• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A New Conservative Party

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,436
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
https://www.rawstory.com/gop-disarray-2650344528/

...
On CNN Saturday, former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), a Trump-skeptic conservative who endorsed President Joe Biden, said that Republicans in his circle are debating forming an entirely new conservative party and abandoning the GOP to the far right.

"What are Republican leaders telling you about the trajectory of the party?" asked anchor Fredricka Whitfield.
"It's not good right now. I think everybody understands that," said Dent. "In fact, just yesterday I participated in a forum or a summit where we talked about the future of the party, should there be a new party or a new faction. A new faction within the party or one that operates independently of the party?
....


Oh, please, please, please split!
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
https://www.rawstory.com/gop-disarray-2650344528/

...
On CNN Saturday, former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), a Trump-skeptic conservative who endorsed President Joe Biden, said that Republicans in his circle are debating forming an entirely new conservative party and abandoning the GOP to the far right.

"What are Republican leaders telling you about the trajectory of the party?" asked anchor Fredricka Whitfield.
"It's not good right now. I think everybody understands that," said Dent. "In fact, just yesterday I participated in a forum or a summit where we talked about the future of the party, should there be a new party or a new faction. A new faction within the party or one that operates independently of the party?
....


Oh, please, please, please split!

You know, if they do, they're probably going to drive a push for some non-FPTP system, which I would personally wholely endorse. If they can manage to get that in common with the progressive wing of the democratic party, I think they will find success. It would end the two party system and give them continuing access to power.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,436
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
There are rumors Trump has started a third party, the Patriot Party. Snopes reports this is false. Though some grifters have set up a Patriot Party site to sell Patriot Party merchandise. Other grifters are accepting donations for the party.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,844
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
I've been watching the new season of The Expanse on Amazon.

Right now, these "reasonable" members of the Republican Party seem to be akin to the Belters like Naomi and Drummer. The leader of this radical faction has taken over, launched some asteroids at the Inners, and the few sane people left among them are trying to figure out if they're going to throw their lot in with Marco and burn it all down, or fight for something less insane.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,362
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The "new conservative party" will never be able to separate itself from the insurrection and our space force that detected a celestial Jewish laser. Can't say all in at the poker table and then change your mind when you realize your hand is shit.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
If they can't flip either the House or Senate in '22 they will have a grueling need to change -- but they will then face a more pronounced internal schism, too. If they do flip the Senate, they'll be in comfortable territory again and not much will change, I think. As wiser people than me have said, this aint a party anymore, it's a conspiracy. Or virus, considering the locals I meet who are incurably infected.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
If they can't flip either the House or Senate in '22 they will have a grueling need to change -- but they will then face a more pronounced internal schism, too. If they do flip the Senate, they'll be in comfortable territory again and not much will change, I think. As wiser people than me have said, this aint a party anymore, it's a conspiracy. Or virus, considering the locals I meet who are incurably affected.

Whole I touched on this on another thread, I don't think it is a virus so much as a population vulnerable to an open exploit that has been leveraged time and again for years: if you can get access to someone's belief structure via "authority", you can put just about whatever you want in there. So what they have done is made an explicit handle for that authority, revoked access rights for anyone else, and then set up a structure which benefits the people in that authoritarian position.

The problem for them is that an outsider got access, and then fucked all their painstaking work right up.

Now they have to live with the consequences of leaving their back-door in place long enough for someone else to get in.

This whole matter strikes me as an attempt to cleave off administrative access of the outsider by designating him a not-authority without having to close the exploit.

I'm not sure how successful they will be but if they CAN successfully firewall off the outsider access, it will be worth losing some of the network. They probably figure they can make inroads later, maybe with terse alliances with the more conservative Dems.
 

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
5,284
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
There are rumors Trump has started a third party, the Patriot Party. Snopes reports this is false. Though some grifters have set up a Patriot Party site to sell Patriot Party merchandise. Other grifters are accepting donations for the party.

Trump doesn't start anything except trouble.
Someone else will do the work of starting a third party and then Trump will lease them his name.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I don't think it is a virus so much as a population vulnerable to an open exploit that has been leveraged time and again for years: if you can get access to someone's belief structure via "authority", you can put just about whatever you want in there. So what they have done is made an explicit handle for that authority, revoked access rights for anyone else, and then set up a structure which benefits the people in that authoritarian position.

