-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Conservative Era |OT| The flaming starts in five minutes
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
Yeah, I have to say voting for the ideology of "it's okay to fuck children" isn't exactly the best look.
None of you actually answer the point I actually made. But I understand why.
Human beings are almost all scum, so ideology>personal behavior as a voting factor.
And actually, I think most people on both sides of the spectrum agree with me on this...that is why they use scandal to go after opponents, but forgive it or ignore it in their own people. I'm just intellectually honest and admit that I don't give a fuck as long as you agree with my ideology.
This is more touching on philosophy than politics but yeah assuming humans are inherently good or inherently evil does explain a lot. I've found that most people on the negative end of that tend to be projecting though. I mean, if you reach a point in your life where you will support a pedophile in order to ever so slightly tip the balance in your favor politically, deep discussion of conservative theories is probably the least of your concerns.
So, you'd vote for Moore because he's "pro life".
But he molests young children.
Love the fetus not the baby? Seems messed up, personally, regardless of your political leanings.
But he molests young children.
Love the fetus not the baby? Seems messed up, personally, regardless of your political leanings.
I don't.
I wouldn't vote for Bill if this were 96. I think Franken should step down. I think Moore should never be rejected because he's a pedophile.
It's pretty easy. You should want people who agree with you on policy and aren't sexual monsters in office. Getting only one of the two isn't going to cut it.
I don't think there is a very compelling case that he "molests young children." That single accuser who says he touched her does not fit the pattern with the others at all. And there is ZERO corroborating evidence to back up her story. The others seem to say he was a weird guy who took out prospective wives on dates (and did nothing sexual) and it was age inappropriate for now, and even somewhat weird for that time, but easily legal and seemingly with parental approval.
I am also concerned that if we continue to discredit people based on accusations that are "he said, she said," where does that lead? If an accusation alone is enough to ruin a career (or an internet forum, btw) then aren't we just encouraging people to "weaponize" accusations of sexual misconduct even more?
That's very principled of you. But the Democratic Party didn't agree, and the GOP wouldn't either. Our politics are so incredibly partisan right now, both sides are only looking for "gotcha" on the other....and we are tuning it out for our own side.
I think the left is doing such damage to the world, I'd vote for Charlie Manson (RIP) if he was a right-wing ideologue.
Yeesh. This is so gross and everything wrong with politics these days.
Hey, let's start a nice thread to show that there are kind and well rationed conservatives on Resetera!
~Four pages later~
Murder and pedophilia are completely justified if small businesses get a tax break.
~Four pages later~
Murder and pedophilia are completely justified if small businesses get a tax break.
The world is changing, this is a fact. Society is evolving and we are trying to leave our past behind us and accept new ways of
Thinking. The LGBTQ movement is one such way. We need to shed our bigotry and hatred of those different than us if we want to be a better society.
Trying to cling to the past on how we do things is counterproductive to how we evolve as a species.
We need to stop thinking for ourselves and start thinking about what are we as human beings.
Thinking. The LGBTQ movement is one such way. We need to shed our bigotry and hatred of those different than us if we want to be a better society.
Trying to cling to the past on how we do things is counterproductive to how we evolve as a species.
We need to stop thinking for ourselves and start thinking about what are we as human beings.
Last edited:
I had a mostly civil discussion with you earlier, and while I very vehemently disagreed with your self-admittedly extreme positions (to the point that I didn't believe further discussion to be productive), your views were your own and I accepted that. This 'my political views over anything else' statement is extremely gross and makes it clear to me that you really are part of the problem of hyper-partisan politics in your country. You are a product of those political groups who seek to exploit the weaknesses of your political system. You truly see opposing political views as a threat that must be destroyed. Morality, understanding, and compromise have seemingly been erased from your vocabulary. You recognize your political system as highly partisan, yet sadly do not seem to realize that you are both its product and the foundation it is built upon.
I don't think it is productive to characterize the entire conservative community as a disease, or bigoted, or racist. There are many forms of conservatism and labeling all of them as evil doesn't help anyone. I understand the emotion, but perhaps it would be more productive if you would try and talk to the people here first.
