Trump Watch: The Conservative Condition

[parmalee]

I'm not sure "social conservatism" has anything to do with conservatism. I'd just called it bigotry.

I agree. Nevertheless, "social conservatism" is generally regarded as a prominent aspect of conservatism, generally, and right-wing politics.

Reduced size of government means let the government grow to the point that it's needed and no more.

Who doesn't want that? Apart from wannabe tyrants, no one wants a government that does more than is necessary.

I'm less sure about free continuing education. It's not really "free". When you give free anything to people it tends to be abused. If they have to pay at least a portion then it tends to go where it should go. I'm open to more affordable education although most people who want it currently do still seem to be able to get it and many who don't really seem to care about it, still seem to get it.

...

So, many just delay getting a job and learn to fly an airplane, learn to scuba dive, anything to use up that education allowance and to get that stipend. That's taxpayer money however and it's not an efficient use. It encourages behavior that wouldn't otherwise occur if they had to pay for it. It was meant to provide a college education, after service, for those who couldn't afford it otherwise. Now it's just a "benefit" to be wasted.

There are undoubtedly some people who abuse the system, but I've never seen any evidence that suggests this is a widespread problem. It's just another variant of the "welfare queen" myth.

Also, tangentially--and this is not what you are referring to, but it's not wholly unrelated--there are those who object to public financing for study of disciplines they deem to be worthless or non-essential. Like, for instance, literature, philosophy, art history, music, etc. Just because the potential societal benefits of a discipline are not readily and immediately apparent does not make a subject "non-essential."

You may consider everything "public property" other than your toothbrush and underwear but that's usually the viewpoint only of those with little more than a toothbrush and underwear.

In my experience it's generally been the other way 'round: the most privileged, the born rich, are the ones most apt to have such a viewpoint. Of course, it seldom translates to their actual behavioral practices, but that's another matter.

When kids are in college they are sometimes much more liberal than after they get a real job, pay taxes for a while, try to raise a family and get some real world experience.

This is another myth for which I've yet to see any evidence, apart from anecdotal.

Here's the thing. Money doesn't grow on trees and the economy doesn't just magically grow. If someone does something that "grows" the economy they have more money than someone who doesn't. If everything belonged to the "public" the economy would be much smaller. How does that help anyone? It doesn't.

And why is "growth" such a wonderful thing? This "growth" seems to be largely responsible for this fuck-storm state the planet is presently in, which--spoiler!--is only going to get much, much worse. Call me an optimist, but the only real "solution" I see is global adoption of antinatalism or abandoning the planet altogether (for "the stars," I guess).

Going back a bit:

On the other hand the government doesn't need to be providing public pre-kindergarten, IMO. People can chose to have kids, they can chose to send their kids to nursery or not just like they can chose to buy a car or not.

This one has always been a bit problematic for me. I'm all for paid maternity/paternity leave and so forth, yet at the same time... "incentivizing" breeders is the last thing we should be doing. I'd rather people be "rewarded" for vasectomies and tubal sterilization.

If we want a society with pretty equal outcomes we can go back to an agrarian, subsistence society. Everyone will be poor but equal. At that point saying that everything other than your toothbrush and underwear belongs to the public has more meaning because most people would have little more than a toothbrush and their underwear.

Actually it'd be hunter-gatherers. Agrarian cultures historically have been anything but egalitarian.

If profanity makes for better reading, I can go back and spice it up I suppose...

You know what I'm talking about though. People who complain about "profanity" only ever do so because they've got their panties in a bunch and they can't address the actual matter at hand. We live in a country where you can't say "shit" or "fuck" on network television, but you can show all sorts and manners of carnage and extreme violence. That's beyond ridiculous.

 

[Seattle]

Regarding "growth" and also the anecdotal comments...

The middle class gets taxed to death and gets little in return therefore most people are less idealistic as they mature. You disagree? Fine.

I was speaking of growth in the economy and not population growth. A growing economy is just another way of saying a more productive and efficient economy. Which is another way of saying worrying about "the rich" is just scapegoating in most cases.

Whether someone else has more money or not has nothing to do with anyone else as it didn't come at their expense. I have a house, a car, and some investments. If someone else doesn't have those things, what does that have to do with me?

If I didn't have a house, car and investments, they still would be no better off. The focus should be on how to get everyone to get an education, learn to invest, do without or whatever. There is no point in worrying about how much money someone else has, what they spend it on or comparing it to how little someone else has.

There will always be people with yachts and people who have little. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. You can say, take the one and give it to the other but that doesn't fix the problem or even work for long. It just kills incentives, shrinks the economy.

