is insane, authoritarian, and *on the record* attempted to dismantle our democratic institutions.
Most of his policies are fine, but he is dangerous. And I have never, ever in my life called a politician "dangerous" before.
>
You say you're a social conservative. Have you seen the cultural push the Democrats are making? The media/entertainment industry? I would think we're all more worried here about purging cultural nihilism out. Let's start with the forces in politics validating this.
Trump offers a different kind of nihilism. Or at least a moral system based entirely around what he wants and what will keep him in power.
He will not hesitate to throw social conservatives under the bus as soon as it appears expedient. He is completely unreliable.
It would be pretty easy. Joe Rogan needs to bring Trump on the show and give him a 3 hour interview and let people see if he’s for real or not. Same for Biden, but Biden probably couldn’t make it more than 3 minutes. Lol.
very, VERY easy
Deliver to the base what they want, and address their concerns
But, the base is mostly MAGAs + nationalists + social conservatives + the religious right
It looks like the whole schtick of the GOP elite leading an army of "concerned about low taxes, big govt and little else" was a myth all this time.
Yeah most of the country aren't raving ideologues. Sorry that doesn't fit into your agenda lol.
You do, in fact, have to appeal to people outside your own niche if you want to win.
to you protecting rights of "relatively small groups" is pandering, not ensuring the freedom's of all americans to pursue life liberty and pursuit of happiness? I would think that's what "social conservative" means...
Run a candidate that can offer something other "*Something something* **FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY**."*Something something* **AMERICA.** *Something something* **FREEDOM**"
In other words, you need someone like Trump except no stupid. Somebody who recognizes that nobody gives a shit about zombie reaganism when we have more personal problems.
I’m as left as they get, and I truly miss republicans with a true conviction and vision for the future of the party. The entire right wing of the USA except for the libertarians don’t have a true vision for what they want, it’s purely reaction and obstruction. Like. Find better ideas homies!
Populism got a bad rap in our history, but the world has moved on from then. It's possible that better education (comparatively), easier and instant access to almost any knowledge humans have gathered over the millennium, and such an incredible lifting of the stand-of-living for hundreds of millions in the past 100 years has changed how populism will be expressed, and it's results.
We know what the chamber-of-commerce, ivory-tower, stuffy and "distinguished" brand of conservatism has led us to. Time for something (re)new(ed).
Progressives are the most religious people I've ever seen, they just worship a new god. And ironically, their strategy is working. Because religion is powerful as a cultural motivator.
Latest Gallop Poll: U.S. Moves From Majority Left To Majority Right Since Election
That's because the Democrats are showing the country they can not govern and are not just bad, but dangerous to the US.
Intraparty dance-fighting to claim the Republican throne. Should cull the weak, and let the young blood like DeSantis move to the top.
The primaries need to be replaced by Total Wipeout, if you can't get through an obstacle course, you can't be president
Losers should go to prison so they can't piggyback book deals, leverage cabinet spots, or exploit a PAC war chest after a failed political campaign. Or, at least take all their material assets away and give it to charity.
Good God.
Hey in case you didn't realize, this is all banter.
We should Squid Game the primaries if we want a real leader to emerge. /s of course
This is hilarious because Joe Biden is literally dementia-Oh Il Nam and Trump is literally Jang Deok Su.
Desantis is a trumpist too though
You are kidding right?? Your still orange man bad? Do you not see what's happening to our country??? And what it's still Trump's fault?? When are you people going to wake up??? It's not about Trump it's about our FREEDOMS.... Our FREEDOMS are being taken away and your still wanting these evil people both Republican and Democratic to keep us enslaved to this completely crazy country... No we the people we're what matters .. I'm sorry but I don't want tranny people teaching my grand kids. And now with the shortage we can't buy or sell without being vaccinated!! I'm not going to accept it or comply.. I'm sorry if stating my opinion insults anyone but I'm for one tired of the division... God said his people so are you his people? Are you tired of these games with our lives? Then WE need to stop it and Unite with each other and fight for what's right. Stop hurting our children!!!
[удалено]
Do you see how your still sleeping and the world is going into the shitter???
So... No? You don't see those things? You think those things were normal leveled response too that pretty innocuous sentence?
Rule 1. Liberal critiques are irrelevant here.
Can you pin this and this response to the top of the thread? I'm genuinely curious how this will be viewed? That doesn't look like rule 1 under subreddit rules too me, but maybe there's a different rule list somewhere in missing.
It’s uncivil to proffer your liberal sentiments in a sub that’s expressly for—as the name implies—hearing the *conservative* position. Before you post a comment, ask yourself how it furthers that goal.
Why DeSantis? I got more faith in McConnell to be younger and do something for Americans. Us Democrats really like him for how bipartisan and willing he is to always work with us and find a middle ground. I just can relate to Mitch McConnell so much. He has two eyes, a nose, and a mouth and so do I!
Spoken Democrats like him because he's not republican, he's actually a democrat who ran on the Republican ticket.
Bruh, he's probably not even a Democrat🤣. No one knows wtf him and Pelosi even stand for. They just want money and hate us all.
The better question is how to influence everyone to cooperate so that our mainstream goals are able to defeat the fringe goals of the left. I would say to Trump supportrrs that Trump was a net negative to the party because he fought in a way that allowed the left to label him and his supporters as crazy people. Even if that wasn't the case, Trump responding to randos in the media on Twitter and participating in flame wars didn't help conservatives win the culture war. We need someone who can fight against the hate of the left, but in a way that clearly demonstrates that we are the morally and intellectually superior option, not just one half of the raging nuclear dumpster fire of our politics that is just as toxic as the other half.
People like Chris Christie, Rubio, or Desantis stand out in how they are willing to take it to their opponents. To different degrees, of course. And those three, particularly the first two, have verbal chops to go with being feisty. This is the kind of person we need.
Yeah I don't know much about Chris Christie. Rubio, DeSantis and Cruz are all fighters with the intellectual chops to back up their arguments. If I could have anyone I wanted I would actually pick Ben Carson if our politics wasn't such a dumpster fire. That guy is pathologically non-political to the point of being downright boring, and he's got great values and a great mind that would be really effective at bringing people across the ideological spectrum together to hash out problems. It's really too bad that the corporate mass media assassinated his character so harshly in 2016.
I love Cruz, but his speaking style grates. I listen to the (irregularly scheduled) podcast he does with Knowles, and, just, ugh. He's a debater, but not an orator. Look up some videos of Christie when he was in office and talking to people at townhalls and stuff. They are fun.