The problem for them is that an outsider got access, and then fucked all their painstaking work right up.

Now they have to live with the consequences of leaving their back-door in place long enough for someone else to get in.

This whole matter strikes me as an attempt to cleave off administrative access of the outsider by designating him a not-authority without having to close the exploit.

I'm not sure how successful they will be but if they CAN successfully firewall off the outsider access, it will be worth losing some of the network. They probably figure they can make inroads later, maybe with terse alliances with the more conservative Dems.

I think this is a very astute analysis.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I don't think it is a virus so much as a population vulnerable to an open exploit that has been leveraged time and again for years: if you can get access to someone's belief structure via "authority", you can put just about whatever you want in there. So what they have done is made an explicit handle for that authority, revoked access rights for anyone else, and then set up a structure which benefits the people in that authoritarian position.

The problem for them is that an outsider got access, and then fucked all their painstaking work right up.

Now they have to live with the consequences of leaving their back-door in place long enough for someone else to get in.

This whole matter strikes me as an attempt to cleave off administrative access of the outsider by designating him a not-authority without having to close the exploit.

I'm not sure how successful they will be but if they CAN successfully firewall off the outsider access, it will be worth losing some of the network. They probably figure they can make inroads later, maybe with terse alliances with the more conservative Dems.

I think this is a very astute analysis.

I guess the biggest problem here is that they aren't fucking learning from it. Like, we have had this discussion so many times:

There is no such thing as a secure backdoor!

And when that backdoor is something as significant as the belief structure of at least a third of the population of an entire nation, that's pretty fucked up.

But how do you close a security hole when everyone who cares is locked right out?
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,106
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
Oh, please, please, please split!
yes, and then the Dems should also split.

and then those splits should probably split.

having 2 parties run one of the geographically largest (and biodiverse) countries on the planet is so beyond fucking retarded it defies description.
there should be a coalition of at least 4-6 parties, and replace 'president' with 'coalition head' or something.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh, please, please, please split!
yes, and then the Dems should also split.

and then those splits should probably split.

having 2 parties run one of the geographically largest (and biodiverse) countries on the planet is so beyond fucking retarded it defies description.
there should be a coalition of at least 4-6 parties, and replace 'president' with 'coalition head' or something.

THAT can't happen in a first past the post system. It is a system that will naturally always generate two parties, and splitting is spoiling.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,904
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Oh, please, please, please split!
yes, and then the Dems should also split.

and then those splits should probably split.

having 2 parties run one of the geographically largest (and biodiverse) countries on the planet is so beyond fucking retarded it defies description.
there should be a coalition of at least 4-6 parties, and replace 'president' with 'coalition head' or something.

THAT can't happen in a first past the post system. It is a system that will naturally always generate two parties, and splitting is spoiling.

Possible, but difficult. 3rd parties can exist in a first past the post if they start local, get name recognition then expand. And we're talking at least a decade of work without any measurable progress. Which I don't have a problem with if one's motive when creating a third party is to provide a legitimate alternative on election day. That type of shit shouldn't really happen overnight.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,732
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
THAT can't happen in a first past the post system. It is a system that will naturally always generate two parties, and splitting is spoiling.

Possible, but difficult. 3rd parties can exist in a first past the post if they start local, get name recognition then expand. And we're talking at least a decade of work without any measurable progress. Which I don't have a problem with if one's motive when creating a third party is to provide a legitimate alternative on election day. That type of shit shouldn't really happen overnight.

Well, it can and should happen overnight(ish), assuming the political will is to enact proportional representation, ranked choice voting, approval voting, or any other kind of schema that doesn't suck ass like FPTP.

The republican party needs to fix their outsider problem NOW, because they only stand to lose more of their grip as the barn door is well and truly open now.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Oh, please, please, please split!
yes, and then the Dems should also split.

and then those splits should probably split.

having 2 parties run one of the geographically largest (and biodiverse) countries on the planet is so beyond fucking retarded it defies description.
there should be a coalition of at least 4-6 parties, and replace 'president' with 'coalition head' or something.