I wasn't trying to label all conservatives as evil ect. But conservatism by definition is not progressing as a society. That is what I was addressing.
Maybe the disease thing wasn't warranted. I'll correct.
Could not have said this better. This is why hyper partisanship needs to die.
Last edited:
Yes. I am an extremist. An extreme anti-statist. Yes I am a partisan, hyper I guess.
I am still unsure if the American political system can be saved. I lean towards no, maybe the US should be divided into smaller states we can't threaten world peace anymore.
Morality, understanding, and compromise...?
Morality=I believe statism to be completely immoral and worthy of destruction. Leviathan is a beast with no morals.
Understanding=I understand what the left has done, and wants to continue to do...empower Leviathan against the people, both here and around the globe. I reject it utterly.
Compromise=How am I supposed to compromise? Statists have already replaced all vestiges of a limited republic with a super-state, and deployed outposts of that all over the globe. What is there left to compromise with? They ask for a trillion more in military boondoggles (paid for in funny money) and I "compromise" and give them a half-trillion...? Are any of them willing to compromise with me and roll back the state? Any of it...? I think not!
I am highly partisan. Did you think you were talking to some worthless RINO Jeb Bush type? I will work with the left when we have some agreement on a particular issue. Foreign policy, for example. But that avenue is closed as long as the Democratic Party is going to nominate Hillary types. Nader/Kucinich (or someone like that but younger) and now we are talking.
I am a dying "product" of an education system that was not fully converted to insanity yet when I was younger. I was told the lies and fed the bromides about American exceptionalism and limited government, but I looked around and saw a state that was doing 1,000,000 times worse to us than King George III ever did. And bombing, invading, and murdering innocents to protect American corporate interests. Our people being seduced into feeding at the teat of the beast...so called "conservatives" going along with it all as long as they could get a chance to pick the targets for the missiles once in a while.
You can tell from my language...I probably could have been a radical lefty! But I think you all are naive. You really believe you can create a super-state to give out redistributed "goodies" but constrain that state from taking away liberties at home or abroad...? Naive.
Sorry that turned into a manifesto.
This isn't funny tho. This is how people like Trump get elected. Because people will only vote for R no matter what they do.
Glad I'm not the only libertarian here. Also glad the mods allowed appaws to say his piece. Probably would have been banned prior to that on the old site.
I agree with a lot of what he said, but would stop short of voting for a blatant pile of shit regardless of party. I'm glad that most here are saying they'd agree with me there, but don't act like this is a problem exclusive to the right/Republicans/conservatives.
I agree with a lot of what he said, but would stop short of voting for a blatant pile of shit regardless of party. I'm glad that most here are saying they'd agree with me there, but don't act like this is a problem exclusive to the right/Republicans/conservatives.
I've read some shit before, but WOW.
You could have had in interesting take until you typed that last part
This is a fundamentally flawed methodology. You can even go through history -- particularly US history -- and find dozens and dozens of examples that highlight the obvious dangers of associating one's self with extreme and/or fringe elements so long as they further the ideological cause. The women's suffrage movement in the US in particular is a clear example of how extremist views within a group are perceived as being the principle views of the group by outsiders. Their suffrage movement suffered years of delay simply because elements of their group were willing to deal with pro-slave entities so long as they would further the women's suffrage movement (this was more-or-less the reason for the split between Anthony/Stanton and Stone).
In general, based on the way the political system works in the US, you're going to want as large of a group as possible supporting your legislative goals. Showing a willingness to support fringe elements like Moore -- or a theoretical (R) Manson -- is practically guaranteed to fail. Just look at the influx of posters that magically appeared in this thread with forks and torches ready based on your theoretical proposition. If conservative legislative ideologies are consistently attached to the Moore's and Trump's of the world, we're signing ourselves up for substantial failures -- as the cries of pedophilia, sexual misconduct, ignorance, racism, xenophobia, et al will drown out the actual conservative ideological discussion.
This should be very evident in the consistent colloquial descriptors used here -- and elsewhere -- to describe the Republican platform. It's always:
"Republicans hate poor people."
"Republicans want to kill people."
"Republicans only want the worst for everyone."
"Republicans want to deprive X minority because they're racists."