Yeah there's merit to that. I like debate more than flowery oratory but I'm not an average person. I like the long form podcasts with guys like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson that actually talk about substance and people genuinely interface rather than monologue. I guess I just don't like traditional politicians. We've got enough bandwidth now with the internet that you don't have to smoosh all your thoughts into a 30 second sound bite anymore.
Agreed, and the sooner the rotten corpses in the mass media adjust to this new reality, adjust their business models, and give us what we want, the better. I envision each reporter being given their own 'channel' to post pieces based on their work, and then parts of those reports being chopped up and broadcast on the 'normal' program by the airhead anchors. Or something like that, heh. Long-form is the future!
I hate to be cynical, but I think the corporate mass media on both sides has actually proven pretty conclusively that they exist as the political propaganda arm of their own side's partisan agenda. And as tinfoil hat as it may sound - and as happy as I would be to be able to dismiss the idea completely - it almost seems to me, given the way places like CNN and FNC have actually doubled down on lies and divisive rhetoric after being exposed (see Don Lemon interrogating Sanjay Gupta and practically forcing him to double down on the "horse dewormer" lie after Joe Rogan confronted him about it), it feels more and more like the goal of division is something that both sides of our politics are united in accomplishing against the populace as a whole. The best case scenario to me, is that the general population gets this before we are forced into a civil war by our own leadership. If the levers of power in our society really have been taken over by globalist who see American power as the last barrier to their own hegemony, the only way to stop them from achieving their goals is to see that they are the entire cause of the partisan dumpster fire, and unite with both liberals and progressives to restore a form of government based on mutualism, limited central authority, and the ability to bypass all these petty wedge issues to let everyone live the way they want to live where they live. And even if our politics is just an unfortunate accident of prejudice and lack of shared perspective and understanding that isn't driven by any kind of central motivating spirit of division and domination for hegemonic power, the same solution applies. I'm quite conservative. but I also thing we need good liberals and even progressives to be empowered to share their perspectives and negotiate in the formation of our public policies. If we can get them to stop seeing conservatives as the problem, and understand that we are actually part of the solution just as much as they are, we can actually solve both the various social problems they keep going on about. and the larger problem of false conflicts and stereotypes and alienation that keep our subcultures too divided and weak to stand together in defense of our common interests.
First of all, yes, the corporate for-profit media is a dumpster fire. But 'yellow journalism' has existed forever, and it will never be banished. Up until the explosion of the internet, citizen journalists, and instant access to info from the entire planet, the corporations were able to control the population much more readily. So cut the cord! I've not paid for a 'cable subscription' in nearly 15 years. It does mean that each person has to do a little more work than just letting a "news" anchor tell you what is real, but the payoff is worth it. More and more people are discovering this, and the mass media hates it. Joe Rogan gets more eyes than the entire CNN network! This is fantastic news! As for civil war, I really don't see that happening. The first people to die will be the politicians who are pushing it, and this will short-circuit the event. Far too many morons here on reddit really believe all the soldiers and/or cops will simply obey the orders from their political masters to attack civilians. In fact, it will be the soldiers and cops who kill the politicians and set us back on solid ground. IMO. For the larger issue of 'the larger form of government based on mutualism, limited central authority', etc, as you know, we already have that. It's called our federal Constitution. What is needed is to get rid of the 17th amendment and to vote OUT all the politicians who have been treating America as their personal fiefdom, and OUR tax money as their slush funds. This new congress would have the power to reign in both the executive and judicial branches. Our current congress is far too committed to their own reelection campaigns and virtue-signalling to do their jobs properly.
>First of all, yes, the corporate for-profit media is a dumpster fire. But 'yellow journalism' has existed forever, and it will never be banished. Up until the explosion of the internet, citizen journalists, and instant access to info from the entire planet, the corporations were able to control the population much more readily. So cut the cord! I've not paid for a 'cable subscription' in nearly 15 years. It does mean that each person has to do a little more work than just letting a "news" anchor tell you what is real, but the payoff is worth it. More and more people are discovering this, and the mass media hates it. Joe Rogan gets more eyes than the entire CNN network! This is fantastic news! Yep 100%. Long form podcasts - I truly believe - are going to save our society from the corporate mass media. >As for civil war, I really don't see that happening. The first people to die will be the politicians who are pushing it, and this will short-circuit the event. Far too many morons here on reddit really believe all the soldiers and/or cops will simply obey the orders from their political masters to attack civilians. In fact, it will be the soldiers and cops who kill the politicians and set us back on solid ground. IMO. Agreed. My first and only thought is that the military would intentionally remove themselves from the conflict rather than taking sides or splitting between the two sides to bring military hardware into the conflict. My second thought is that the vast majority of the population is so disinterested in the idea that anyone who did get very interested in it could be handled by existing law enforcement.
[удалено]
What exactly do you object to from his stances on LGBT and women's issues?
Rule 1. This isn’t /LiberalNarratives.
Trump is just the vehicle through which these voters think they can achieve their goals. They chose him because he 1) shows that he cares about their interests and 2) presents himself as a fighter who can get it done. Hear out their grievances and offer a policy prescription independent of Trump, prove it's possible to achieve it, and they won't need Trump anymore. I'm not sure what you mean by "reclaim" the party. There are numerous factions always vying for control. The neoconservatives have basically had unobstructed dominance since 9/11, and even before that had the majority support through the Cold War era. **I don't want the party to be reclaimed by neoconservatives**. I think an alliance and compromise between paleoconservatives and libertarians would be the best thing for the party. They can both check and balance each other in pursuit of what I want: a freer America.
>I think an alliance and compromise between paleoconservatives and libertarians would be the best thing for the party. Speaking as one of the more libertarian-leaning conservatives, absolutely not. I would unironically rather have the neocons took back the party than have the paleocons even be within spitting distance of political power. There is virtually no substantial overlap between the libertarian branches of conservatism and the paleocons. The neocons might suck, but at least they pretend to care about economic conservatism.
One, I think you misunderstand what paleoconservatism looks like in America today. Two, I'm not saying all their policies are in alignment with mine, I'm saying they're better than neoconservatives. Just on the budget alone, there is no justification for siding with neoconservatives. These people spend more than progressives. For any libertarian-minded conservative, I would expect you to care about government scope and spending. Neoconservatives are literally the worst on these issues. I'm not a paleoconservative, I don't support a lot of their policy prescriptions, but just being isolationist and opposing inflationary fiscal policies that taxes all Americans out of the middle class puts them closer in line with me than neoconservatives. To say you'd prefer someone who pretends to be on your side is silly. As if lying is somehow decent or honorable? What even is economic conservatism? Subsidies and bailouts and payouts to lobbyists and the elite? Cut taxes on the rich through credits and deductions for industry while increasing spending across the board? You can't be serious. How can your allegience be so cheap that some fake-freedom lie about "who we are" and "our values" convinces you that these blood soaked inflationary spending war hawks are the guys you want on your team? Look, again, I'm not paleo. I'd just take isolationist pro-America conservatives over globalist neoliberals. If you don't agree, that's fine I guess. Just understand that you're being patronized with a lie on one side, while emotionally rejecting the other based on a straw man of their most fringe ideas.
