What does the American Conservative stand for anymore?

[Lexicus]

Quick, name the only president in the last 40 years to balance the budget (hint, not a Republican).

You're missing the point. Fiscal conservatism was only ever a poor excuse for public policy to hurt poor people and people of color. BCheeks is just tearing off the mask and revealing the real issues.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm sure BCheeks not a racist, he just talks, acts and advocates for ethnostatism like one

 

[Socrates99]

You're missing the point. Fiscal conservatism was only ever a poor excuse for public policy to hurt poor people and people of color. BCheeks is just tearing off the mask and revealing the real issues.

At first that's what it seems like hes saying until you get further into his post. Hard to tell what's parody/sarcasm and what's not.

 

[BCheek]

anyone who is hurt by wage suppression from immigration isn’t being hurt very badly by taxation.

Lol. Leftys tax you to pay free gibs to the unproductive leftys and new immigrants they bring in to suppress your wages and create inflation.

the unproductive is largely very American (not an immigrant at all), largely older, and largely very white.

Someones never looked at the per capita numbers or the crime statistics.

The biggest welfare receipients are minorities. They also comit the more crime than whites. They're not sending their best!

 

[Patine]

no. I’m asking you not to turn this thread into another rant by Patine about conservative and liberal labels being misused in your opinion. He claims he is a conservative of the Burkean model and I accept his position as legitimate. It seems more honest and self aware than most conservatives these days. It’s just advocating for a socio-economic model that I think ends in the destruction of civilization.

Actually, I wasn't directly responding to @Konig15's self-labelling (shows how well you were reading and following there) - I was separating the concept of being a "Conservative ideologically," and being a "Republican as a party label," as NOT being purely analogous, synonymous, mutually inclusive, or joined-at-the-hip as ideas. I was also saying that a notable chunk of the classic Republican platform of today is not actually "Conservative," ideologically. And, also, the fact that Trump, himself, is not ideologically conservative. Most of this was in response to @Birdjaguar and not @Konig15. Sloppiness with such terms in that mold is detrimental and deleterious to any socio-political discourse, whether you believe or accept that it is or not. You will not silence me because you want a "safe space," for your willful ignorance.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Welcome to OT.

I'm not sure you know anything about my position on government fiscal responsibility, especially from the question I asked above. Balancing the budget has been a part of conservative agendas for many decades and I was just asking how it fit into today's political framework.

What havoc has the left brought down on white working class America? I know they want better healthcare and higher wages or MBI. Please be more specific.

If you look at how the impact of demographic changes in the US have and will continue to affect voting, you will also notice that Republicans have been working systematically for decades to suppress non white voters and and allow corporate money to dominate election advertising. The Republicans have gotten very good at such things. The Dems try, but mostly fail.

I've just told you.

Actually, you didn't. but you made up for it below. Immigration seems to be you answer.

No they don't. Bringing in millions of 3rd world immigrants doesn't increase anyones wages or quality of life. You've decreased the quality of life of the very citizens you pretend to advocate for. The only people who've seen an increase in their quality of life has been 3rd world immigrants who weren't citizens to begin with that come and vote for even more extreme and disenfrachising immigration policy while acruing more benefits for themselves paid for by the working class.

The losses to the white middle class America over the past 40 years have brought about by global trade and the American companies seeking profits by moving operations overseas; the ongoing vigor of M&A activities among corporations that use debt to finance downsizing and destroy viable companies for shareholder wealth; technology outpacing boomer and Gen X skills and training; and the displacement of updating infrastructure with military spending.

With declining population growth and an aging US population, immigration is the best way to sustain GDP growth after productivity. It is also interesting how many Republican run enterprises hire undocumented folks to work for them. I live a part of the country with many undocumented folks and they are among the most hard working and enterprising people around. They do the work that the local anglo folks refuse to do.

So demographics are king. Duly noted.

At the macro level, yes, pretty much. Ignore those trends at your peril. One of the first things that happen as a nation urbanizes and educates it female population is women stop having as many children. The baby boom of the 1950s is an exception, but the trends is world wide and ongoing.