Seconded.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
To replace the President with a 'coalition head' would require a Constitutional amendment. Maybe several -- who knows how that would reconfigure the assignment of powers. If you think this country is crazy at election time, just figure how nuts it would be to find a wording that would satisfy anyone. Also, we're so partisan that a coalition executive branch (if that's what 'coalition head' implies) would be a bunch of divas pulling out handfuls of each other's hair, shrieking for mic time at press conferences, and most likely shooting each other at Prayer Breakfasts. Picture Donald Trump in a coalition anything.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
Oh, please, please, please split!
yes, and then the Dems should also split.

and then those splits should probably split.

having 2 parties run one of the geographically largest (and biodiverse) countries on the planet is so beyond fucking retarded it defies description.
there should be a coalition of at least 4-6 parties, and replace 'president' with 'coalition head' or something.

THAT can't happen in a first past the post system. It is a system that will naturally always generate two parties, and splitting is spoiling.

Yeah, and are parties are basically just coalitions anyway.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,034
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Oh, please, please, please split!
yes, and then the Dems should also split.

and then those splits should probably split.

having 2 parties run one of the geographically largest (and biodiverse) countries on the planet is so beyond fucking retarded it defies description.
there should be a coalition of at least 4-6 parties, and replace 'president' with 'coalition head' or something.

I think that we're in a very dangerous time. There are a large group of Americans, maybe around 60% of conservatives who seeked and continue to seek to overturn the election and the constitution. Anyone who thinks that this movement is over after the impeachment is naïve in my view. And any attempt to split the left in any way emboldens and empowers this movement.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
THAT can't happen in a first past the post system. It is a system that will naturally always generate two parties, and splitting is spoiling.

Possible, but difficult. 3rd parties can exist in a first past the post if they start local, get name recognition then expand. And we're talking at least a decade of work without any measurable progress. Which I don't have a problem with if one's motive when creating a third party is to provide a legitimate alternative on election day. That type of shit shouldn't really happen overnight.

A third party could win, but very quickly things will realign, new allegiances will be formed to create 2 parties. The nature of the voting system guarantees it, b/c coming in 2nd gets you nothing more than last place gets, so whoever can form the largest alliance wins.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Is there a bigger oxymoron than "new conservative"? It basically means "the new thing that is inherently opposed to change and new things".

Reminds me of exquisite "The New Originals" scene in Spinal Tap.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jblhuMxEHw[/YOUTUBE]


More seriously, the contradiction speaks to the point others have made that there really is nothing new about the Trump phenomenon. It follows directly from the inherent authoritarian nature of conservatism and what the GOP have been deliberately cultivating for over 50 years. They old guard just lost control over it and allowed a wild card to let the racist, science-denying, anti-democratic theoCAT out of the bag for everyone to see.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,402
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,905
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Of course anything that will weaken the GOP is to be applauded, but don't fall for the canard that there are good Republicans and bad Republcians. Almost every single Republican, whether dumb voter or top pol, is a hateful greed-loving immoral asshole.

We are reminded of this when a co-founder of The Lincoln Project turns out to be a serial sex offender.

Is it coincidence that Dennis Hastert, who raped little boys and rose to be Speaker of the House, was a Republican? GOPsters try to mesmerize their dupes by treating a consensual blowjob or the minor transgressions of Al Franken as equivalent to the criminal rape of little boys, but of course it isn't.

The Republican Party has become a festering pus-filled ulcer infatuated with crimes and sins of every sort, and no redeeming quality. The highest aspiration it can have now is to return to its status of 17 years ago, described by
Garrison Keillor said:
The party of Lincoln and Liberty has been transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brown-shirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong's moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers
out to diminish the rest of us, Newt's evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch President [G.W. Bush], a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk.
Until the GOP returns to the slightly less malignant form that Keillor described, all right-thinking Americans must treat the GOP as domestic terrorists and work toward their destruction.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,905
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
If you think I exaggerate in the previous post, look at this N.Y. Times article.

One anti-Trump GOP organization ("Right Side PAC") was forced to disband after its founder was arrested for corruption. Another ("Bravery Project") was founded by Joe Walsh, a virulent right-winger who did support Trump in 2016, writing on Twitter "... if Trump loses [the Nov. 2016 election], I'm grabbing my musket. You in?"
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I would think the left would like this development. Why not a "reimagining" of the conservative position(s)? Isn't this a positive?

