Capco

Conservativism in the United States is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, strong national defense, free trade, anti-communism, pro-individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by communism, socialism, and moral relativism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States How's that sound?

Cinga claims they aren't a simpleton only to show a vastly "simplified" (and entirely inaccurate) single-line spectrum. Fascists and Nazis self-described their platforms as right wing, and the vast majority of scholars agree with those connotations. Again, please provide a credible scholarly source that refutes the notion that Mussolini himself was wrong when he described his own party's platform as being on the "right," especially if you're trying to bring up education as a basis for your argument. I'm still waiting. And just to be clear, you can be left and want no government or lots of government. You can be right and want no government or lots of government. THAT'S what the graphic I provided represents. It's more inclusive than whatever boneheaded boiling down you are trying to accomplish by lumping the authority axis with the left-right axis. No professional worth their salt would ever use a single-line spectrum. THAT is grade-school ***** right there.

To answer your second paragraph first, examine this graphic: That is where the two party platforms lie when compared to the platforms of the median parties from the various democracies. In short, the Democrats are much closer the median than the Republicans are. Any Republicans who go even further to the right of the party probably aren't successful because of how extreme they are (i.e. it's pretty hard to get any more extreme than the Republicans currently are). On the other hand, there is considerable room to the left of the median for the Democratic party to move to, at least by comparison to the Republican party. As far the "typical" true conservative... it's been so long since I've seen one be successful in the Republican party of today, since they aren't far enough to the right. If I had to give an example of a conservative that I highly respect and one that is representative of what I think true conservatism is, I would offer George Will or William F. Buckley.

Best determination of a successor is the win/loss record of the potential successor. In pictorial form for this year so far:

Thank you for recognizing that that's not at all what I was saying. I think it's entirely disingenuous to chalk up today's conservatives as Nazis/Fascists (or equally, today's liberals as Marxist-Leninists). However, in modern times the right has shifted further to the right, and the left has shifted further to the left within the US. Therefore, the number of true conservatives and liberals has, imo, started to diminish. In short, modern politics is polarized and continuing along that trend for the foreseeable future. That's why I think you see an uptick of those kinds of comments. Jmo, though.

Hahahahahaha what a simpleton. Here, let me try to answer pictorially for you. The vast majority of scholars place Nazism and Fascism on the far-right. https://archive.org/details/germansintonazis00frit https://archive.org/details/routledgecompani00davi You probably have no idea why the word socialism was even included in the party name, so I'll tell you. It was because socialism was wildly popular in Europe during the 1920s and the only way the far-right could compete was to veil their platform as an equal alternative to the standard definition of socialism by incorporating left wing organizational tactics and blending them with right wing views. In Mussolini's own words: "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center.... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words" By all means, please find a credible scholarly source that supports the notion that Nazis and Fascists reside on the far left of the political spectrum. It will be difficult, but have fun trying.

You sound like a standout guy, @oldmanfan. You have completely reasonable takes and I think people like you are an excellent example of part of the "middle" of America. You balance your beliefs with your common sense very well. I'll be looking out for your commentary from this point forward.

Welp. I don't think I'll be getting anywhere with you. Have a good weekend!

I genuinely had this same thought as I was typing that.

I'll just say that there are much better ways to check the government's overreach than opposing government health and safety guidelines in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic just because it's coming from the government's mouth. There is something to be said for banding together when the going gets tough and loosening up when times are good.

So the first amendment right to peaceful assembly gives you the right to not follow health and safety guidelines that can take away the unalienable right to life for other Americans? You can still peacefully assemble while wearing a mask dude. And I know exactly what you said. The point I'm trying to make is that this perceived right you have isn't a right at all but rather just your own feelings and desires. I'm not sure why I expected you to see the point I was trying to make though. That's an interesting idea but you're right that there's still questions to be answered about that approach. Good food for thought though.

Actually I'd love to hear some thoughts on this if you feel like sharing them buddy.

Please cite what article, section, or clause within the first ten amendments of the Constitution that you are referring to that allows your feelings and desires to trump the lives of your fellow citizens.

Would you be open to such a change personally, or was that just for the sake of argument?

People's lives are now just feelings and desires? And a position you hold trumps them? You are something else.

The EC in its current form has a number of bad side effects. For starters, the popular vote is irrelevant, which means that minority rule of the executive is a possibility (like today). Low population states have a higher number of electors per capita than populous states do. US citizens living in US territories and possessions do not have a say since they do not have Electors. There is a near-exclusive focus on swing states since they are so determinative, and this leads to poorer voter turnout in the rest of the states. Let's also not forget how the 3/5th Compromise allowed Southern states to disenfranchise their black slave populations while simultaneously allowing them to increase their representation in the federal via apportionment (i.e. the number of congressional seats awarded to each state, and in turn the number of Electors). In addition, recall that women did not have the right to vote in 1789. In a popular voting scheme, a state could vastly increase its say in presidential elections if they granted women or slaves the right to vote. Therefore, the EC did not incentivize increasing the franchise whereas a popular voting system would have. Altogether, that makes arbitrary areas of land have more say than actual people. Does that sound more like freedom or tyranny to you? Is majority rule more akin to freedom or to tyranny? Is higher voter turnout more akin to freedom or to tyranny? Is the disenfranchisement of certain groups more akin to freedom or to tyranny? I think the best way forward with regards to the EC in the current political climate is not abolishment, but alteration. The winner-take-all system for awarding Electors should not be an option; instead, Electors should be distributed proportionally based on the results of the votes within the states. That would also dramatically open up the door for 3rd party candidates as well while maintaining the notion that the US is a federal republic.