Lol yeah those ebil dirty conservatives that stood by and did nothing while the demographics changed from +95% white european to %60 in only a few decades. Looks like they really fought you tooth and nail on that one.

The american corporate elite are all liberals with the exception of a few. They got fat and pulled the rope up behind themselves.

These leftist corporations outsourced all the industry and brought in cheap 3rd world labor because they didnt want to pay a living wage. Eveyone knows about the Apple slave factories in china boomer.

You certainly don't know corporate America. I've been part of it for 40 years, and it is not liberal. It was the Reagan revolution of the 80s that started the exportation of US jobs. Curtailing immigration will not create jobs for US workers. It will cut GDP and put more pressure on technology to make up the difference with robots and AI. Those new jobs will only be for tech minded folks. As as expected, as the immigrant population lives here and gets education, their fertility rates drop and they have fewer children. If you want a surge in white babies, you better get the word out to white women that more children are needed.

The conservative response though has been voter suppression rather than more babies. Suppression has been on the increase since the 1970s and picked up as a Republican party plan in early 2000s.

The US hasn't been 95% "white" in over 100 years.
1910:
White 89.9%
Black 10.7%
Hispanic 0.9%

1970:
White 87.7%
Black 12.6%
Hispanic 4.4%

2010:
White 72.4%
Black 11.1%
Hispanic 16.3%
Non Hispanic White 63.7%

You voted the generations after you into poverty and theyre going to vote you into a coffin. The raping and pillaging of your childrens future is over boomer.

Oh my. Who's going to vote me into a coffin? I'm pretty sure I''ll get there on my own just fine. My children are just fine, They are educated, working and having babies.

Are you educated? Working? Having white babies?

 

[Patine]

BCheek has given us a useful illustration that the new generation of Republicans come up under Trump are mostly overt Nazis.

You want to understand what the American right will be in the next twenty years or so, look up the Turner Diaries. That is what they are.

Another highly misused socio-political term. Fascists, and certainly Nazis, in terms of those who actually follow the platform, ideology, beliefs, and other aspects, are a very small minority of the world's population today - certainly not the teaming legions you and several other posters envision in paranoid delusions - and few of them in true positions of power, and not a single sitting head-of-state and/or -government in the world today qualifies as one in truth. You, and several other posters, use the term in the same inappropriately over-expansive and slanderous way the Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter liked to use the word "Communist," (which inexplicably included Hillary Clinton in that labelling).

 

[Berzerker]

The biggest welfare recipients are corporations/banks etc and they commit the biggest crimes, like the drug war they've spent waging in black and brown neighborhoods to fill our jails and cemeteries.

I dont think the country was ever 95% white unless slaves, Indians and Latinos never counted

 

[Socrates99]

Actually, I wasn't directly responding to @Konig15's self-labelling (shows how well you were reading and following there) - I was separating the concept of being a "Conservative ideologically," and being a "Republican as a party label," as NOT being purely analogous, synonymous, mutually inclusive, or joined-at-the-hip as ideas. I was also saying that a notable chunk of the classic Republican platform of today is not actually "Conservative," ideologically. And, also, the fact that Trump, himself, is not ideologically conservative. Most of this was in response to @Birdjaguar and not @Konig15. Sloppiness with such terms in that mold is detrimental and deleterious to any socio-political discourse, whether you believe or accept that it is or not. You will not silence me because you want a "safe space," for your willful ignorance.

Quibbling over the definition of conservative is pointless in this thread since the question is what the American conservative stands for. That's the problem, it isnt necessarily conservatism by any real standard.

 

[Lexicus]

Quibbling over the definition of conservative is pointless in this thread since the question is what the American conservative stands for. That's the problem, it isnt necessarily conservatism by any real standard.

What is conservatism? Does conservatism have a fixed immutable definition or is it something that should basically adapt to what people who call themselves "conservative" think and do?