I mean, along comes this bumbling billionaire, he is elected President, and all of a sudden the rednecks, racists, and bigots of all stripes have their time in the sun, thinking they are finally validated. Then a mob of morons storms the capitol building, making the Right look as foolish as they ever have. The doofus of a prez does nothing to stop it, and in fact has incited it, AND does not stop it when he is begged to.

So the Right is ashamed and embarrassed. It loses respect, and founders. So, some of the more centered repubs imagine a different kind of party. One more rational. More reasoned, and less entrenched in old world values.

Isn't that a good thing overall?

We do not want a one party system, do we?
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,905
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
We do not want a one party system, do we?

The Federalist Party disappeared, and the single Party that remained eventually split between Jackson and Adams factions. The Whig Party was an important worthy party, but when it wouldn't commit to an anti-slavery plank it dissolved, and the Republican Party rose in its ashes.

What I would like to see — though I'm afraid it's wishful thinking — is for the Democratic Party to become a dominant single Party, and then, inevitably, fracture into a left-wing and a right-wing.

Try this thought experiment: Suppose the two Parties today were the Democrats and the Nazis, and the Nazis made no secret of wanting to emulate Adolf Hitler. In that scenario, would you still hope that the "better" Nazis would form a New Nazi Party to compete against the Democrats? Or would you prefer that the Nazi Party just disappears and, eventually, the Party not based on hatred and racism would fracture, like the Democratic-Republican Party did so many years ago? ( I am NOT comparing the Federalists with Nazis.)

The key point is: This is NOT a hypothetical thought experiment. The only big difference between today's GOP and Hitler's Nazis is the name.
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,877
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
I would think the left would like this development. Why not a "reimagining" of the conservative position(s)? Isn't this a positive?

The "reimagining" is likely to be just distancing themselves from the crazy conspiracy nuts, and returning to being a party of voter suppression, phony 'controversies' used to smear political opponents, crony capitalisms, endless tax cuts for the rich while dismantling social safety nets, calling everyone that disagrees with them communist/socialist, support of systemic racism, pro military-industrial complex, proto-fascism, propaganda machine that they have been for decades. They abandoned any honest, respectable political stance long ago in favor of just talking points and 'culture wars'. If some of them come forward saying the party should reject just about everything they stood for from Nixon on then maybe there might be something worth listening to.

Best case scenario I see now would be republican party fading away, and democrats fracturing into two parties. The pro-corporate center-right democrats and the progressives.
 

GenesisNemesis

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,796
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
I would think the left would like this development. Why not a "reimagining" of the conservative position(s)? Isn't this a positive?

Are they going to keep promoting trickle down economics (which has been proven to not work), which has drastically increased inequality in this country, which is one of many things that led to Trump? Or are they going to ignore that?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,912
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
...returning to being a party of voter suppression, phony 'controversies' used to smear political opponents, crony capitalisms, endless tax cuts for the rich while dismantling social safety nets, calling everyone that disagrees with them communist/socialist, support of systemic racism, pro military-industrial complex, proto-fascism, propaganda machine...

Sounds like a breath of fresh air, compared to what they have become.
Maybe the Republicans are brilliant after all, and are simply playing the long game:

GQP said:
"Looky here boys, those Dems are making us look bad. Let's get a real scumbag elected, maybe let him stage a coup attempt or two...
After a few years of that, they'll welcome our traditional voter suppression, racism and treasury-looting like an old friend!"
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
We do not want a one party system, do we?

The Federalist Party disappeared, and the single Party that remained eventually split between Jackson and Adams factions. The Whig Party was an important worthy party, but when it wouldn't commit to an anti-slavery plank it dissolved, and the Republican Party rose in its ashes.

What I would like to see — though I'm afraid it's wishful thinking — is for the Democratic Party to become a dominant single Party, and then, inevitably, fracture into a left-wing and a right-wing.

Try this thought experiment: Suppose the two Parties today were the Democrats and the Nazis, and the Nazis made no secret of wanting to emulate Adolf Hitler. In that scenario, would you still hope that the "better" Nazis would form a New Nazi Party to compete against the Democrats? Or would you prefer that the Nazi Party just disappears and, eventually, the Party not based on hatred and racism would fracture, like the Democratic-Republican Party did so many years ago? ( I am NOT comparing the Federalists with Nazis.)