"Republicans hate LBGTQ people."
Etc.
Almost all of these commonplace descriptors have been derived from people like Moore, who have espoused extreme views. Extremists espouse a viewpoint that's never going to win majority support and likely is believed to be morally/ethically abhorrent, and, once espoused and attached to the party as a whole, all subsequent votes and legislative initiatives will be painted in support of said extremist viewpoint. It's a losing proposition in the long term. It's a much more effective strategy to have the Rand Paul's of the world assume office than placing morons like Moore in the same position -- the Moore's of the world are guaranteed to face rigorous and consistent opposition in a way that the Paul's of the world would not.
Last edited:
Moore's views are not extreme, especially not for the Republican voters of Alabama, apparently. But I think your mistake here seems to be an assumption that there are candidates the GOP could choose who would NOT ignite the crazy hyperbole from the left. I think you are wrong about that, the left is completely wedded to that now. We could have nominated Bush or any of those other RINOs and they would have done the same thing.
It is their ideology. Massive federal intervention is needed to redress the concerns of (selected) identity groups, so any opposition to that massive federal intervention is by definition racist, sexist, ---phobic, etc. If we play by those rules, we will never win. We will never be able to choose a candidate "moderate" enough for the leftists in the media and academia.
And you are wrong about Rand Paul. Had he been the nominee, he would have received the same thrashing as an extreme element of an extreme party, who wants to (GASP!!!!) cut programs. Racist! And he is pro-life so he is a MISOGYNIST!!!! ZOMG! I am in Kentucky and I have seen the opposition try to paint him as some sort of fringe nutcase in his campaigns.
Yeah, I was (and am) huge on Rand, and his father before him. Both of them were treated with much more derision than the Jebs, McCains, and Mitts of the world. Maybe now that we've been through Trump that'll change, but I'm not counting on it.
What really needs to die is this Sith lord style absolutism (from both sides when applicable... the right does it too calling almost every left of center candidate a commie). I'm personally somewhere in the bermuda triangle between libertarian, conservative and moderate. I'm not a fucking racist, sexist, homophobe, or whatever the hell else I've been lumped in with. And calling people those things who are actually not those things is a very bad strategy. Go ahead, left, keep doing it. See how well that works out for you.
Jesus, imagine riding for the merits of a complete sellout hack like Rand Paul. He is a completely flaccid excuse for some sort of maverick politician. Atleast his dad was extreme enough to believe in race wars. Rand is just a GOP seersucker who gets moderate GOP votes and votes from people who were convinced Jade Helm was going to be a hostile takeover of Texas.
Modern liberals have fully accepted Bush, McCain, Evan McMullin and yes, even Rand Paul in the name of #NeverTrump-ism. The idea that they are somehow had to paint a pedophile who has repeatedly enforcing laws that had been deemed unconstitutional and whose campaign was funded by a white supremacist sugar daddy as "extreme" is absurd middle school logic. I mean, if you live in a world where you fully accept pedophilia and white supremacy as justifiable, I can see why you would think something like that. The victim complex and ego someone must have to believe that all of academia and media is somehow out to get them never fails to baffle me.
Modern liberals have fully accepted Bush, McCain, Evan McMullin and yes, even Rand Paul in the name of #NeverTrump-ism. The idea that they are somehow had to paint a pedophile who has repeatedly enforcing laws that had been deemed unconstitutional and whose campaign was funded by a white supremacist sugar daddy as "extreme" is absurd middle school logic. I mean, if you live in a world where you fully accept pedophilia and white supremacy as justifiable, I can see why you would think something like that. The victim complex and ego someone must have to believe that all of academia and media is somehow out to get them never fails to baffle me.
I'm unclear on what your issues with the political system are. My issue with it is that the first-past-the-post voting system inevitably leads to a two party system, of which hyper-partisanship and rapid political polarization are the inevitable products. I strongly believe that this system will reach a breaking point soon. A two-party system also prevents many people's political views from being accurately represented. Are we in agreement on that?