Another highly misused socio-political term. Fascists, and certainly Nazis, in terms of those who actually follow the platform, ideology, beliefs, and other aspects, are a very small minority of the world's population today - certainly not the teaming legions you and several other posters envision in paranoid delusions - and few of them in true positions of power, and not a single sitting head-of-state and/or -government in the world today qualifies as one in truth. You, and several other posters, use the term in the same inappropriately over-expansive and slanderous way the Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter liked to use the word "Communist," (which inexplicably included Hillary Clinton in that labelling).

The way I use it is to some extent hyperbole, but I do think the term has a broader application than you seem to. I can argue for the historical and conceptual merits of my position on the use of the word, but that would likely be a waste of time.

 

[Patine]

What is conservatism? Does conservatism have a fixed immutable definition or is it something that should basically adapt to what people who call themselves "conservative" think and do?



The way I use it is to some extent hyperbole, but I do think the term has a broader application than you seem to. I can argue for the historical and conceptual merits of my position on the use of the word, but that would likely be a waste of time.

I'm sure Glen Beck would say some similar claptrap about his use of the "Communist," if cornered on the issue. In both cases, it's not only hyperbolic, it's disingenuous, slanderous, sloppy, uniformed, unnecessarily antagonistic, insulting to the intelligence, and proverbially "crying wolf." I highly suggest quitting this bad habit with no redeeming or good points to it, at all.

 

[Estebonrober]

Lol. Leftys tax you to pay free gibs to the unproductive leftys and new immigrants they bring in to suppress your wages and create inflation.


Someones never looked at the per capita numbers or the crime statistics.

The biggest welfare receipients are minorities. They also comit the more crime than whites. They're not sending their best!

wrong!

Medicaid had more than 70 million beneficiaries in 2016, of whom 43 percent were white, 18 percent black, and 30 percent Hispanic. Of 43 million food stamp recipients that year, 36.2 percent were white, 25.6 percent black, 17.2 percent Hispanic and 15.5 percent unknown. (Food stamps are formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.)

all of those are Americans by the way. Immigrants are not allowed to take social services except their children which they cover for more than poor whites you are defending.

Red states are the debtor states in the union blue states with the notable exception of New Mexico are the lender states to the fed.

crimes are also disproportionately committed by citizens not immigrants.

 

[Estebonrober]

Actually, I wasn't directly responding to @Konig15's self-labelling (shows how well you were reading and following there) - I was separating the concept of being a "Conservative ideologically," and being a "Republican as a party label," as NOT being purely analogous, synonymous, mutually inclusive, or joined-at-the-hip as ideas. I was also saying that a notable chunk of the classic Republican platform of today is not actually "Conservative," ideologically. And, also, the fact that Trump, himself, is not ideologically conservative. Most of this was in response to @Birdjaguar and not @Konig15. Sloppiness with such terms in that mold is detrimental and deleterious to any socio-political discourse, whether you believe or accept that it is or not. You will not silence me because you want a "safe space," for your willful ignorance.

why are you such a consistent ass? I asked you not to rehash your vitriolic quibbling over labels. That’s it. You’ve literally already spent pages doing that here and elsewhere. Everyone has a fair idea of why I meant in the OP.

 

[Patine]

crimes are also disproportionately committed by citizens not immigrants.

A senior DEA agent, praising Trump's wall idea, said it would stop the drug mules from Mexico "dead in their tracks." Apparently, though, or 75% of said drug mules are like Clint Eastwood's character in "The Mule," - U.S. Citizens working for the Mexican Cartels for large sums of money...

 

[Lexicus]

I'm sure Glen Beck would say some similar claptrap about his use of the "Communist," if cornered on the issue. In both cases, it's not only hyperbolic, it's disingenuous, slanderous, sloppy, uniformed, unnecessarily antagonistic, insulting to the intelligence, and proverbially "crying wolf." I highly suggest quitting this bad habit with no redeeming or good points to it, at all.