The key point is: This is NOT a hypothetical thought experiment. The only big difference between today's GOP and Hitler's Nazis is the name.

Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?
 

GenesisNemesis

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
3,796
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
We do not want a one party system, do we?

The Federalist Party disappeared, and the single Party that remained eventually split between Jackson and Adams factions. The Whig Party was an important worthy party, but when it wouldn't commit to an anti-slavery plank it dissolved, and the Republican Party rose in its ashes.

What I would like to see — though I'm afraid it's wishful thinking — is for the Democratic Party to become a dominant single Party, and then, inevitably, fracture into a left-wing and a right-wing.

Try this thought experiment: Suppose the two Parties today were the Democrats and the Nazis, and the Nazis made no secret of wanting to emulate Adolf Hitler. In that scenario, would you still hope that the "better" Nazis would form a New Nazi Party to compete against the Democrats? Or would you prefer that the Nazi Party just disappears and, eventually, the Party not based on hatred and racism would fracture, like the Democratic-Republican Party did so many years ago? ( I am NOT comparing the Federalists with Nazis.)

The key point is: This is NOT a hypothetical thought experiment. The only big difference between today's GOP and Hitler's Nazis is the name.

Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

If they support things like banning gay marriage, then sure, they're bigots. As far as I know most black conservatives tend to also be religious fundamentalists, which tends to make people bigots.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I would think the left would like this development. Why not a "reimagining" of the conservative position(s)? Isn't this a positive?

Are they going to keep promoting trickle down economics (which has been proven to not work), which has drastically increased inequality in this country, which is one of many things that led to Trump? Or are they going to ignore that?

How would I know? I am not a republican.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

If they support things like banning gay marriage, then sure, they're bigots. As far as I know most black conservatives tend to also be religious fundamentalists, which tends to make people bigots.

Good answer! I like you, Swammi.

I am thinking of people like Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and many others of that ilk, whom I have read into and seen interviewed. Dave Rubin, himself a gay man who is married to a man, used to have guests on his show who were controversial. Like Milo what's his name and the fiery Candace Owens. He also had Larry Elder on, and I was impressed by him.

I am also impressed by Rubin himself, who went from a leftist to a more centrist position. Many smart people have undergone such a change.

Let us be rational, and resist judging individuals as members of groups. Groups don't really exist. Individuals exist.
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,877
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
...returning to being a party of voter suppression, phony 'controversies' used to smear political opponents, crony capitalisms, endless tax cuts for the rich while dismantling social safety nets, calling everyone that disagrees with them communist/socialist, support of systemic racism, pro military-industrial complex, proto-fascism, propaganda machine...

Sounds like a breath of fresh air, compared to what they have become.
Maybe the Republicans are brilliant after all, and are simply playing the long game:
But that 'breath of fresh air' is what led to what they became. Seems they are surprised that people that are constantly lied to, fed a steady diet of racist conspiracy theories actually start to believe them, and then run for office on those lies and conspiracies.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,034
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In a third party scenario, a moderate could win. The problem on the right is that they are no run mostly by crazy religious people. But the problem on the left is that they don't understand that most people don't want to pay higher taxes. They want a strong economy. A moderate party that advocated for less taxes, better environment, better safety net, economic development, sane leadership that followed science could win big.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,905
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I've taken the liberty of painting actions to increase the deficit red, and actions to decrease it green.
In a third party scenario, a moderate could win. The problem on the right is that they are no run mostly by crazy religious people. But the problem on the left is that they don't understand that most people don't want to pay higher taxes. They want a strong economy. A moderate party that advocated for less taxes, better environment, better safety net, economic development, sane leadership that followed science could win big.

So ... You're a strong fan of "Modern Monetary Theory"?

And unless "most people" denotes "millionaires" in your dialect, I don't think the Party that wants to help most people financially is the one you seem to think it is.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,034
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I've taken the liberty of painting actions to increase the deficit red, and actions to decrease it green.
In a third party scenario, a moderate could win. The problem on the right is that they are no run mostly by crazy religious people. But the problem on the left is that they don't understand that most people don't want to pay higher taxes. They want a strong economy. A moderate party that advocated for less taxes, better environment, better safety net, economic development, sane leadership that followed science could win big.

So ... You're a strong fan of "Modern Monetary Theory"?