Your inability to compromise stems almost entirely from you positioning yourself at the extremes of political issues, your hyper-partisan generalizations and extreme demonization of 'the left', and your dismissal of 'moderate' conservatives. You are taking your own extremism and projecting it onto the entirety of 'the left'. 'The left' and 'moderate conservatives' are not to blame for that inability to compromise. You are not unique in this, no; this type of hyper-partisan generalization appears across the political spectrum. It is not a unique feature of any political philosophy. It is the product of your increasingly partisan political system and the efforts of political entities to exploit its weaknesses. Sorry if this bit sounded harsh, but this is how I see it and I see no use in trying to explain it with more friendly language.
You mention Nader and Kucinich as acceptable, yet I fail to see how they are significantly different from the average democrats you so deride.
Nader on Roe v Wade:
No government role; let women privately decide. (May 2000)
Roe v Wade is safe; GOP must back off pushing it. (Feb 2000)
Supports NOW's agenda on Reproductive Rights. (Feb 2008)
Nader on gun control:
Support Brady Bill & thoughtful gun control. (Jun 2000)
Supports trigger locks, licensing, & banning some guns. (Jun 2000)
Nader on the government:
Q: Was it you that told me that if the federal government shut down for a year it would be the most popular institution in the country?
A: Yes, because people would realize how much flows in terms of economic activity, technological research, health care research, health care delivery, management of the parks and the forests, construction. They would realize just how much they were getting from the government. Not to mention a lot of these new technologies, like telecommunications, satellites, all came out of the Defense Department and the space program in terms of the basic research, development and engineering stages. When the government isn't perceived as delivering, the demand is to cut back and strip government of its capability to deliver, instead of rising up and making government deliver.
Nader on healthcare:
For single-payer; all major candidates oppose it. (Feb 2008)
Single-payer health care plan over for-profit care. (Feb 2008)
3.5% payroll tax to fund universal healthcare. (Sep 2002)
Medicare prescriptions covered under universal health care. (Sep 2000)
Cradle-to-grave health care better than Clinton's plan. (Jul 2000)
Use Canadian system as a model for US. (May 2000)
Nader on social security:
Social Security should not be voluntary; keep community. (Nov 2008)
Social Security is solid; pending bankruptcy is nonsense. (Sep 2000)
Social insurance is government at its noblest. (Jan 1999)
Nader on immigration:
Migrant workers are exploited; crack down on employers. (Nov 2008)
Address immigration as part of worldwide economic justice. (Feb 2008)
Guest workers OK, with labor standards. (Oct 2000)
Immigrants don't come for welfare; restore safety net. (Jun 2000)
Don't blame immigrants for social and economic problems. (Jun 2000)
No government role; let women privately decide. (May 2000)
Roe v Wade is safe; GOP must back off pushing it. (Feb 2000)
Supports NOW's agenda on Reproductive Rights. (Feb 2008)
Nader on gun control:
Support Brady Bill & thoughtful gun control. (Jun 2000)
Supports trigger locks, licensing, & banning some guns. (Jun 2000)
Nader on the government:
Q: Was it you that told me that if the federal government shut down for a year it would be the most popular institution in the country?
A: Yes, because people would realize how much flows in terms of economic activity, technological research, health care research, health care delivery, management of the parks and the forests, construction. They would realize just how much they were getting from the government. Not to mention a lot of these new technologies, like telecommunications, satellites, all came out of the Defense Department and the space program in terms of the basic research, development and engineering stages. When the government isn't perceived as delivering, the demand is to cut back and strip government of its capability to deliver, instead of rising up and making government deliver.
Nader on healthcare:
For single-payer; all major candidates oppose it. (Feb 2008)
Single-payer health care plan over for-profit care. (Feb 2008)
3.5% payroll tax to fund universal healthcare. (Sep 2002)
Medicare prescriptions covered under universal health care. (Sep 2000)
Cradle-to-grave health care better than Clinton's plan. (Jul 2000)
Use Canadian system as a model for US. (May 2000)
Nader on social security:
Social Security should not be voluntary; keep community. (Nov 2008)
Social Security is solid; pending bankruptcy is nonsense. (Sep 2000)
Social insurance is government at its noblest. (Jan 1999)
Nader on immigration:
Migrant workers are exploited; crack down on employers. (Nov 2008)
Address immigration as part of worldwide economic justice. (Feb 2008)
Guest workers OK, with labor standards. (Oct 2000)
Immigrants don't come for welfare; restore safety net. (Jun 2000)
Don't blame immigrants for social and economic problems. (Jun 2000)
You can look up Kucinich in the link provided. They are pro-choice, pro gun control (Kucinich was rated F by the NRA), generally in support of immigration (but both want to look into H1B visas), pro regulation, support affirmative action, pro government healthcare, pro social security, etc. They don't seem to be significantly different from the average democrat, and they hold all the views you seem to take serious issue with. The only relevant area of overlap seems to be that they reject war as a policy, which I would hardly call groundbreaking.