Yeah, he probably would, the difference being that the Hayekian ideas he draws on to claim anyone who isn't a full-on market fundamentalist is a Communist are a load of crap. Anyway thanks for confirming it would be a waste of time, have a nice day

 

[Patine]

why are you such a consistent ass? I asked you not to rehash your vitriolic quibbling over labels. That’s it. You’ve literally already spent pages doing that here and elsewhere. Everyone has a fair idea of why I meant in the OP.

Well, everytime I ask (and I have actually "asked" on occasion) posters to stop using slanderous, vitriolic, hyperbolic, grossly inaccurate, and destructive-to-any-dialogue inappropriately used terms like "Fascist," and "Nazi," I get ridiculed and derided, and I believe you're one of the ones that have done so. Why should your requests about terminology in dialogue be inherently and automatically held to higher standard and considered more "reasonable," and even mandatory and 'correct," by default, than mine?

 

[Konig15]

Actually, I wasn't directly responding to @Konig15's self-labelling (shows how well you were reading and following there) - I was separating the concept of being a "Conservative ideologically," and being a "Republican as a party label," as NOT being purely analogous, synonymous, mutually inclusive, or joined-at-the-hip as ideas. I was also saying that a notable chunk of the classic Republican platform of today is not actually "Conservative," ideologically. And, also, the fact that Trump, himself, is not ideologically conservative. Most of this was in response to @Birdjaguar and not @Konig15. Sloppiness with such terms in that mold is detrimental and deleterious to any socio-political discourse, whether you believe or accept that it is or not. You will not silence me because you want a "safe space," for your willful ignorance.

Well, OK, actually I agree with you to a point.
The problem is Conservatism is like Socialism, there are innumerable variations and what's more, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has to pick and choose which tenants they believe or reject on an ad hoc basis.
Ideologies are not rigid platforms, they are nebulous and they bleed. It's like race or pornography or good art, in that most people understand these things to be true, but the lines are very blurred and three more or less in four dimensions.

There's a big difference between Democratic socialists, Leninists, Burkaranists, Stalinists and Tortskyiies and Maoists. Big important differences
Even Nazism, which I don't consider Fascism strictly you had in the 25 years of its the existence
1. Hitlerism (secular Holocaust and Race War)
2. Goringism (Bling and Peaceful development)
3. Himmlerism (occultist Holocaust and Race War )
4. Stasserism (strictly non-violent antisemitism and populism)
5. Rohmism (sexually progressive violent antisemitism with a heap of economic populism)

They all self-identified as Nazis, all DIED as self-identified Nazis. But the ideological differences are incalculably different. From the outside, you simply can not work with Hitler or Himmler, they are murderous fanatics. You probably don't want to deal with Rohm or Goring if you d don't have to because they are predators and unsavory. But they would be leagues less destructive than Hitler or Himmler. And Strasserites? If the Stasser Brothers had prevailed against Hitler, the world would be entirely different and Nazism would be a respectable political position. Because this form of Nazism while still racist and unpleasant, you can deal with Stasserites, you can reason with a Strasserite, mostly. They alone have scruples.

The thing is, with Goring, not even antisemitism is required for Nazi Ideology. Goring signed off on the Holocaust, but not to lose favor with Hitler. He would never have done it on his own devices. Goring just wanted to live like Tiberius, without the "little fishes."
And then there's the loyalty to the ideal, the methodology and the politics. I called myself a conservative, because even though I oppose almost all 'conservative' policy points, I in principle believe in the Burkean conservative worldview, and what I want society to be is broadly paleoconservative with LGBT acceptance
In foreign policy, I'm an absolute neo-conservative, BUT I recognize that we haven't fought wars very intelligently and though war is the answer in many cases, we need to be smarter in how we approach the peace. To this end, I recommend the Dictator's Handbook and Thieves of State. The people don't hate us, and not for our freedom, they LOATHE our tolerance for kleptocrats who steal everything that's not nailed down and send the money to offshore banking accounts. Until we internalize this notion we are merely the lesser bad guys. And being only marginally better than you enemy to the people you re fighting over, leads to the EIGHT DEADLY WORDS, but in real life. The people of Afganistan don't like the Taliban, they LOATHE and FEAR them. But they are sitting on theior hands and hoping the our allies and th Talian kill each other off and put both out of their misery.

