We are all Slave now.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

McConnell can listen. I was talking about Trump. He will listen to McConnell only as long as McConnell is telling him what he wants to hear. McConnell is not the kind of guy Trump has any respect for.

I understood you were saying Trump wouldn't listen to McConnell. I was saying something different - it may reach a point that Turtle don't care.

Joyous belated Saturnalia to everyone. Fuck your masters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's a bummer for people like SEC Chick who have seen their movement hijacked and taken in a different direction, but that's what conservatism is now. Most people who call themselves conservatives support Trump.

And there is a lot more continuity between Trump and conservatism than some people want to admit. The discontinuities turn out to be not that important to most conservative voters.

He's a narcissist. He's not interested in other things.

The continuity is why I don't take the complaints about "hijacking" seriously. What about Trump's positions would be anathema to, say, Bill Buckley?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The continuity is why I don't take the complaints about "hijacking" seriously. What about Trump's positions would be anathema to, say, Bill Buckley?

There is considerable overlap on social issues. Not much on economics. Buckley would have agreed with reining in the Chinese, but I don't recall much in his writing that was generally anti-free trade.

And there is considerable distance between Trumpism and Buckley conservatism in terms of expression. Buckley was classist. (He may have said he'd rather be governed the names in the first few pages of a phone book than Harvard wonks, but he said that as a Yalie.) Trump is happy to give the trailer park a voice, to invite all of crazies and angries to the table. Buckley wanted to keep them in the closet, under control in the same fashion he sought to subjugate liberals. You might say this a thin distinction. I can see that argument. But I'd disagree. I'd say that distinction is what puts Trumpism more under the populist umbrella than the conservative umbrella.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"We will still have to live with the economic and social problems that assisted in causing him...."

Conservatives support him. That is the problem. They choose to do it. You don't like to say that, or to acknowledge that they make choices that lead to Trump. You absolve them by blaming everyone or no one -- by blaming "problems" instead of people.



Conservatives and Rs vote for Trump and Republicans. Liberals and Ds do not.

Many conservatives believe they have no choice. There is a belief, and it is valid, that the Democratic has no acceptable solutions to the problems facing the country (wage stagnation, loss of work, all the issues causing "inequality"). The Democrats simply seek to manage those problems by giving things to those suffering as a result of them.

To a conservative, this is simply unacceptable. A state-run solution that manages losers rather than provides opportunities for them to dig their own ways out of their problems is the ultimate moral hazard, and a solution which would sap the essential spirit of the country. It is a step toward a European welfare state. It defies the basic premise of the United States.

So when you say conservatives are the problem because they vote for Trump, you tell half the story. The other half is that they have no choice but to vote for Trump.

I know what you'll say now... "But Hillary was basically an old line Republican." Maybe. I tend to think she was close to that. But a lot of conservatives I know didn't see it that way. They didn't trust her. They remembered her as Bill's progressive wife... the one who'd bring us single payer health care, federally mandated maternity leave, etc. A conservative who wishes to avoid those things and legitimately believes Hillary wants them is not a "problem." The binary choice provided to him which compels him to vote for Trump as the less extreme abandonment of his principles is the problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I understood you were saying Trump wouldn't listen to McConnell. I was saying something different - it may reach a point that Turtle don't care.

Joyous belated Saturnalia to everyone. Fuck your masters.

I do think McConnell is going to be around long after Trump is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So when you say conservatives are the problem because they vote for Trump, you tell half the story. The other half is that they have no choice but to vote for Trump.

I know what you'll say now...

No, what I'll say is that you constantly apologize for conservatives by pretending they don't have choices. They do. They choose to support Trump.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is considerable overlap on social issues. Not much on economics. Buckley would have agreed with reining in the Chinese, but I don't recall much in his writing that was generally anti-free trade.

And there is considerable distance between Trumpism and Buckley conservatism in terms of expression. Buckley was classist. (He may have said he'd rather be governed the names in the first few pages of a phone book than Harvard wonks, but he said that as a Yalie.) Trump is happy to give the trailer park a voice, to invite all of crazies and angries to the table. Buckley wanted to keep them in the closet, under control in the same fashion he sought to subjugate liberals. You might say this a thin distinction. I can see that argument. But I'd disagree. I'd say that distinction is what puts Trumpism more under the populist umbrella than the conservative umbrella.