And unless "most people" denotes "millionaires" in your dialect, I don't think the Party that wants to help most people financially is the one you seem to think it is.

I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

Do you think "Republican" and "conservative" are synonyms?

They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,034
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

Do you think "Republican" and "conservative" are synonyms?

They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.

I agree with you. I don't think that it's helpful to call people that we disagree with NAZIs. Having said that, I think that there are many wacko republicans who are deluded by Quanon and Trump who could easily become similar to Nazis in the future. But this group does not include all republican's.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,059
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.

I agree with you. I don't think that it's helpful to call people that we disagree with NAZIs. Having said that, I think that there are many wacko republicans who are deluded by Quanon and Trump who could easily become similar to Nazis in the future. But this group does not include all republican's.

Exactly. There are MANY Trumpers who are definitely headed down the road to fascism, and plenty who are already there, in full regalia.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,905
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I've taken the liberty of painting actions to increase the deficit red, and actions to decrease it green.
In a third party scenario, a moderate could win. The problem on the right is that they are no run mostly by crazy religious people. But the problem on the left is that they don't understand that most people don't want to pay higher taxes. They want a strong economy. A moderate party that advocated for less taxes, better environment, better safety net, economic development, sane leadership that followed science could win big.

So ... You're a strong fan of "Modern Monetary Theory"?

And unless "most people" denotes "millionaires" in your dialect, I don't think the Party that wants to help most people financially is the one you seem to think it is.

I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,905
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Do you think Black conservatives are nazis, bigots, racists, etc.?

Do you think "Republican" and "conservative" are synonyms?

They have things in common, certainly. Why do you ask? It appears to me that most of the lefties here regard Republican and conservative as synonymous.

Some seem to think that Republican and Nazi are not only synonymous, but the same, and that is a problem. For rational people.

Your question ("Do you think ...") appeared to be addressed at me specifically, rather than at "most of the lefties." I most certainly do NOT consider "Republican" and "conservative" synonyms. (I have trouble getting TFT search to work, but I don't think I've ever written "conservative" at this board until just now.)

John Kasich and George Will are two top opinion makers whose credentials as "conservative" are not in doubt. Both endorsed Joe Biden for President. How many top GOP pols followed their lead?

George Will, BTW, formally left the Republican Party in 2016. By 2020 he wasn't just calling for the election of Biden — he recommended voting for Democrats across the board. Here's another question, WAB: Do you consider George Will a conservative?

It's an exaggeration to compare the modern GOP with Hitler's Nazis, but not by much. GOPsters tend to have a visceral hatred of Muslims and other "other" groups. (Today's Nazis hate Muslims more than they hate Jews; indeed Israel under Netanyahu with their persecution of Palestinians are ideological soul-mates of the modern GOP and Nazis.) GOP's coddling of their big corporate supporters, and ceding power to, and idolizing, their leaders are all marks of fascism. Inciting the January 6 attack was akin to Kristallnacht, albeit an incompetent version. They rig elections like the Nazis do, encourage their political supporters to act violently against political opponents. IIRC Hitler persecuted handicapped people; Trump ridiculed a handicapped reporter. Both Hitler and Trumpists promote a world-view that their country needs to unify against foreign enemies. Both use the word "communist" as a bugaboo.. Both the Nazi Party and modern-day GOP ask for unquestioning obedience from supporters. Et cetera

I will confess that I've started treating "Republican" and "Trump supporter" as nearly synonymous. That's because they've become synonyms. Republicans who hate Trump are generally afraid to say so publicly. The 70+ million votes cast for a sociopathic traitor demonstrates that "average" Republicans are almost all Trumpist. The ex-Republican George Will demonstrates that it is possible to be both conservative and to think rationally.

BTW, I do not consider myself a "leftie." I have written on this board to oppose the excesses of political correctness; I might write more on that topic but it would lump me with the idiots. I am very doubtful about parts of the Green New Deal. I do ally myself with the U.S. Left because the U.S. has drifted much too far to the Right: I hope the Left pushes us back toward the center. (I suppose there are European countries that are too leftist where I'd ally myself with the Right for the comparable reason.)
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,905
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
George Will and I are certainly not the only ones able to distinguish "Republican" from "conservative." Nor the only centrists or even rightists calling for the destruction of the Republican Party. For example, Jennifer Rubin wrote an opinion piece titled "Stop trying to save the GOP. It’s hopeless."