I don't have much else to say that wouldn't loop back into things we already discussed.
This is a good post. This is basically how I would describe it from a purely strategic standpoint.
And you are part of that same hyper-partisan system with your demonization of 'the left'. I believe you mentioned earlier that you resent tribalism, yet you seem perfectly content to participate in it and feed into it.
Roy Moore is extreme. He's an avid birther, he is anti-gay (believes 'homosexual conduct' should be illegal and directed people to enforce a same-sex marriage ban after it was overturned by the supreme court), suggested that the 9/11 attacks were 'punishment from God for legitimizing sodomy and abortion', has a troubled history with recognizing the separation of church and state (putting up the ten commandments in the court building and refusing to remove them, which led to him being dismissed), and has problematic views of Islam (argued that Keith Ellison should should not be allowed to serve in congress because of his faith - in the process comparing the Quran to Mein Kampf -, and has pushed 'sharia law in US communities'-type conspiracy in the past). That's not even getting into the seriousness of the sexual assault allegations against him or how he chose to deal with them. These things are not hard to find.
Yes.
I said I can work with them on opposing American global hegemony. Obviously I don't agree with them on anything else. Once we team up to slay Leviathan around the world, I suppose they will be the protectors of leviathan at home and I would have to oppose them. But we could still accomplish some good together.
Any further thoughts on Roy Moore or no?
Is there any way that I can get you to understand that it might be misguided and / or counterproductive to label anyone who holds left-of-center political views as 'part of the left' and to then treat 'the left' as a malicious monolithic entity that 'must be fought and destroyed'?
Good to know that we're on the same page on this.
So after you have 'slain the Leviathan around the world'... would they simply become part of 'the left' again, which we already established you think should 'be fought and destroyed'? If that is the case, why would they work with you specifically when they know you will simply dispose of them when you have what you want (which is apparently something they were already working towards in the first place)?
Is there any way that I can get you to understand that it might be misguided and / or counterproductive to label anyone who holds left-of-center political views as 'part of the left' and to then treat 'the left' as a malicious monolithic entity that 'must be fought and destroyed'?
I sincerely hope we don't need to have a conversation about whether or not Moore is extreme in his viewpoints. As a singular example -- because it's really not even worth the bandwidth necessary to talk about Moore's positions at length -- the fact that he has been removed from the bench twice demonstrates that he is unwilling to adhere to one of the most sacred tenants of our democracy -- the rule of law. Llyrwenne laid out many of the other positions that also clearly cement him on the extreme end of the political spectrum; many of which don't even adhere to traditional conservative ideologies.
You're really just proving my point. The GOP has put itself in a position where it's easy to paint their policy positions and ideologies as ________ (insert whichever negative descriptor you want). To a large degree, I can't "blame" the "left" for their insistence to frame everything in this way -- again, it's very easy to do so when you can point to particular individuals espousing very specific extremist viewpoints. The "left" also suffers greatly for this line of attack as well, so it's not always a direct win for the "left" and a loss for the "right" -- there's a compelling argument that part of Trump's popularity is directly correlated to the issue of identity politics. However, again, this is the doing of the GOP and the poor strategic assessment of allowing extreme/fringe elements into the party fold. In addition, the GOP has outright lost a number of significant cultural "wars" (gay marriage, civil rights, etc). These things are still fresh in the minds of the electorate, so it's going to be a while before this specific line of attack fades away. Although, if people like Moore/Trump continue to rise through the party ranks, I don't think this will ever stop.