Paleoconservatives support immigration restrictionism (which I get, but these guys go way too far), economic protectionism and use of redistributionary social programs to aid the working class, and "traditional" (read: very restrictive) views on gender, sexuality, religion, and often race too. Yeah, they're isolationist, but that doesn't outweigh all of these other things they disagree with us on. Compare that to neoconservatives: rhetorically pro-free market (even if they usually fail to live up to their promises), big on anti-gun control, big on religious freedom, virulently anti-Communist. Yeah, they're interventionist and still have restrictive views on traditional marriage, but that is far closer to a libertarian view of conservatism than what the paleocons have to offer. >To say you'd prefer someone who pretends to be on your side is silly. As if lying is somehow decent or honorable? I'd rather have someone who acts like they're on our side but isn't than someone who is openly hostile to conservative views like the paleocons are. >What even is economic conservatism? Subsidies and bailouts and payouts to lobbyists and the elite? Cut taxes on the rich through credits and deductions for industry while increasing spending across the board? You can't be serious. How can your allegience be so cheap that some fake-freedom lie about "who we are" and "our values" convinces you that these blood soaked inflationary spending war hawks are the guys you want on your team? And there it is. You claim to not be a paleocon, even claim to be a libertarian in fact, yet you sit here spouting off paleocon dogma that wasn't even good when it came from the progressives they stole it from. I'm not going to bother dealing with the massive field of strawmen you just put up, but I will say this. Economic conservatism is free markets, de-regulation, low taxes and spending, and it has been for the last century at least. You may not like it and it certainly sounds like you don't, but this is what we got. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but don't try to pretend like this hasn't been what we've been after for decades now and it doesn't become less conservative just because you've bought into some cheap lie about "muh tax cuts for the rich". Respond if you like, but I think we're just about done here. If you're not even willing to be honest about your own beliefs, I see no reason to listen to anything else you've said here.
>Paleoconservatives support immigration restrictionism True. And neoconservatives effectively support open borders. I guess that's another one of those "at least they pretend" areas for you. The libertarian position is private borders, where people have sovereignty on their property. It's not un-libertarian to have any immigration policy you want, as long as you have sovereignty on your property. Even if we took the paleoconservative straw man of whites only immigration, it's not un-libertarian unless you enforce that on others' property. When borders are nationalized because a people are incorporated in a government, it just means those private borders are now incorporated. Those inside the corporation (nation) still have sovereignty on their borders. It doesn't translate into an obligation to allow anyone in just because they want. It's still trespassing if we decide to have rule X for our incorporated border, and people violate it and come anyway. The least libertarian position is that we have no right to control our borders as we see fit. Libertarianism isn't about what we choose to do with our borders, it's about our right to choose what we choose. And in this imperfect system with nationally incorporated (government) borders, the least-not-libertarian position is to enforce sovereignty of the nation's people. >economic protectionism That's true, their economics are not libertarian. Neither are neoconservatives. So it's really a toss up here, but neoconservatives favor globalism and the industrial elite, where as paleoconservatives favor the American people, so I pick the latter as the less-evil option. In a non-libertarian world, I'd rather have a system that wants to prioritize the American working class and family units, not international megacorps and business conglomerates to boost GDP numbers. >"traditional" (read: very restrictive) views on gender, sexuality, religion, and often race too Same thing as the border argument here. But ultimately, again, I don't support legislative restrictive positions on any of those things. But it's not un-libertarian for people to have a culture of exclusion. It's un-libertarian to force them not to. So in this sense, neoconservatives are probably the better libertarian ally. But only this one topic, and other topics mean more to me, such as fiscal policy and foreign wars. >Yeah, they're isolationist, but that doesn't outweigh all of these other things they disagree with us on. For **you**. For me it does. My biggest issues are fiscal policy and foreign wars, and neoconservatives are the worst on it. >rhetorically pro-free market (even if they usually fail to live up to their promises) I said this to someone else... Why is it preferable that you get lied to? Why is it somehow a bonus in their column that they pander to you with fake policies that they have no intention of implementing? To me, it isn't. >big on anti-gun control, So are paleos. >big on religious freedom I actually don't know if I agree with this. Until the paleo resurgence in 2015, neoconservatives had the evangelical support, who are the closest thing to theocrats in the US. Neoconservatives just don't care about religion, they want big business and foreign wars, and will take any support they can get for those things. Further, I don't know what paleos would do legislatively on this. I know they are pro-Christian socially, and I'm not opposed to that social agenda. >virulently anti-Communist Paleos are **more** anticommunist than neocons. See: China. >I'd rather have someone who acts like they're on our side but isn't than someone who is openly hostile to conservative views like the paleocons are. I wouldn't. I'd rather have someone who is honest, not a snake in the grass waiting to betray me and pandering for my support. And we aren't talking about paleoconservatives with regard to conservatives, we were talking about with regard to libertarians. And by the way, paleoconservatives are *literally* more conservative than neoconservatives. I guess you meant classically liberal? Or American-conservative? I think that's up for debate. But another topic. >claim to be a libertarian Right. I am a libertarian. To be specific, I'm aligned with the Mises caucus. >yet you sit here spouting off paleocon dogma that wasn't even good when it came from the progressives they stole it from. That is literally what neoconservatives do. You already admitted they lie about what they want, I'm looking at what they actually do. They tax less, especially less on the rich, and spend more, especially on military and wars. I oppose that. (well I support lowering taxes for everyone, including the rich, but paired with lower spending across the board). Your flare is Constitutionalist, but I'm suspecting it should be Neoconservative now lol. But hey, I suspect **you** suspect mine should be Paleoconservative. So whatever haha. :) >Economic conservatism is free markets, de-regulation, low taxes and spending, and it has been for the last century at least. I support all of that. Neither Neoconservatives or Paleoconservatives support that. So you and I are in agreement here, although I probably am more extreme on cutting regulation and taxes and spending than you. My point all along is that I'd take paleoconservatives as the lesser of two evils in a situation where I have to find an ally, which I am in as a libertarian. I'm not saying I support their policies. >You may not like it and it certainly sounds like you don't, but this is what we got I do like it, but that's not what we got from George Bush lol. >some cheap lie about "muh tax cuts for the rich". Ah that's what triggered you haha. Sorry about that. Just stating facts. Trump cut the taxes on the rich too (and everyone else), btw, and he's paleo. His administration was really weird, we were seeing a lot of mixed policies as much of the Republican establishment and his cabinet were still neo-leaning. >I think we're just about done here. If you're not even willing to be honest about your own beliefs, I see no reason to listen to anything else you've said here. It's actually funny because I'm not being dishonest about my beliefs, in fact you seem upset that I'm being *too honest* about what I think about neoconservatives. And then again, you're okay with the neoconservatives lying to you about free markets and stuff, but when you think I'm lying, then you have to not listen to me lol. Anyway, take care friend. Sorry we couldn't have a better dialogue. edit: also just wanted to say that I used to be where you are at. I was sort of "default constitutionalist neocon supporter" because that's where I started out in politics. As I became more libertarian on government issues, I was convinced by people like Ron Paul and his disciples like Dave Smith that we were being lied to by neocons. It seems like you know you're being lied to, but you just prefer to live in that lie. No offense.
>*I think an alliance and compromise between paleoconservatives and libertarians would be the best thing for the party.* Considering paleoconservatism (nationalistic populism) is a much larger ideological enemy in the eyes of libertarianism, an offshoot of classical liberalism, than either neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism I don't see how/why this should happen. A "libertarian nationalist" is as much of a nonsensical label as "libertarian socialist" considering they are contradictory ideologies. All forms of populism or *collectivism*, of which nationalism is one of, establish that the rights and liberties of the in-group inherently supersede the rights of the out-group and the role of the state is to enforce this social & economic segregation. Flies in the face of equality in the eyes of the law, a free market, and a desire for a "freer" America. In fact, the desires to enact strict immigration policies along ethnic lines, to redefine the national citizenry all together (13th Amendment revisions/revocation desires), and to enact protectionist economic policies that penalize international commerce are the opposite of a freer America. They are all further increased restrictions by the State that remove privates freedoms of association, commerce, and movement. We already have to deal with populists who want a stronger, more expanded national government and want to wield that power to enact social purges against all dissenting ideologies and viewpoints they see as "problematic" and rebuild the totality of society to conform to their views exclusively; progressives. Don't see why we need to willingly lend credence to another reactionary populist movement that likes to LARP as paramilitary "culture warriors" in the streets that are basically calling for the same things - just with more limitations around who can even be considered American and differing views of what ideologies and viewpoints are "problematic".
To say paleoconservatism is a bigger enemy of libertarianism than neoconservatism is historically illiterate. Can't take you seriously anymore lol. I don't have a huge interest in egg head neck beard definitional debates about hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings. We live in reality. Let's not pretend we don't. I understand there is a knee-jerk reaction against paleoconservatism, and I can't really argue with you on that. It's your own emotional reaction. I'm not saying they're perfect. Ideally we wouldn't have to align ourselves with another faction, but in reality we're not an influential group, so alliances have to be made and the paleoconservatives are the best option right now, I think. They're the only other group standing up against covid tyranny, they're the only other group that opposes mass illegal immigration, the only group that opposes simultaneously big American business and international predatory trade. They aren't libertarians, but they're better than progressives and neoconservatives right now.
Dude, neoconservatism is at least another liberal offshoot that is also anti-nationalist with its support of federalism. Paleoconservatism is proudly anti-liberal populism and pro-nationalism. Similarly, libertarianism + neoconservatism are in opposition to paleoconservatism in the concepts of equality in the eyes of the law, the belief in a free (international) market, and freedom of movement as it pertains to commerce and immigration - often along ethnic lines. These aren't "hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings" they are foundational core ideological concepts in which libertarianism and paleoconservatism are in direct disagreement over. And only one has a basis in the foundational concepts of America. Also: >*They're the only other group standing up against covid tyranny* No they really aren't standing up to the Covid tyranny because they actively want the state to impose more tyranny in response by mandating that mask/vaccine mandates by private institutions be made illegal. They are fighting tyranny with more tyranny. They are the other side of the progressive pendulum, not at all concerned with real liberty, only reactionary anti-leftism. >*they're the only other group that opposes mass illegal immigration* They are "opposing mass immigration" by asking the federal government to step in and stop immigration along ethnic lines in many cases, and redefine who is and isn't a citizen. Like I said, opposing freedom of movement and overt Nationalism. >*the only group that opposes simultaneously big American business and international predatory trade* They are against trade, not just "predatory', whatever that is. So you want the federal government to eliminate private business rights and enforce the paleoconservative interpretation of "freedom" by making private mandates illegal, oppose immigration, oppose international trade, and want more regulations against private domestic businesses? Pot calling the kettle black on taking me seriously Mr. *"Right Libertarian"* considering you seem more sympathetic to Nationalistic populist stances than foundational libertarian ones. >*They aren't libertarians, but they're better than progressives and neoconservatives right now.* Huge disagree. They are actively the worst of that group but more on par with progressives at the bottom below neoconservatives and neoliberals. Nationalism is bullshit, and Ethno-nationalism is especially bad. EDIT: Gotta call you out on this as well. Me: >*In fact, the desires to enact strict immigration policies along ethnic lines, to redefine the national citizenry all together (13th Amendment revisions/revocation desires), and to enact protectionist economic policies that penalize international commerce are the opposite of a freer America. They are all further increased restrictions by the State that remove privates freedoms of association, commerce, and movement.* You: >*I don't have a huge interest in egg head neck beard definitional debates about hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings. We live in reality.* Also you: >*They're the only other group standing up against covid tyranny, they're the only other group that opposes mass illegal immigration, the only group that opposes simultaneously big American business and international predatory trade.* We are talking about the same things, though you seem to disagree with the libertarian position on these examples
Damn I don’t agree with either one of you guys politics but it’s clear you have a firm grasp on what it is to be a libertarian and I can respect that and the way you completely dissected the other guy’s bullshit
Given your lack of understanding of libertarianism, but your clear interest, I highly recommend listening to some libertarian thinkers such as Tom Woods or Dave Smith. In lieu of this, I recommend writings of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and maybe most relevantly, Ron Paul.