If there are homeless on the streets it's because of drug addiction, mental illness, etc. It's not because someone else started a company, their stock value went up and now they are wealthy. If they had never started that company that wouldn't help anyone with drug addiction or mental illness.

They aren't related. It's like blaming the "Jews" or the "Blacks" or "the rich". It's an excuse to not address the real underlying issue which is typically more complex to solve.

There are always poor people so you can always say, why do you have a nice life while there are those who are hungry? That's just a cop-out. You can stay home from your next vacation and worry about the plight of the world but you haven't helped at all.

Would it make any sense if I said, why are you treating your dogs so well in a world where there are plenty of children that are hungry? It's stupid, right?

 

[parmalee]

The middle class gets taxed to death and gets little in return therefore most people are less idealistic as they mature. You disagree? Fine.

"Less idealistic" can be either "less liberal" or "less conservative," and "less liberal" is what we are addressing. Regardless, there is no substantive evidence that people become "less liberal" as they mature.

I was speaking of growth in the economy and not population growth.

So was I. Henry Ford pays his workers more money so that they can afford to purchase his cars--more cars--and so forth. That is "economic growth" and that is one of the primary contributers to climate change and the holocene extinction.

Whether someone else has more money or not has nothing to do with anyone else as it didn't come at their expense. I have a house, a car, and some investments. If someone else doesn't have those things, what does that have to do with me? ...

It's unclear to me how any of that relates specifically to anything that I said.

There are always poor people so you can always say, why do you have a nice life while there are those who are hungry? That's just a cop-out. You can stay home from your next vacation and worry about the plight of the world but you haven't helped at all.

Would it make any sense if I said, why are you treating your dogs so well in a world where there are plenty of children that are hungry? It's stupid, right?

Nor this, for that matter.

Address what I wrote, not some confabulation on your part.


Edit: The only part where I was addressing population was with the antinatalist stuff--and I was responding to what you had said about funding pre-kindergarten and whatnots. The relationship between economic growth and population growth is complex, obviously, but more pertinently, population growth accompanies both economic growth as well as stagnation, so... Kind of another matter altogether.

 

[Seattle]

"Less idealistic" can be either "less liberal" or "less conservative," and "less liberal" is what we are addressing. Regardless, there is no substantive evidence that people become "less liberal" as they mature.



So was I. Henry Ford pays his workers more money so that they can afford to purchase his cars--more cars--and so forth. That is "economic growth" and that is one of the primary contributers to climate change and the holocene extinction.



It's unclear to me how any of that relates specifically to anything that I said.



Nor this, for that matter.

Address what I wrote, not some confabulation on your part.


Edit: The only part where I was addressing population was with the antinatalist stuff--and I was responding to what you had said about funding pre-kindergarten and whatnots. The relationship between economic growth and population growth is complex, obviously, but more pertinently, population growth accompanies both economic growth as well as stagnation, so... Kind of another matter altogether.

G-D it, why do you spend so much money on your F-ing dogs!

 

[Tiassa]

Sense and Tweetability

Well, when you put it that way ....

the Trump/DeSantis split is very interesting, it has shades of Bernie/Warren. DeSantis is seen as the pick of media dilettantes and think tank populists, but has few to no loyalists. Trump meanwhile, has people who will suicide attack FBI field offices

(@ByYourLogic↱)​

 

[billvon]

but one can quibble over details after everyone's needs are met.

Unfortunately that's impossible.

However I am all about meeting the most critical needs for the largest number of people for the least money. (i.e. a basic level of healthcare no matter what your ability to pay.) The problem I have in discussions with staunch conservatives is not that we disagree on details on how to do that - it's that they disagree it's a good thing to begin with. And that's a hurdle that's difficult to overcome. As a pundit said recently about COVID - "if we can't agree that you should care about people there's really no way I can convince you." (paraphrased)

And what does "controlling the size of government" even mean? No EPA? No means for dealing with infrastructure? No single payer health care for all? No proper--and free--public education for anyone who wants it?

For me it's the most efficient use of the money we have. For many conservatives it's shutting down every part that they don't like, which they define as any part of the government that helps people they don't like. A conservative at a Trump rally summed this up very succinctly when she said that the biggest sin a conservative could commit was "not hurting the people he needs to be hurting."

So if your definition of success is hurting the right people, it means shutting down the NEA because fuck those idiots. It's shutting down Amtrak because only loser libs take trains. It's shutting down the IRS because I hate their fucking guts and I would celebrate those assholes losing their jobs. It's shutting down Obamacare because Obama. And in their mind once they shut down all those things (but of course leave the roads and the military and the police and justice) then their tax bill will plummet and they will be rich.

