What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Patine]

The American Conservative stands for whatever the American Liberal stood for 5-10 years prior.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Although (and many Americans are unaware of this, and go into a reactionary denial of the possibility of such a label), though SOCIALLY Conservative, American Conservatives are actually, by definition, ECONOMICALLY Liberally. And, no, we can't include Trump's protectionism, because he's NOT actually a Social Conservative or Economic Liberal - or a Libertarian, or a War Hawk, or a Constitutionalist, or even personally a White Supremacist or Christian Fundamentalist, or any of the other ideological camps in the Republican Party. He's actually, despite all the fears by his opponents and praise by his cult sheep, and by his own personal beliefs, to biggest RINO to ever be elected to the White House.

 

[Farm Boy]

The American Conservative stands for whatever the American Liberal stood for 5-10 years prior.

They tend to weed out some of the worst of the self centered stupidity along the way. They don't get all of it.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Although (and many Americans are unaware of this, and go into a reactionary denial of the possibility of such a label), though SOCIALLY Conservative, American Conservatives are actually, by definition, ECONOMICALLY Liberally. And, no, we can't include Trump's protectionism, because he's NOT actually a Social Conservative or Economic Liberal - or a Libertarian, or a War Hawk, or a Constitutionalist, or even personally a White Supremacist or Christian Fundamentalist, or any of the other ideological camps in the Republican Party. He's actually, despite all the fears by his opponents and praise by his cult sheep, and by his own personal beliefs, to biggest RINO to ever be elected to the White House.

Oh, he's a Republican. He's not a conservative. Correct the terms and you'll be a lot closer, I think.

 

[Traitorfish]

The American Conservative stands for whatever the American Liberal stood for 5-10 years prior.

Socially, maybe. Fiscally, it has tended to be the reverse, for the last thirty or forty years.

 

[rah]

I'm going to make a very simple example, lol. Say you get taxed 0% up to $50k, and then 50% up to $90k, and then after that you pay 90%. So if you're earning $100k, you're not paying $90k in tax, but instead you're paying $29.

I think you left off a few zeros.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The American Conservative stands for whatever the American Liberal stood for 5-10 years prior.

Obamacare ?
Obama seizing your guns ?
DACA for illegals aliens ?
Withdrawing from Iraq ?
EPA regulating Carbon as a pollution ?
Obama appointing supreme court judges ?
Obamas TPP ?
Obama subsidies for renwelables ?
Obama agreement with Iran ?

LOL

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Although (and many Americans are unaware of this, and go into a reactionary denial of the possibility of such a label), though SOCIALLY Conservative, American Conservatives are actually, by definition, ECONOMICALLY Liberally. And, no, we can't include Trump's protectionism, because he's NOT actually a Social Conservative or Economic Liberal - or a Libertarian, or a War Hawk, or a Constitutionalist, or even personally a White Supremacist or Christian Fundamentalist, or any of the other ideological camps in the Republican Party. He's actually, despite all the fears by his opponents and praise by his cult sheep, and by his own personal beliefs, to biggest RINO to ever be elected to the White House.

3 times in one week. I have to stop agreeing with Patine.

Feelsbadman.

Trump's an amoral narcissist.

 

[Lexicus]

Trump's an amoral narcissist.

In that case he is a Republican through and through...

 

[Zardnaar]

In that case he is a Republican through and through...

Does seem to be the degeneration if the GoP.

Started in the 80s through to 92. In terms of seeds planted.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, if you're talking about the 1880s

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, in the past the UK had income tax as high as 98.25% in WWII. Between 1974-79 it was up to 83% on income and 98% on unearned income, but this only applied to income above thresholds way above what most people earned. Despite this the newspapers ran stories about poor little old ladies who had to move abroad because they couldn't live on the income from their investments.

I recollect that such problems of the little old ladies was more to do with high
inflation and fixed incomes or low annuities rates etc, rather than due to tax.

 

[Patine]

Yeah, if you're talking about the 1880s

Yes, the Stalwart Republicans, and their corrupt political patronage system, under Roscoe Conklin, that came to match and rival Tammany Hall - in a lot shorter amount of time.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Obamacare ?
Obama seizing your guns ?
DACA for illegals aliens ?
Withdrawing from Iraq ?
EPA regulating Carbon as a pollution ?
Obama appointing supreme court judges ?
Obamas TPP ?
Obama subsidies for renwelables ?
Obama agreement with Iran ?

LOL

Not for Obama specifically, but give it a couple of years and they'll be supporting the exact same things by a more generic name yeah

Except for the Iran agreement. They'd definitely rather see their sons die for war with Iran than have an Iran agreement. Mind you, so would plenty of American Liberals.

 

[Socrates99]

Not for Obama specifically, but give it a couple of years and they'll be supporting the exact same things by a more generic name yeah

Except for the Iran agreement. They'd definitely rather see their sons die for war with Iran than have an Iran agreement. Mind you, so would plenty of American Liberals.