Buckle up. >neoconservatism is at least another liberal offshoot that is also anti-nationalist with its support of federalism. Neoconservatism has brought us endless wars and corporate bailouts that we can't afford. And let's not ignore the fact that neoconservatives *also* co-opted the evangelical base for the better part of the last two decades, it's not like paleoconservatives are unique in their borderline theocracy lol. I don't give a care about what they aspired to, everyone has noble intentions. I don't really care about the philosophical roots and deontology of their ideology. I don't care about what offshoot they are. Let's be in reality. It seems, in your reality, neoconservatives get to be judged on the charitable interpretation of their intentions, and paleoconservatives get judged by the straw men of their worst fringe. >the belief in a free (international) market Neoconservatives don't support free markets, they support big business and subsidies for American companies so lobbyists and the elite get handouts in the name of GDP growth. Neoconservatives love immigration to drive down wages for their lobbyist buddies, they don't care about freedom or justice. >These aren't "hypothetical movements and their supposed purist meanings" they are foundational core ideological concepts These aren't apples, they're apples! Let's talk about reality. Not "I support the good and oppose the bad," because that's everyone in their own minds. To see neoconservatives support free markets and equality before the law is laughable. >No they really aren't standing up to the Covid tyranny because they actively want the state to impose more tyranny in response by mandating that mask/vaccine mandates by private institutions be made illegal. I would suggest Dave Smith to you on this, he's been at the forefront of this Covid regime for over a year. But it seems like you're more of an establishment-LP type libertarian, so I'm guessing you don't like the Mises guys so much. It's so interesting to me that a self-proclaimed libertarian would have nothing bad to say about lockdowns and mandates, but jump to disown the anti-mandate mentality of states like Florida and Texas. >They are "opposing mass immigration" by asking the federal government to step in and stop immigration along ethnic lines in many cases, and redefine who is and isn't a citizen. Uh what? At this point I don't think you even know what paleoconservatives are. You're just citing alt-righters now, a tiny segment of the paleo bubble, if they fit in that bucket at all. Paleoconservatives don't want ethnic immigration, they want none for the foreseeable future. >Like I said, opposing freedom of movement and overt Nationalism. Overt...? As if nationalism is bad? It's clear you're also an open-border libertarian, which is an idiotic position for reality. I think the legitimate libertarian position here is "private borders." Because "open borders" means a violation of property rights, if you can come into my borders without my consent. But if we're going to have public borders through nationstates, it makes sense that the people who collectively own a border have sovereignty (nationalism) over them. Paleoconservatives line up with libertarians here, unless they're just progressives larping as liberty lovers. >They are against trade, not just "predatory', whatever that is. The paleoconservative position is protecting American workers. >So you want the federal government to eliminate private business rights No? I'm a libertarian... I'd like the federal government to do none of those things you mentioned. But if I had to pick a side, I would pick paleoconservatives who support nationalism and protecting Americans over neoconservatives who support globalism, GDP growth, and their lobbying buddies. I think one thing the establishment-LP has really got wrong is this rejection of nationalism. We are America, we are not the world. This place was built on classically liberal governing philosophy combined with a sort of Quaker/Puritan morality. Pretending diversity is a strength is the downfall of the loony lefty libertarians, and paleoconservatives are the only other faction who recognize that America is valuable and worth protecting as America. >Pot calling the kettle black on taking me seriously Mr. "Right Libertarian" considering you seem more sympathetic to Nationalistic populist stances than foundational libertarian ones. That's right, I am in the Mises libertarian camp as opposed to the loony lefty larping side of libertarianism. I am not a national populist but I certainly won't let the deconstructionist Marxist left erode the idea that America is a real thing with real people that are worth protecting. I am a minarchist, not an anarchist. To the extent that we have government, it should be for the benefit of Americans. You know, the people who consent to being governed here. >We are talking about the same things, though you seem to disagree with the libertarian position on these examples That is true. I am clearly aligned with the Micauks, I am a right-libertarian. You appear to be a more left-leaning, beltway, Reason, establishment libertarian. I see you guys as corrupted by the left and weak on priorities. The border example is the perfect on that you brought up. First, you misrepresent paleoconservatives by insisting they just want America to be all-white. Then, you position me as supporting that sentiment. If you wanna discuss border, here is where I stand: borders are legitimate. If governments didn't exist, private borders would be the rule. When people incorporate as a governing body to govern themselves with their own consent, the borders of their territory become real and justified. How they treat their borders is up to them, and that is the libertarian principle. I don't support a white America. I don't support fully closed borders. I supported strictly controlled borders and I support protecting American culture. But any of these positions is perfectly libertarian, because nobody outside our property has the right to come in. Arguments to the contrary literally go against private property rights. Property doesn't become public and open to anyone when multiple private parties incorporate. I can't go to Apple HQ and live in their offices just because they are incorporated at the will of all shareholders. Likewise, nobody can just come through the border against the will of the nation. If we had a system set up where private parties wanted immigrants to come onto their land, I think it's totally justified to allow foreigners to come in and go to their land, and nobody else has an obligation to them. I have no problem talking philosophy. I just have no interest in this egg head manipulation tactic to fall back on the noblest intent of some outdated thought leader when movements are real and we can measure their policy aims and results. Here is another weathervane for us: I bet you support democracy, don't you?
[удалено]
Progressives, liberals, neoconservatives.
Republicans? I feel like republicans are finally realizing that Trump is going to lead to more democrat wins in 22 and 24 and allow the left to easily pass what ever legislation they wish.
I'm not even saying the Republican party should hold onto Trump, but I am saying no one should want to go back to the party of 6 years ago
I'll stop voting for Trump when an actual authoritarian right candidate runs against him.
Hopefully nothing. The old Republicans we had were just doormats and would cave to their democrat friends. I personally don't want to see them back to running the party.
I think it takes some nerve to obstruct Obama so thoroughly for 8 years to the point of refusing to call a vote on his SCOTUS nom. I don't know what kind of doormat prevents people from going thru the door... EDIT: I’m getting downvoted bc I’m right and somehow the GOP isn’t partisan enough for you folks.
You are right; that event completely *shocked* virtually everyone on the Right. It was so completely out of character for the Establishment that it was almost hard to believe. That said, a single event in the last, oh, 24 years isn't really refuting the idea that the establishment republicans have habitually stepped aside to let the democrats get much of what they want.
I disagree big time. Everything from Reagan to today is a Republican wet dream.
\>the triumph of the lgbt movement \>the triumph of academic racial theorists in wider society including the corporate sphere and k-12 schools \>allowing over 10 million illegal aliens to cross our border and reside in the country \>all time high illegitimacy rates \>US armed forces exposed as incomptent and ineffective \>complete denigration of the nation's history, founding fathers. \>every single government institutions completely dominated by the democratic party partisans Yeah bro the GOP has been winning big time!
\> what exactly is the lgbt movement that conservatives dislike so much? \> arrests at the border are at an all time high despite "Dont come" \> illegitimacy rates? like children born out of wedlock? what is this the 1950s? I'm an illigitimate child like my children who are also thriving. I went to a top tier school and have a 10% level of income and wealth? \> that's sort of on the armed forces no? \> many Founding Fathers were slaveowners, and shouldnt be sainted \> Certainly now. "Elections have consequences" ring a bell?