In regards to Paul, I think you missed my point. I don't disagree with you that any GOP nominee would receive the same thrashing. I'm simply saying that more extreme candidates will face it more consistently and rigorously than non-extremists (e.g. Moore vs Paul). Paul has never received the level of vitriol and attention that Moore and Trump have received. In essence, all I'm saying is that the party should be surfacing people more akin to Paul than Moore. Ultimately, I think that will further conservative agendas at a much more effective and efficient rate.
Trump won because the Dems assumed the same when that was not the case.
Not to change the subject, but I'd like to hear some opinions on the legislative processes going on right now (particularly with the tax bill). I've heard a lot of Republican lawmakers complaining that this process was similar to the passage of Obamacare, but was it? They just seem to be writing these bills at random, without a great deal of prep work. Didn't Obamacare have like a year of public debate?
Do any non US conservatives here actually think the Republican party is conservative in any way?
Like, theres nothing i can really look to thats conservative of them that isnt contradicted elsewhere in there platform. Freedom for guns but against abortion, limited govt but spend billions on the military, etc.
High Toryism is the proper conservative approach. Religious and social conservativism is cancer
Like, theres nothing i can really look to thats conservative of them that isnt contradicted elsewhere in there platform. Freedom for guns but against abortion, limited govt but spend billions on the military, etc.
High Toryism is the proper conservative approach. Religious and social conservativism is cancer
I'm not familiar with the term but it seems like High Toryism is both extremely religion focused and socially conservative.
It comes out of the Christian tradition but does not necessarily attempt a half hearted theocracy like the Republicans seemingly attempt.
Part of it comes out of that tradition such as its approach to environmentalism. Essentially, our father gave the land to us, his father gave it to him, and so on until we find that it was God who gave us the land. Canada's last progressive conservative PM Brian Mulroney is famous for his green initiatives. Moreover, Red/high toryism is generally seen as a Canadian tradition heavily inspired by the works of George Grant. However Grants worries of American influence were correct and we are stuck with our current shite conservative party while a lot of the progressive conservatives have either stayed as minority within the CPC or gone to the Green party.
Christian philosophy is an influence rather than the fundementalism we see in religious conservatism.
Hopefully i explained this a bit better. Im in no way an expert but I do have one of the best red tory professors in Canada who advocates these beliefs
Edit: there seems to be a difference between red toryism and high toryism though they are used interchangebly often. What Im refering to is Red Toryism
If youre super interested, you can read this. I havent gone through it yet but i do own it.
https://books.google.ca/books/about...dition.html?id=R7oTDQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en
Last edited:
I'm not a particularly big fan of how the tax bill process has been handled, but I would also caution that it's somewhat naive to think this bill magically popped out of thin air over the course of just a few weeks. Both parties are constantly working on policy/legislation behind the scenes (and this doesn't even consider think-tanks like ALEC that are constantly developing and pitching legislation to the parties). It's hard to know how much of the current tax bill was already "in-waiting," but I would imagine certain provisions were ready to go for quite some time -- there are plenty of specifics within the bill that various individuals have discussed/advocated for over the year(s).
Obamacare certainly had a longer public legislative process, which is nice in the sense that there's more public visibility, but I wouldn't pin the Obamacare process as being indicative of "best practices" in regards to legislative processes. Remember, many of the same complaints that people are angry about with the current tax bill also occurred with Obamacare -- we're not that far removed from Pelosi's infamous comments about passing the bill so we know what's in it. And many amendments and revisions were dropped on legislatures to vote on without proper time to read/analyze/adjust. Additionally, even with all of the additional legislative process time that Obamacare had, it still ended up drastically impacting segments of the population negatively and contains serious flaws and oversights.
Ideally, both parties apply due diligence and create models that accurately forecast impacts, iterate, and re-test until the expected results occur in a controlled environment. There are always likely to be unforeseen consequences and/or unexpected results that aren't desirable, but there's often political motivations that end up expediting the entire legislative process to a point where we see things like the current tax bill, the attempted repeal of Obamacare, or Obamacare itself -- and there are literally dozens upon dozens of other examples, from both parties, that demonstrate some level of systemic incompetence and/or inability to accurately test/forecast legislation. Again, it's not about being perfect -- we're all humans at the end of the day -- but many pieces of legislation don't pass basic, shallow, examination.