As far as post-Eisenhower Republicans go, they're all "Trumpists,"

Not all of them. The obvious example is Liz Cheney. There are a great many others.

 

[parmalee]

Unfortunately that's impossible.

However I am all about meeting the most critical needs for the largest number of people for the least money. (i.e. a basic level of healthcare no matter what your ability to pay.) The problem I have in discussions with staunch conservatives is not that we disagree on details on how to do that - it's that they disagree it's a good thing to begin with. And that's a hurdle that's difficult to overcome. As a pundit said recently about COVID - "if we can't agree that you should care about people there's really no way I can convince you." (paraphrased)

Recognizing that everyone is better off when people are generally taken care of just doesn't seem like all that difficult concept to grasp (as I recall, that's one of the things Robert Fulghum learned in kindergarten). So is it due more to a lack of understanding, selfishness, or some weird sense of "principle" (as per Protestant "weirdness," for instance: Jesus wasn't exactly lazy, but neither was he all that industrious) and Horatio Alger bs?

For me it's the most efficient use of the money we have. For many conservatives it's shutting down every part that they don't like, which they define as any part of the government that helps people they don't like. A conservative at a Trump rally summed this up very succinctly when she said that the biggest sin a conservative could commit was "not hurting the people he needs to be hurting."

So if your definition of success is hurting the right people, it means shutting down the NEA because fuck those idiots. It's shutting down Amtrak because only loser libs take trains. It's shutting down the IRS because I hate their fucking guts and I would celebrate those assholes losing their jobs. It's shutting down Obamacare because Obama. And in their mind once they shut down all those things (but of course leave the roads and the military and the police and justice) then their tax bill will plummet and they will be rich.

In decent fiction, a villain is typically a complex character with at least some redeeming qualities. It's just a bit more interesting that way. In the real world, we get Ted Cruz fist bumping over fucking over sick and injured veterans. It's kind of hard to believe that people like that actually have families. And also, again, the armed forces probably function better when they're taken care of.

Not all of them. The obvious example is Liz Cheney. There are a great many others.

I respect Cheney for her work on the January 6 investigation and hearing, but in pretty much every other aspect, she's awful.

To me, it just seems that the bar keeps getting lower and lower. Now it's like "opposition to armed insurrection and overt subversion of democratic process (unless it's gerrymandering, say)" is good enough.

I've always conceded that there may well be some Republican mayor, say, in Bumblefuck, Wherever, who somehow has hasn't read a newspaper or the internet in decades, but on the national stage? I juts don't see it.

 

[Michael 345]

Jesus wasn't exactly lazy,

First doubtful he existed IF IF IF he did then he most definitely WAS lazy

Snap your fingers, cure all disease, provide for everyone's needs and not doing so= extremely lazy

 

[Tiassa]

Not all of them. The obvious example is Liz Cheney. There are a great many others.

The difference is that Cheney believes in a GOP that doesn't say certain things out loud. She needs the catastrophe to come by accident, as if she never could have known how badly things would go, because then she can blame conservative failures on liberals. The actual difference between Liz Cheney and Trumpists is that Trumpists keep saying it out loud.

American conservatives have always been vicious supremacists; the racism and sexism are part of the American tradition they seek to conserve. It's one thing if she's smart enough to know she cannot succeed on the maga path, but that doesn't mean she isn't dangerous.

 

[origin]

American conservatives have always been vicious supremacists; the racism and sexism are part of the American tradition they seek to conserve. It's one thing if she's smart enough to know she cannot succeed on the maga path, but that doesn't mean she isn't dangerous.

I have to disagree. You are painting ALL conservatives with too wide of a brush.

 

[parmalee]

G-D it, why do you spend so much money on your F-ing dogs!

Why do you spend so much time not bothering to address anything that somebody actually wrote? It's not just me you do this with--you pretty much do this with anyone and everyone you're addressing.

 

[Sarkus]

Who doesn't want that? Apart from wannabe tyrants, no one wants a government that does more than is necessary.

Yeah, they do (although maybe that comes down to what one deems necessary for a government to do). For example, I don't think it is necessary for a government to provide a universal social healthcare system, but I very much want my government to (continue to) provide such.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

planted by rogue FBI agents. [/sarcasm]

dressed as chinese club members walking around where the secret documents are kept by trump

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-china-idUSKBN2082ER
Chinese woman who intruded at Mar-a-Lago sentenced to six months

Lu Jing, 56, was the second Chinese national to be arrested for trespassing last year at the resort where Trump often visits.

"where trump visits" lol

where trump keeps his private stash of top secret nuclear weapons documents

 

[Seattle]

Why do you spend so much time not bothering to address anything that somebody actually wrote? It's not just me you do this with--you pretty much do this with anyone and everyone you're addressing.