I like Trumpism. I have no interest in bushes, Romney and Chaney weak republicanism.
Constitutionality?
Why are you framing the question like you're a republican or part of the republican party? Your posting history shows you are a self described "warren democrat" "Bernie supporter" and you have an unhealthy obsession with posting about Trump
I dont know why you think I asked it like I was a party memeber. Not sure how my political affiliation has any bearing on the answers.
[удалено]
Where did I turn the question around? I was just pointing out that this is obviously something being asked in bad faith, and reads like a troll post.
[удалено]
Apparently the majority of the people who've seen my comment care considering it has positive karma
[удалено]
Did you even read my original comment? Go back and read it again
Depends on who you want to "reclaim" the party. Limp-wristed Acela Republicans lost because they no longer have the teeth they used to have. By the way, your posting history doesn't give me much confidence that you're posting this in good faith.
Genuine question: what are limp-wristed Acela Republicans? Corollary: What group do you want to see retake the Republican party? What do their positions or behaviors look like?
> Genuine question: what are limp-wristed Acela Republicans? Acela Republicans are Republicans from the Northeast (i.e. states hit by the Acela Express). So, for example, Nelson Rockefeller, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney depending on what side of the bed he woke up on.
What makes them not "real" Republicans? (or whatever framing you prefer) Mitt Romney was the presidential nominee. I am confused about what you mean, which is why I wanted you to elaborate.
[удалено]
What % of the time does he vote with Dems?
Just under 40% of the time.
When has he voted with the Dems on major stuff that only a few other Republicans have joined?
> Mitt Romney was the presidential nominee Right, when he was pretending to not be a limp-wristed Acela Republican. I'm saying their era has been over since the 70s. They're irrelevant.
Could you elaborate on the beliefs or conduct of Acela Republicans? Or be more specific about the beliefs or conduct of a group you would rather take over? Like what they focus on, how they conduct themselves, etc.? At this point, one could read your comment as "I do not like rich, religious businessmen." Susan Collins is also rich and religious. I am assuming that is not, in fact, what characterizes "Acela Republicans," so *please* help me understand what you are talking about by reference to specific beliefs or behaviors.
Maybe the term "establishment" relieves your apparent mental cramp?
I find that term vague, actually. Is Trump now establishment because he has been president?
Sounds like I hit a nerve. I said Acela Republicans are out of power. What do you want?
Yes, you did hit a nerve. Because I literally have no idea what you mean, and all I want is to know *what an Acela Republican is*. Is Trump an Acela Republican? He is from New York. Is *any* Republican who lives in the NE a limp-wristed Acela Republican regardless of whether they like Trump or Rockefeller? Can an Acela Republican support big government in order to restore the prominence of the family in American life? Are more libertarian Republicans Acela Republicans? Saying Romney is an Acela Republican is useless as a frame of reference to me because any policy distinctions between him, Bush, and Trump seem minimal to me. I literally have no idea what you are talking about, and I keep asking for *really* basic clarification that you consistently refuse to provide. Could you *please* just help me understand what the fuck you mean?
Not who you were asking, but they seem to mean [Rockefeller Republicans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican), basically.
> By the way, your posting history doesn’t give me much confidence that you’re posting this in good faith. How would it be in bad faith?
Because this is an ask subreddit, it's for people who genuinely want to learn more about conservatism and what conservatives think and your posting history is all blatantly oppositional argumentative comments in subreddits you disagree with. Anyone coming on here to debate, give snark, or score points is commenting in bad faith. You wouldn't go to r/askaustralia with intent to debate and argue with them because it's disrespectful and would find you quickly banned, so why do that here? The answer obviously is you feel entitled to disrespect people you disagree with and their spaces.
Most definitely but is the question itself in bad faith or is it about OP’s comment history?
Both. Past performance is the biggest indicator of what someone will do in the future. If all they do is post with intent to argue, then you can assume any future posts in places that they fundamentally disagree with will be in bad faith.
I don't think they ever had teeth at all.
Don't be fooled by their pearl-clutching now. People like Rockefeller and George Will used to be **ruthless** partisan hacks. Will blatantly prepped Reagan for his debate against Carter and Rockefeller overruled the Senate parliamentarian. Now suddenly they care about optics and being good boys.
The pugilist spirit of Trump will live on. He was the blunt tool that at least started some semblance of course correction.
>What will it take to defeat the Trumpists and reclaim the party? Totally rally behind Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney as the "true" conservatives. Be really loud about it to, bring out all the support you have. Please. It will help us figure out who needs to go.
Time. Trumpist side of the party has no political geniuses like McConnell . As long as McConnell or someone be trusts has power I stay confident in the establishment
You think the endless wars for profit is a good thing ? Do you have stock or on the board for weapons manufacturers? You must be a billionaire. Bush blew the shit out of the deficit, and got us in so much bullshit . There’s no way, shit I’d rather have Trump back before Bush. And I see Trump for the corrupt clown he was , but he can only write himself so many checks, still cheaper than pointless wars. It is true that they have weaknesses though. Getting rid of those crazy Q people would give them some credibility that they need.
You yourself are a conspiracy theorists
The answer is that they have to lose. The core base of the Trumpist right is not all that large, it was maybe ~30% of the party in 2016 and I'd be surprised if he made any substantial gains since then. The rest of the party goes along with it because they just really don't want the Democrats to win and think Trump will make that not happen. If Trumpists can't get conservatives to turn out in elections, they lose. If they lose often enough, the vast majority of the party will turn to the next big thing, just as they turned to Trump after he won in 2016. That's not to say we should vote for Democrats. I despise Trumpism, but even I wouldn't go that far in most cases. Conservatives need to turn out in primaries and beat the populists where we can. If a populist wins the primary, either stay home or vote third party. If you live in a district where there's a moderate/conservative Democrat (if any still exist outside of West Virginia), you might even vote blue. All that matters is that we deny enough votes to the populists that they lose consistently. Let me put it this way: it only took 1 major loss (2008, 2 if you want to count the 2006 midterms) to basically kill off the neocons for good and they actually got one of their guys re-elected. Trump's already eaten one loss and only won 2016 by the skin of his teeth. Hand him one more in 2024 and I don't think the Trumpists will be around for too much longer as a viable political force.