As for the tax bill, we'll have to see how it ends up after conference -- if it can even make it out. There are likely still significant changes to come.
I just want to make sure I understand appaws correctly.
He says he's anti-statist. Therefore, he's also so "party over country" that he's willing to vote for a pedophile on the grounds that he's anti-abortion, pro guns because "policy > morality."
Ok, well, that tax bill that passed the senate is going to take a lot of government money and put it into the pockets of constituents of Moore. So instead of monies being centralized in a government, a conclave of privatized individuals will possess that money to do with as they see fit, at the expense of millions of Americans.
This means that morality--dissembling the social safety nets that a large number of Americans are dependent upon--impacts policy--GOP passing legislation that is a big middle-finger to the poor and working class.
If you were really anti-statist, you wouldn't be aligned to any party, because the party believes in the sustenance of the state to maintains its power. This is why the idea of "small government" is obsolete within the GOP, because it does indeed pass restrictive legislation that negatively impacts minority demographics.
He says he's anti-statist. Therefore, he's also so "party over country" that he's willing to vote for a pedophile on the grounds that he's anti-abortion, pro guns because "policy > morality."
Ok, well, that tax bill that passed the senate is going to take a lot of government money and put it into the pockets of constituents of Moore. So instead of monies being centralized in a government, a conclave of privatized individuals will possess that money to do with as they see fit, at the expense of millions of Americans.
This means that morality--dissembling the social safety nets that a large number of Americans are dependent upon--impacts policy--GOP passing legislation that is a big middle-finger to the poor and working class.
If you were really anti-statist, you wouldn't be aligned to any party, because the party believes in the sustenance of the state to maintains its power. This is why the idea of "small government" is obsolete within the GOP, because it does indeed pass restrictive legislation that negatively impacts minority demographics.
I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying about political parties existing as appendages of the state, and going along with its parasitic thieving of the people.
I would never say "Party>country" but I would say ideology >state, absolutely. Or nation>state.
I think this thread has run its course. I thought it might be a small right wing community in leftist no-mans land....but it's just become a place for lefties to come in and say their silly little "wow, just wow" pieties.
I don't identify as left or right. I hate polemics and partisan politics.
But yes, the idea of fostering a conservative community is difficult considering that the base population is derived from a population where the majority of conservatives were culled.
That too.
I agree with all of the above. I really wish this sub-community would grow here. Only ever reading leftist opinions is lame.
I doubt this will ever happen. Resetera era has inherited the reputation of Neogaf.
[link removed]
That reputation was extremely awful. The norms of this site are also radically different from the rest of the internet, which is heavily influenced by 4chan. A mass immigration of users from the rest of the internet would end in most users getting perma banned for inappropriate language pretty quickly.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are plenty of conservative safe spaces on the internet.
Unfortunately, there are not enough for civil discourse between opposing ideologies. If you are aware of any, please let me know.
Nobody's asking for a "conservative safe space". I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt at the start here on this site, but it has since proven itself a carbon copy of the other site (which I guess isn't too surprising) in most respects. Hence, I'm a conservative/libertarian who mostly stays quiet around here, just like I did over there. Never had the energy to engage in 1 against 100 confrontations and still don't. It is what it is.
But I'll say this: I would under no circumstances ever have voted for Charles Manson.
I'm always down for a chat on politics if you ever want to hit me up via PM. I can't promise I will reply right away, but I would love to see more honest discussion of politics so I will make time when possible.
Same for me most of the time (but sometimes it might slip out lol).
In general though, I don't find the nitty-gritty details and nuances of ideology and policy all that fun to talk about. Every once in awhile I might chime in though.
Oh nice didn't realise this thread existed. Excellent to have a safe place to discuss conservative ideologies.
The only one I can think of is r/TheDonald and that's just craziness.
Thedailypaul used to be good for libertarians. But that's gone. Ronpaulforums has carried that on somewhat. r/TheDonald and Breitbart can provide views you won't find here but contain WAY too much trash to wade through.
Last edited: