Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516209)

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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516211)

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?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516210)

Yo, what the fuck are you talking about?

TM

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516211)

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?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516211)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516209)

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.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516212)

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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516216)

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.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516214)

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

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516217)

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

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516209)

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

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 516220)

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

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516203)

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

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 516220)

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

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516208)

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516216)

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.