That's preferable to small pockets of small populations having say over larger populations. That's traditionally known as tyranny, btw.

This is a fantastic idea for a thread, westide2. Thank you for putting yourself on the hot seat. I'll try to take a stab at these questions of yours. No. Do you consider the KKK and neo-Nazis to be part of the Republicans? Many of them certainly vote that way, just like many of the BLM/Antifa vote Democrat. This question is honestly irrelevant. Coal (now) and oil (eventually, but not anywhere close to soon) are dying forms of energy. Solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, and even nuclear energy are all effectively infinite for the current purposes of our species. Recall that humans are only about 200,000 years old as a species. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to apply the idea that these forms of energy are technically finite since "they will only last several billion years." For our intents and purposes, they are effectively infinite. The future rests in these forms of effectively infinite energy, and the sooner our economy retools to utilizing them the more likely we are to maintain our status as the preeminent economic power in the world. I don't see the Republicans embracing such an approach. We are still the most powerful economy in the world and have been for decades regardless of president. Tax the rich -> invest in infinite energy -> reap the benefits. That should be our goal looking forward. With regards to China, I am overall unfamiliar with the Biden foreign policy approach outside of general assumptions regarding Democratic norms. As a person with a chemical engineering background, I would tell you that I don't have the slightest faith in complex Chinese chemicals. Can they make the basic feedstock stuff? Yeah. Can they make pharmaceuticals at the same level of precision that the West can? For the most part, not yet (but that gap is closing faster than you think). With regards to factories moving to China... that is simply an effect of globalization within the sphere of capitalism. It is capitalism that brings factories to China since there is more money to be made that way. What if Biden kept those tax cuts in place for the middle and lower classes, but revoked them for the upper class? That is not far off from what the Obama administration did in 2012 with regards to the Bush tax cuts. That would increase revenues for the federal government, which in turn would go mainly to the two biggest consumers of our budget: the military, and entitlements. The former helps everyone, but the latter especially helps the lower and middle classes. The Biden health care plan is to improve the current system by addressing these flaws you speak of. I would add that these flaws of Obamacare were a combination of: outright Democratic contempt at the Republicans as a minority party in 2008; and the subsequent Republican response to strip the original formation of the bill at every turn thereafter. At the end of the day, I think whatever party you grew up with should have zero bearing on where you stand today. People evolve.

Wtf? That's what happened? How on earth does a person let someone on the internet get to them that much?

Good post except for this comment imo. There's still a vast, vast majority of people remaining who disagree with the left wing agenda that haven't been suspended.

Whether or not this is true, they don't have a duty to anyone to be neutral or fair. The only thing they might stand to lose is site traffic. It's not like this is a business with a financial incentive to keep you posting here, or a government agency bound by certain regulations. In my experience, expecting any moderator on the internet to be fair and neutral is an exercise in futility. Even amongst the people/groups that have a duty to be impartial in the real world, the impartiality is often imperfect. Imo, it's obvious to me that the mods seemingly let PPP be the right-wing wild west that it is and only step in during extreme circumstances.

No. I'm kind of busy with law school and all that jazz. But if you care to share one of these recent documents I might be able to read it in my (very small amount of) free time and get back to you. Not trying to give you the go around. Honestly my free time is very limited and I'd rather spend it on other things, but I'm always open to learning more about the shitshow that is the current world.

As I said, he would obtain nuggets of genuine truth but then draw outlandish conclusions. I'm still waiting for the Clinton circle to go to jail. I liked speaking with him because he made me think about things, but never once did I get the feeling that he might be on to something. There are certain beliefs he held that simply made his commentary indigestible at times. His inability to reconcile the discrepancies I would point out did not help his cause either. "Question everything." DR would be one of the first people to tell you that. So I applied that to him and his commentary, and he often failed the test.

I liked DR but he was a textbook conspiracy theorist. I had about half a dozen lengthy conversations with him intermittently. He was always cordial and considerate but still had a snarky streak that would come out when pressed on certain issues (but we all have that to some degree). In one of our last conversations, he told me that Q is not a "source" after I questioned Q's credibility as a source. About 10 posts earlier he claimed Q was a good source to someone else, and I called him on the flip-flop. His subsequent explanation for these mental gymnastics was lackluster at best. That's where his problem was. He would obtain these genuine nuggets of truth and then apply mental gymnastics to reach conclusions he was biased towards believing. I echo @DrDawkinstein's sentiment that the guy needs some help. Professional, medical help. I really hope he gets it because I do believe he has a good heart with good intentions. He's just really off into the deep end right now.