We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You and Ty keep saying this. I don't think it's true. To the extent that traditional conservatism used to win the day in the Republican Party, they've always been the same--assholes who may believe in something, but who were willing to side with and empower the worst people in society at every turn in order to exert conservative influence. The only difference now is that the people who were their crucial allies and who they empowered are now actually, you know...in power.

There isn't some new brand of conservatism. They're the same as they've always been--willing to sell out any and every principle they hold if they get tax cuts. Hell, Trump actually worked out great for them because although they're losing out on free trade, they got their tax cuts and they get to control the Supreme Court. They're also getting smaller government and less regulation for no discernible reason other than having less regulation. There are just fewer of them and they're less influential.

Less influence, same assholes. And let me add, it makes no difference what you label them if they align with or embrace racist, sexist, xenophic, homophobic, anti-democratic policy in order to achieve what they want. They desperately try to insist that these things aren't part of their values, but deep down, they know they're absolutely part of the problem. They just don't care.

TM

If two conservatives with different views are arguing about which of them is the real conservative, how do you tell which of them is right?

In my view, there are no core ideas that are conservative and that define the movement. When conservatives turn towards Trump and away from, e.g., free markets, it changes what conservatism stands for.

IMO, and Corey Robin's, the essence of conservatism is reaction to liberalism. I think Corey Robin's book on this is excellent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If two conservatives with different views are arguing about which of them is the real conservative, how do you tell which of them is right?

If I put you in a room with a Jill Stein voter from down my block, who is the liberal?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yo, what the fuck are you talking about?

TM

I thought the FBI guy had tweeted about Trump. ty says it was private phone texts.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If two conservatives with different views are arguing about which of them is the real conservative, how do you tell which of them is right?

I suppose with that argument, no words have any real meaning.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In my view, there are no core ideas that are conservative and that define the movement. When conservatives turn towards Trump and away from, e.g., free markets, it changes what conservatism stands for.

No it doesn't. If I define myself as liberal, but I turn towards Obama who embraced a very aggressive drone policy, have I changed liberalism to centrism?

Like I said, these people will side with anyone if they get what they want. But to argue that conservatism as a whole has fundamentally changed because they are willing to sell out to achieve even a handful of their core goals is silly. As I said, they've always done that. The difference now is that they are willing to sell out more. If you're argument is that at some point all that selling out means they don't really have any principles, then I guess I won't argue too much.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Hell, Trump actually worked out great for them because although they're losing out on free trade, they got their tax cuts and they get to control the Supreme Court. They're also getting smaller government and less regulation for no discernible reason other than having less regulation.

Right. GOP is getting what it wants. Trump is getting what he wants: the prestige of the office and access to government cash. And voters are getting what they want: being mean to brown and queer people.

What's a wee bit of corruption if it gets you everything you wanted?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If I put you in a room with a Jill Stein voter from down my block, who is the liberal?

Unlike conservatives, liberals are not more liberal because they are further left. Socialism and communism are not liberalism. I don't really know what Jill Stein believes, so won't speak to her.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Unlike conservatives, liberals are not more liberal because they are further left. Socialism and communism are not liberalism. I don't really know what Jill Stein believes, so won't speak to her.

why do you feel empowered to be not just your lexicographer, but the board's?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I suppose with that argument, no words have any real meaning.

No, if you accept that conservatism is about reaction than about some core set of beliefs, then it's easy to see how conservatives can move away from some ideas and towards others. And there are Republicans and libertarians and various interest groups who are happy to get tax cuts with conservatives but who may not really be conservative.

No it doesn't. If I define myself as liberal, but I turn towards Obama who embraced a very aggressive drone policy, have I changed liberalism to centrism?

Liberalism is defined by some core beliefs, and a desire to change society in certain ways. (Conservatism is defined at its core by a reaction to liberalism.)

Like I said, these people will side with anyone if they get what they want. But to argue that conservatism as a whole has fundamentally changed because they are willing to sell out to achieve even a handful of their core goals is silly. As I said, they've always done that. The difference now is that they are willing to sell out more. If you're argument is that at some point all that selling out means they don't really have any principles, then I guess I won't argue too much.

The core principle is triggering libs, to oversimplify it. More than anything else, what animates conservatism is sticking it to the left. Republican legislators passed tax cuts, but conservatives don't really care. Conservatives don't care about health-care policy, they care about trashing Obamacare. Who are the conservative intellectuals? Jordan Peterson?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why do you feel empowered to be not just your lexicographer, but the board's?

My keyboard works. Yours does too.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You and Ty keep saying this. I don't think it's true. To the extent that traditional conservatism used to win the day in the Republican Party, they've always been the same--assholes who may believe in something, but who were willing to side with and empower the worst people in society at every turn in order to exert conservative influence. The only difference now is that the people who were their crucial allies and who they empowered are now actually, you know...in power.

There isn't some new brand of conservatism. They're the same as they've always been--willing to sell out any and every principle they hold if they get tax cuts. Hell, Trump actually worked out great for them because although they're losing out on free trade, they got their tax cuts and they get to control the Supreme Court. They're also getting smaller government and less regulation for no discernible reason other than having less regulation. There are just fewer of them and they're less influential.

Less influence, same assholes. And let me add, it makes no difference what you label them if they align with or embrace racist, sexist, xenophic, homophobic, anti-democratic policy in order to achieve what they want. They desperately try to insist that these things aren't part of their values, but deep down, they know they're absolutely part of the problem. They just don't care.

TM

John Birchers --> Tea Partiers --> Trump voters. Same type of people, different names.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

John Birchers --> Tea Partiers --> Trump voters. Same type of people, different names.

True, but Birchers were a fringe group, Tea Partiers less so, and now Trump voters are running the GOP asylum.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you could ask Sen. Collins’ chief of staff a question about the Kavanaugh nomination, what would you ask? Serious question, need suggestions quickly.

Maybe you can get some out of this - http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/13/...wer-the-good-t

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

John Birchers --> Tea Partiers --> Trump voters. Same type of people, different names.

Bingo.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'd ask whether the senator is concerned that Kavanaugh's stated views on investigation of the president were a factor in his selection and whether she has any concern that the president requested a quid pro quo in that regard.

Ask about his communications with Kennedy about the gig. When they started. Specific conversations. In person. Phone, email, texts.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Unlike conservatives, liberals are not more liberal because they are further left. Socialism and communism are not liberalism. I don't really know what Jill Stein believes, so won't speak to her.

In a year you can thank her voters for martial law and a 365 day-long Purge.