What could I possibly not have addressed at this point?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Trumpster filo-fax (TrumpoFile)
checking his top security briefing notes

 

[Seattle]

You said that the public owns everything, in your opinion, other than your toothbrush and underwear. I disagreed and spoke of my house, car, and investments and pointed out that "the public" isn't the reason that I have those things or that those things exist.

You seem to not be in favor of a growing economy due to climatic factors. I'm not for going back to a subsistence economy just based on climatic issues.

You spoke of Henry Ford paying his workers more so that they could buy more cars. That's neither here nor there (it's not true either). The number of cars his workers bought would be statistically insignificant but it's not on point anyway.

You certainly can't be wanting to debate the difference between "less idealistic" vs "less liberal" so what is it that I'm not addressing and what is your real point or viewpoint where you feel there is disagreement?

I'm not going to defend any Republican actions so that's not relevant here so what is it? I don't think you are going to get agreement from most quarters regarding your comment that the public owns everything other than your toothbrush and underwear.

 

[parmalee]

You said that the public owns everything, in your opinion, other than your toothbrush and underwear.

Do you understand hyperbole?

I disagreed and spoke of my house, car, and investments and pointed out that "the public" isn't the reason that I have those things or that those things exist.

And? Where exactly did I suggest that "the public" is the reason you have a car? And how is it that "the public" is not the reason that a car "exists"? Are you saying that you created your car all on your own?

You seem to not be in favor of a growing economy due to climatic factors.

Rather, I suggested that "economic growth," from the Industrial Revolution onwards, is one of the primary contributors to climate change. If you don't know how to paraphrase, you really need to directly quote people. I think you've been given this advice before from other posters.

Also, until you understand what I actually said, try not to make any presumptions about what I do or do not "favor", please.

I'm not for going back to a subsistence economy just based on climatic issues.

OK. Not sure how exactly you (specifically, I guess--I mean, that is what you said) would go about doing that anyways, but whatever.

You spoke of Henry Ford paying his workers more so that they could buy more cars.

That's not what I said. Again, if you don't know how to paraphrase, stick with direct quotes.

That's neither here nor there (it's not true either). The number of cars his workers bought would be statistically insignificant but it's not on point anyway.

"On point" ??? And who said anything about the "number of cars his workers bought"?

You certainly can't be wanting to debate the difference between "less idealistic" vs "less liberal" so what is it that I'm not addressing and what is your real point or viewpoint where you feel there is disagreement?

Well, which did you mean? Are you saying that people become "less liberal" or "less idealistic" as they mature? Do you have any evidence to support either claim, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

I'm not going to defend any Republican actions so that's not relevant here so what is it?

What is what?

I don't think you are going to get agreement from most quarters regarding your comment that the public owns everything other than your toothbrush and underwear.

Again, do you understand hyperbole?

 

[Seattle]

Do you understand hyperbole?



And? Where exactly did I suggest that "the public" is the reason you have a car? And how is it that "the public" is not the reason that a car "exists"? Are you saying that you created your car all on your own?



Rather, I suggested that "economic growth," from the Industrial Revolution onwards, is one of the primary contributors to climate change. If you don't know how to paraphrase, you really need to directly quote people. I think you've been given this advice before from other posters.

Also, until you understand what I actually said, try not to make any presumptions about what I do or do not "favor", please.



OK. Not sure how exactly you (specifically, I guess--I mean, that is what you said) would go about doing that anyways, but whatever.



That's not what I said. Again, if you don't know how to paraphrase, stick with direct quotes.



"On point" ??? And who said anything about the "number of cars his workers bought"?



Well, which did you mean? Are you saying that people become "less liberal" or "less idealistic" as they mature? Do you have any evidence to support either claim, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?



What is what?



Again, do you understand hyperbole?

I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't really seem to have a point to make. If you do have one, please make it.

For someone who finds me hard to understand without proper "quoting" you sure seem to have a hard time getting your point out.

Yes, I understand "tooth brush and underwear" isn't literal yet you need for me to quote everything before you can understand it? You don't mean tooth brush and underwear, you mean ...what? The government should own most of production? All of production? Why be so cryptic?

 

[Neddy Bate]

People like to argue.

 

[parmalee]

(Re: "Trumpists.") Not all of them. The obvious example is Liz Cheney. There are a great many others.

I was pretty psyched about Cheney's potential presidential run, until I learned that Ed Gein's corpse is also contemplating a presidential run. He's also opposed to armed insurrection--so, good enough, I guess?

Ed Gein's Corpse 2024: "I will make you a lamp shade!"

Alright, I'll stop now.