 

[Patine]

Well, OK, actually I agree with you to a point.
The problem is Conservatism is like Socialism, there are innumerable variations and what's more, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has to pick and choose which tenants they believe or reject on an ad hoc basis.
Ideologies are not rigid platforms, they are nebulous and they bleed. It's like race or pornography or good art, in that most people understand these things to be true, but the lines are very blurred and three more or less in four dimensions.

There's a big difference between Democratic socialists, Leninists, Burkaranists, Stalinists and Tortskyiies and Maoists. Big important differences
Even Nazism, which I don't consider Fascism strictly you had in the 25 years of its the existence
1. Hitlerism (secular Holocaust and Race War)
2. Goringism (Bling and Peaceful development)
3. Himmlerism (occultist Holocaust and Race War )
4. Stasserism (strictly non-violent antisemitism and populism)
5. Rohmism (sexually progressive violent antisemitism with a heap of economic populism)

They all self-identified as Nazis, all DIED as self-identified Nazis. But the ideological differences are incalculably different. From the outside, you simply can not work with Hitler or Himmler, they are murderous fanatics. You probably don't want to deal with Rohm or Goring if you d don't have to because they are predators and unsavory. But they would be leagues less destructive than Hitler or Himmler. And Strasserites? If the Stasser Brothers had prevailed against Hitler, the world would be entirely different and Nazism would be a respectable political position. Because this form of Nazism while still racist and unpleasant, you can deal with Stasserites, you can reason with a Strasserite, mostly. They alone have scruples.

The thing is, with Goring, not even antisemitism is required for Nazi Ideology. Goring signed off on the Holocaust, but not to lose favor with Hitler. He would never have done it on his own devices. Goring just wanted to live like Tiberius, without the "little fishes."
And then there's the loyalty to the ideal, the methodology and the politics. I called myself a conservative, because even though I oppose almost all 'conservative' policy points, I in principle believe in the Burkean conservative worldview, and what I want society to be is broadly paleoconservative with LGBT acceptance
In foreign policy, I'm an absolute neo-conservative, BUT I recognize that we haven't fought wars very intelligently and though war is the answer in many cases, we need to be smarter in how we approach the peace. To this end, I recommend the Dictator's Handbook and Thieves of State. The people don't hate us, and not for our freedom, they LOATHE our tolerance for kleptocrats who steal everything that's not nailed down and send the money to offshore banking accounts. Until we internalize this notion we are merely the lesser bad guys. And being only marginally better than you enemy to the people you re fighting over, leads to the EIGHT DEADLY WORDS, but in real life. The people of Afganistan don't like the Taliban, they LOATHE and FEAR them. But they are sitting on theior hands and hoping the our allies and th Talian kill each other off and put both out of their misery.

A lot of people on this site accuse me of ranting, rambling, vitriolic screeds. I think you've out-screeded me, @Konig15 - four times on the same thread.

 

[Patine]

Yeah, he probably would, the difference being that the Hayekian ideas he draws on to claim anyone who isn't a full-on market fundamentalist is a Communist are a load of crap. Anyway thanks for confirming it would be a waste of time, have a nice day

That's pretty pitiful, @Lexicus, but then again how could any defense of using a term with that gravity and baggage so flippantly and casually be anything else.

 

[Estebonrober]

Another highly misused socio-political term. Fascists, and certainly Nazis, in terms of those who actually follow the platform, ideology, beliefs, and other aspects, are a very small minority of the world's population today - certainly not the teaming legions you and several other posters envision in paranoid delusions - and few of them in true positions of power, and not a single sitting head-of-state and/or -government in the world today qualifies as one in truth. You, and several other posters, use the term in the same inappropriately over-expansive and slanderous way the Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter liked to use the word "Communist," (which inexplicably included Hillary Clinton in that labelling).

this is what I’m talking about. Please start your own thread about label misuse if that’s what you want to talk about.