Perhaps Ms. Rubin has shed her "conservative" self-label in the wake of Trumpism, but for many years she was so described, for example:
Jewish Journal said:
Early on, Jennifer Rubin, who writes for The Washington Post, threw down against Trump as well. The vitriol she receives as a staunch conservative and as a woman makes you understand just how deep the misogyny in the Trump forces runs.

Ms. Rubin has other columns with a similar theme, e.g.
Jennifer Rubin said:
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) used to be considered a middle-of-the-road Republican — before she exonerated Trump for plainly impeachable conduct. Now, she sounds just like him. Iowa Starting Line reports that Ernst now seems to embrace "a thoroughly-discredited QAnon conspiracy theory about U.S. deaths from covid-19 being a mere fraction of what has been reported.” Without any factual support — and with massive data to the contrary — the senator insists it’s all a plot:
"They’re thinking there may be 10,000 or less deaths that were actually singularly covid-19,” Ernst said, seemingly referring to the debunked conspiracy theory that only around 6% of covid-19 deaths were due to the virus. “I’m just really curious. It would be interesting to know that.”
Going even further, however, Ernst also suggested that doctors were intentionally falsifying coronavirus cases in order to receive more money for caring for the patient.
“These health care providers and others are reimbursed at a higher rate if covid is tied to it, so what do you think they’re doing?” she questioned the crowd.​
What may have started as a debunked conspiracy theory — that doctors are conniving to over-count patients — is now seriously propounded by a U.S. senator (as FactCheck.org reported: "multiple experts told us that such theories of hospitals deliberately miscoding patients as covid-19 are not supported by any evidence”). If anything, the number of official coronavirus cases, as Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has explained, is a fraction of the actual cases.

A question for those in the thread opposing the destruction of the Republican Party: If that Party changed its name to the QAnon Party — which it logically should do at this point — would you still support its continued existence?
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,877
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

I believe the republican ‘tax cuts’ is pretty much a scam. Sure they cut taxes, like under Bush most people got back a couple hundred dollars. Millionaires got back hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile the republicans have to either massively increase the deficit, or cut funding for a bunch of programs that people need. On the state level, with the reduced federal funds coming in they can either let the programs be cut, or make up for it by increasing sales tax, property tax, licensing fees, sewage and utility costs, toll booths. Tax cuts sound nice, but we are actually paying for them one way or another.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
9,042
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

I believe the republican ‘tax cuts’ is pretty much a scam. Sure they cut taxes, like under Bush most people got back a couple hundred dollars. Millionaires got back hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile the republicans have to either massively increase the deficit, or cut funding for a bunch of programs that people need. On the state level, with the reduced federal funds coming in they can either let the programs be cut, or make up for it by increasing sales tax, property tax, licensing fees, sewage and utility costs, toll booths. Tax cuts sound nice, but we are actually paying for them one way or another.

There's no tax cut without a spending cut, and there's been no spending cut. If anything spending indicates that taxes have been raised, or maybe we should just say deferred.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,034
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't know what that means. I know that Bill Clinton lowered taxes, increased economic development, increased the safety net, increased regulations for the environment, and lowered the deficit.

Cite for the "lowered taxes"? When Clinton took office the top personal income tax rate was 31%. When he left it was 39.6%. The lowest marginal rate stayed unchanged, at about 18%, over the same interval. Payroll taxes remained unchanged over this period. There's much more to taxation, but these are the "headline numbers."

Gosh, this is pretty basic info. Just got to his Wiki page. Or google "Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996". He lowered taxes on small businesses, reduced capital gains taxes, increased tax credits, increased credits for education and retirement. Here's the issue, many on the left today claim that they want to help the poor by increasing taxes on the rich. Increasing taxes on it's own does nothing to help the poor. The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,613
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
The problem here is that by leading with tax increases rather than leading by solving the problem (barriers, flat world, technology, access, economic development, and etc) just pisses people off.
There's another aspect to this.
The Democrats have become the party of fiscal sanity. That used to be a Republican thing, but now it just isn't. Both parties spend a lot. But the Democrats are more "tax and spend", whereas Republicans are more "borrow and spend".

Tom
 
Top Bottom