Funnily enough you're already starting to be right. Republicans are already running around paying lip service to protecting the pre-existing conditions portion of the ACA.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Funnily enough you're already starting to be right. Republicans are already running around paying lip service to protecting the pre-existing conditions portion of the ACA.

Soon they shall call it "National Romneycare"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Funnily enough you're already starting to be right. Republicans are already running around paying lip service to protecting the pre-existing conditions portion of the ACA.

They pay lip service to the idea but have consistently voted to eliminate those protections at every chance. I don't think a single one of their anti-ACA votes excluded the provisions from elimination.

 

[Socrates99]

They pay lip service to the idea but have consistently voted to eliminate those protections at every chance. I don't think a single one of their anti-ACA votes excluded the provisions from elimination.

and none of them passed. They knew itd be political suicide. Nearly everyone knows at least one person whod be hurt if that were taken away. McCain took the bullet on that one because he knew he was done. They pretty much just dropped it after that and never really revisited it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

and none of them passed

They all passed the Republican-held House. Over and over again, something like 37 times. That it couldn't survive the Dem-controlled Senate or Obama doesn't excuse them for trying so hard and so frequently to overturn the law. And even though McCain blocked it from passing after Trump came to power, that 1 vote also doesn't absolve them. And they did manage to gut many of the provisions of the law to make it fall apart without having to straight up repeal it.

 

[Estebonrober]

They all passed the Republican-held House. Over and over again, something like 37 times. That it couldn't survive the Dem-controlled Senate or Obama doesn't excuse them for trying so hard and so frequently to overturn the law. And even though McCain blocked it from passing after Trump came to power, that 1 vote also doesn't absolve them. And they did manage to gut many of the provisions of the law to make it fall apart without having to straight up repeal it.

This. They have no courage of their convictions. They are cowards who only want to hand out contracts to friends and donors and pillage the very governments they choose to "run". They couldn't legislate themselves anything but tax cuts for the past 2.5 years. I wonder why.

 

[Patine]

They all passed the Republican-held House. Over and over again, something like 37 times. That it couldn't survive the Dem-controlled Senate or Obama doesn't excuse them for trying so hard and so frequently to overturn the law. And even though McCain blocked it from passing after Trump came to power, that 1 vote also doesn't absolve them. And they did manage to gut many of the provisions of the law to make it fall apart without having to straight up repeal it.

From a anti-Trump, but pro-GOP columnist I stumbled across (I'll try to retrieve the link), "...and history will remember John McCain, upon his death, as the Last Republican, and after him will be the Trump Party, not the Republican Party, until Conservative, Constitution-loving, patriotic Americans seize their party back by force from the brink of Oblivion,"

Not that I am a Republican (as I'm not American), nor do I agree with almost any of their traditional planks and beliefs, but I found this quote interesting.

 

[Konig15]

And then they got embargoed, suffered the worst case of hyperinflation in the history of the Western Hemisphere, and then, the final nail in the coffin, the Khedive of Egypt took opportunistic advantage and lowered the price of Egyptian cotton exports (which didn't have the stain of slave labour), and the Confederacy was economically doomed, which would have probably meant that, Turtledove and other alternate history authors (who never mention or acknowledge these issues), it would probably still have not been a viable nation for long at all even if it had secured independence on the field, and would have collapsed into anarchy for economic reasons or had to go begging for re-annexation to the U.S. - or the British Empire.

I'm sorry I was looking in people made Turtledove scenarios (I'm interested in paying homage and savagely critiquing the Worldwar series), but THIS I've never heard. I know there were shortages and stuff bu never anything about hyperinflation, nor anything in-depth about cotton alternatives being developed in Egypt and India. In fact, if you have sources that argue for the economic obsolescence of slavery (in the sense that alternatives were truly competitive on an economic level), I'd love to hear it, or read it. In fact from, only from Victoria I mods do I have the slightest inclination hat the British abolition of slavery might hve something very much to do with the rise of sugar beat manufacturing and a rather drastic fall in the economic importance of slave labor in sugar production, but no one who talks about abolition talks about the economics of slavery versus free labor, with or without factories, and instead rely on what I consider to be flimsy moral appeals.

Cause I played an old Civ 2 scenario called Colonies IV, which was the most frustrating defense of slavery I've ever seen. Slavery is awful, but in that scenario, only Slaves have the Engineering trait, which allows them to carve sugar plantations out of the jungles of the Caribean. The thing is, once the logistics wherein place, one trade unit from the Carribean with lots of sugar plantations, I could easily bank 1,600 gold in one sale to Amsterdam. For reference, that more than something like 10-15 turns of net income, even on highest tax settings. I felt dirty as hell doing it, but even getting that much dough in monopoly money made my eyes water.

So I understand the moral hazards of slavery, and Disease in the Public Mind taught me the political price of slavery (it's real bad, real real bad) but if there's something that makes the case for the economics of slavery not being that great from a state revenue POV (aside from the corruption and revenue capture of the inevitable Planter oligarchy), I would love to read it and use it in future discussions.