Buckley was classist, sure, but was also about as racist as they come and an advocate of the southern strategy to court racists in the Democratic party.

As a teen, I saw Buckley introduce Liddy once. Talk about inviting the crazies and angries to the podium.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

No, what I'll say is that you constantly apologize for conservatives by pretending they don't have choices. They do. They choose to support Trump.

Educated conservatives wish to disavow the more overt racism of Trump, even while harboring a constant feeling that not enough minorities are being excluded from higher ed for their half-wit offspring to have the same shot they did at a school they don't deserve.

They vote racist and Trumpish because, well, it may be a bit gauche, but it serves them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Educated conservatives wish to disavow the more overt racism of Trump, even while harboring a constant feeling that not enough minorities are being excluded from higher ed for their half-wit offspring to have the same shot they did at a school they don't deserve.

They vote racist and Trumpish because, well, it may be a bit gauche, but it serves them.

As Sebby basically says, in the end their opposition to liberals is stronger than anything they don't like about Trump (lying, corruption, disorganization, etc.), which makes sense, because reaction to the left is what conservatism is about.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As Sebby basically says, in the end their opposition to liberals is stronger than anything they don't like about Trump (lying, corruption, disorganization, etc.), which makes sense, because reaction to the left is what conservatism is about.

But I thought SEC liked us?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As Sebby basically says, in the end their opposition to liberals is stronger than anything they don't like about Trump (lying, corruption, disorganization, etc.), which makes sense, because reaction to the left is what conservatism is about.

I must admit surprise that almost all voters, except the deplorables, didn't turn against Trump. And I suppose you are right that standard R votes got to being Trump vote. But the election also turned on very liberal people deciding Hil wasn't enough. Trump is president for lots of reasons, but one is very very educated people thought Hil and trump were essentially the same. Grasp your nettles.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's cute that you think he'd listen.

I’m far from certain he would, but he’s been less dictatorial and far more interested in self-preservation than I’d expected thus far.

Right now, he’s got immunity by senate majority. If he’s any clue, he’d be very wary of what happens if that goes away.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Many conservatives believe they have no choice. There is a belief, and it is valid, that the Democratic has no acceptable solutions to the problems facing the country (wage stagnation, loss of work, all the issues causing "inequality"). The Democrats simply seek to manage those problems by giving things to those suffering as a result of them.

To a conservative, this is simply unacceptable. A state-run solution that manages losers rather than provides opportunities for them to dig their own ways out of their problems is the ultimate moral hazard, and a solution which would sap the essential spirit of the country. It is a step toward a European welfare state. It defies the basic premise of the United States.

So when you say conservatives are the problem because they vote for Trump, you tell half the story. The other half is that they have no choice but to vote for Trump.

I know what you'll say now... "But Hillary was basically an old line Republican." Maybe. I tend to think she was close to that. But a lot of conservatives I know didn't see it that way. They didn't trust her. They remembered her as Bill's progressive wife... the one who'd bring us single payer health care, federally mandated maternity leave, etc. A conservative who wishes to avoid those things and legitimately believes Hillary wants them is not a "problem." The binary choice provided to him which compels him to vote for Trump as the less extreme abandonment of his principles is the problem.

Do you even know how full of shit you are?

Conservatives don’t want brown people to get benefits. That’s it.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

And I suppose you are right that standard R votes got to being Trump vote. But the election also turned on very liberal people deciding Hil wasn't enough. Trump is president for lots of reasons, but one is very very educated people thought Hil and trump were essentially the same. Grasp your nettles.

If you are talking Jill Stein votes, no. The Dems and Hillary lost for many reasons, but it was not because the "very educated" decided she was not liberal enough, unless you mean by that the "very educated" who advised the Democratic Party and her campaign, all of whom were very educated incompetents.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I must admit surprise that almost all voters, except the deplorables, didn't turn against Trump. And I suppose you are right that standard R votes got to being Trump vote. But the election also turned on very liberal people deciding Hil wasn't enough. Trump is president for lots of reasons, but one is very very educated people thought Hil and trump were essentially the same. Grasp your nettles.

Hillary did well among the well-educated, but there are always gaps. And, yes, the morons who voted for Stein and Johnson generally were well-educated, in that they went to college even if they learned nothing there, obviously.

I share your amazement that more voters don't turn against Trump. But then I watch Fox for a few minutes and understand.