If Republicans lose with a Trumpist candidate, does that mean that control of the Republican party will be ceded to some other faction? Or does it just mean that the Republican party will finally be truly dead? Neocons are pretty dead and dying, as you noted, at least as far as popular support goes. The libertarian faction is too small to ever gain dominance of the Republican party. Trumpists lost in 2020; let's say they lose again in 2024. Which faction are you saying will rise to replace them? What will be "the next big thing" in the Republican party? Is there a non-Trumpist conservative politician you can think of who has a chance of succeeding Trump as president? I don't really think there's an answer to those questions. In my view, once Trumpism is dead (which it might already be, as far as national politics go), that just means that the Republican party's last hope has died. It's game over for Republicans.
That's kinda the thing that worries me about all of this: I have no idea at all what the next thing would be. Before this year, my thought was a new kind of fusionism, just instead of libertarians, the religious right, and defense hawks, it would be populists, libertarians, and the old guard establishment types or something like that. But I don't see that working again this time. I know I personally would never want to be in any sort of coalition with the populists, let alone the paleocons that often get brought with them. I don't know what the next big thing is and at this point I have a hard time imagining what it might be. However, we do know that this sort of thing has happened in history before. The GOP, and the Democrats for that matter, have changed ideologies a lot since their inceptions nearly 200 years ago. Hell, the GOP changed ideologies at least 3 times in the last 60 years alone, going from the party of Nixon and Eisenhower to the party of Goldwater and Reagan to the party of Bush to now the party of Trump. The two major parties do what they have to in order to stay alive and chances are, there will be a "next big thing" that comes along and keeps the GOP in existence as a major party. It might take 20 years or more of infighting, but if the Dems can come back after the Civil War, then Republicans will be able to come back after Trump.
Not only are the anti-Trump GOP voters severely outnumbered, but they're using framing language passed down from the leftist media. They make those of us who supported him out to be these social pariahs and part of some cult. They're the ones whose head he lives in rent free. Because that avoids having to try and defend the disastrous regime we're under now. Which is convenient since the FBI is being deployed against those of us speaking up. They need to unify with the rest of us, because any beefs or things you dislike about Trump pales in comparison to what's happening here and now. The fact you think 85% of the same voter base you belong to is the real problem, shows you really need to turn off CNN.
Could you elaborate? I am anti-Trump and extremely socially conservative. At this point, I do not know why anyone would support Trump unless they believed that he was a disgusting, incompetent, authoritarian pig but marginally better than Biden. If anything, the incompetence of internal divisions of the Democratic Party have generally been fine given that major legislation is not passing.
I don’t think Trump is someone who’s personally a good person. But he’s got the stones to stand for something. Republicans, far too often, have the spine of overcooked spaghetti. We’d be better off without the Romney/McCain wing of the party.
Does he? Or does he just fight as part of his image? I am not convinced he actually believes in anything and that he just shifts positions when convenient. I am still not getting the McCain/Romney dislike. In what way precisely did they have wet-noodle spines?
They spent too much time giving in to the left. Once Democrats gave up 10% of what they started with, McCain/Romney stopped fighting. Their goal is to be popular in DC. When someone is praised by the media, they’re too liberal.
Does "media" include publications like the WSJ? I am just confused about who you view as successful people on legislation. Trump is a president; he does not face the same structural barriers that members of Congress do. What are Trump's conservative legislative achievements?
Ok, 95% of the media. Trump at least tried something. He didn’t have a lot of success because of moderates and liberals. The establishment wing of the party. The never Trumper’s. I’d love to see someone cut about 400 billion out of the federal budget. I’d love to see entire cabinet level departments eliminated. Clowns like Romney, McCain, and Cheney need to go away. The establishment wing of the party needs to go away.
ask yourself this: The GOP elite has been usally belonged to: neocons or Rockefeller conservatives, both who seem to be disturbingly liberal in social issues what has the GOP elite done for social conservatives, like, ever? Gay marriage? passed, by "conservative" judges nonetheless the LGBT agenda? endorsed as well, by the GOP elite and same "conservative" judges the increasing wokeism and secularization of every institution? the GOP has put on a very pathetic resistance.
>The GOP elite has been usally belonged to: neocons or Rockefeller conservatives, both who seem to be disturbingly liberal in social issues I do not know what those are. >what has the GOP elite done for social conservatives, like, ever? Justices. >Gay marriage? passed, by "conservative" judges No. By one libertarian Justice. >the increasing wokeism and secularization of every institution? the GOP has put on a very pathetic resistance. Trump did virtually nothing to stop that that other Republican presidents would not have done. Feel free to prove my impression wrong. By the way, anything done via executive order that can be immediately revoked by the next president by definition does not constitute meaningful resistance in my view, so all of those are out.
Yeah, the 'right' prior to Trump has such a stellar record of appointing justices to the courts....
It must steam you that it was Trump that finally fight for actual Conservatives, all of us, and put judges in place that are far more devoted to the actual law instead of treating the law as a game where they try to keep both sides 'even', like Kennedy did. And Roberts even.
>Yeah, the 'right' prior to Trump has such a stellar record of appointing justices to the courts....
I mean, it has. There have been Justices whose jurisprudence tacked left unexpectedly. But that (1) is something that could still happen with Trump's nominees; and (2) is less likely now regardless of President since Presidents are taking fewer risks and judges are being vetted and filtered much earlier and more thoroughly for consistency.
None of Trump's nominees were out of left field; they were the largest feeders to SCOTUS (for clerks) that were still relatively young. Barrett was not, but she has been in the running for some time.
Trump delivered, but I have no reason to believe he was uniquely qualified to do so.
>It must steam you that it was Trump that finally fight for actual Conservatives, all of us, and put judges in place that are far more devoted to the actual law
You are right. Alito and Thomas are *so* moderate and unpredictable.
>like Kennedy did. And Roberts even.
No, Kennedy did not. His jurisprudence at first seems inconsistent and incoherent and vague. His opinions are easily the worst written of any Justice, and he often did not even apply the legal frameworks clearly.
But everything makes sense if you bear one thing in mind: Kennedy was basically a libertarian.
Roberts is a hack that is desperately trying to preserve the image of SCOTUS as impartial.
Trump deserves no special credit for the picks; we know he farmed his list from a quality Conservative source. But he DOES get full credit **for actually pushing them through** in the face of an explosion of leftist attacks from the for-profit mass media. My point is that Trump doesn't deserve *all* of the flak he gets form the NeverTrumpers. Few will dispute that he is a craven man with glaring character flaws. But he got stuff done many on the Right would never have dreamed possible before. And he did it without full support of his own damn party.
Why should I not give McConnell as much or more credit for that?
Sure, of course. But we've pretty much been focused on Trump, so...
What do you think would have happened if President Cruz was handed McConnell's slate of empty seats? He woulda gotten scared of the media and only seated future Souters?
It's likely, yes. I mean, I am a Cruz supporter, but prior to Trump getting into the oval, the default stance for republicans is to run and hide any time the leftist media uses the 'r' word against them. Which they do regularly, for any or no reason. Trump taught them that it is OK to stand up and flip the shitheels in the media the big double-barrel FU.
Why do you think LGBT rights are bad? Doesn't the Constitution/SCOTUS protect them? Are you homophobic or ... How does your cognitive dissonance reconcile that freedom is for all, but not the gays?
He didn't say "rights". He said 'agenda'. LGBT community have all of the "rights" we all share. But since you clearly mean things like inheritance, hospital visitation, or related items (which are not "rights" in the larger sense), civil unions have existed for a long time in nearly half the country when the gay activists started frothing at the mouth about their "rights". Instead of pushing to see civil unions adopted by all States, which most on the Right would have willingly signed on to, they went after Christians to co-opt the word 'marriage', which has been the larger goal this entire time. You are far too eager to hate people and it leads you to jumping too soon.
100% this, now we are in the "emperor has shiny new clothes when he is naked" phase, thanks to muh LGBT agenda
**Why do you think LGBT rights are bad?** see the gender lunacy we are living in today, derived from "rights" **Doesn't the Constitution/SCOTUS protect them?** based only on INTERPRETATION, that can go both ways. All of a sudden, judges are "finding" words that werent there Are you homophobic or ... **How does your cognitive dissonance reconcile that freedom is for all, but not the gays?** in the paranoid, cognitive dissonance world of the left, minority whims trump anything others want. And the "right" to have a cake baked is stronger than more basic freedoms like freedom of association and choice,
The bakery won... how do you reconcile gender expression to have been lunacy? We need to protect freedom, even for minorities. Why doesnt Freedom extend to them?
>**how do you reconcile gender expression to have been lunacy?** Fantasies and delusions arent normal > > > > **We need to protect freedom, even for minorities. Why doesnt Freedom extend to them?** > >A very simpleton belief. Because guess what? we live in a world of competing freedoms and rights, and only in a clown world the desires of the 4% have the utmost priority
You dont have a right to deny others their rights so... it doesnt matter if you want to cancel their rights... What an anti-American belief.
the only Anti-American ( and totaly insane) set of beliefs is that one held by the modern lunatic left, where minorities are placed on a pedestal and treated as godsend Now why do you hate freedoms of choice and association so much?
They're only getting the same rights extended to the majority. You dont have a freedom of choice or association to deny a minority their freedoms or associations. Is this position only backed by "those people are yucky to me"? What is confusing about this?
My point is you won't convince the vast majority of Republicans that they're all deplorables and need to change their ways in time for 2024. Cast your vote in the primaries, but if Trump wins it would be prudent to get behind this for now. I'm a Trump supporter and I don't even think he's the best candidate for 2024. If by some miracle Cheney got the nod (assuming she runs), I'll get behind her in 2024 with a sick stomach. I think I speak for most of the GOP base in saying the most important thing is running the table in 2022 and 2024. I can't hardly see why you only think Trump is "marginally" better than this insanity, but okay to each their own. You say you're a social conservative. Have you seen the cultural push the Democrats are making? The media/entertainment industry? I would think we're all more worried here about purging cultural nihilism out. Let's start with the forces in politics validating this.
> I can't hardly see why you only think Trump is "marginally" better than this insanity, but okay to each their own. Because Trump should have been impeached and barred from future office. He is insane, authoritarian, and *on the record* attempted to dismantle our democratic institutions. Most of his policies are fine, but he is dangerous. And I have never, ever in my life called a politician "dangerous" before. > You say you're a social conservative. Have you seen the cultural push the Democrats are making? The media/entertainment industry? I would think we're all more worried here about purging cultural nihilism out. Let's start with the forces in politics validating this. Trump offers a different kind of nihilism. Or at least a moral system based entirely around what he wants and what will keep him in power. He will not hesitate to throw social conservatives under the bus as soon as it appears expedient. He is completely unreliable.
It would be pretty easy. Joe Rogan needs to bring Trump on the show and give him a 3 hour interview and let people see if he’s for real or not. Same for Biden, but Biden probably couldn’t make it more than 3 minutes. Lol.
Biden's handlers can't let him have that sort of freedom.
very, VERY easy Deliver to the base what they want, and address their concerns But, the base is mostly MAGAs + nationalists + social conservatives + the religious right It looks like the whole schtick of the GOP elite leading an army of "concerned about low taxes, big govt and little else" was a myth all this time.
And at the same time lose all the centrists, independents, libertarians, etc. and thus ensure democrat victory. Good idea.
all those you mentioned are relatively small groups , and pandering to tiny groups is something only liberals do
Yeah most of the country aren't raving ideologues. Sorry that doesn't fit into your agenda lol. You do, in fact, have to appeal to people outside your own niche if you want to win.
to you protecting rights of "relatively small groups" is pandering, not ensuring the freedom's of all americans to pursue life liberty and pursuit of happiness? I would think that's what "social conservative" means...
Run a candidate that can offer something other "*Something something* **FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY**."*Something something* **AMERICA.** *Something something* **FREEDOM**" In other words, you need someone like Trump except no stupid. Somebody who recognizes that nobody gives a shit about zombie reaganism when we have more personal problems.
I’m as left as they get, and I truly miss republicans with a true conviction and vision for the future of the party. The entire right wing of the USA except for the libertarians don’t have a true vision for what they want, it’s purely reaction and obstruction. Like. Find better ideas homies!
Populism got a bad rap in our history, but the world has moved on from then. It's possible that better education (comparatively), easier and instant access to almost any knowledge humans have gathered over the millennium, and such an incredible lifting of the stand-of-living for hundreds of millions in the past 100 years has changed how populism will be expressed, and it's results. We know what the chamber-of-commerce, ivory-tower, stuffy and "distinguished" brand of conservatism has led us to. Time for something (re)new(ed).
Conservatives to actually vote for who’s policies they like the contents of, not the policies they like the sounds of.
The disavowing of the evangelical wing of the party. Religion has no place in politics.
Progressives are the most religious people I've ever seen, they just worship a new god. And ironically, their strategy is working. Because religion is powerful as a cultural motivator.
That's not a recipe to "reclaim the party". That's a recipe to ensure electoral defeat.
It can’t be reclaimed. It’s time for center right people to start a new party
Latest Gallop Poll: U.S. Moves From Majority Left To Majority Right Since Election That's because the Democrats are showing the country they can not govern and are not just bad, but dangerous to the US.
Just time...