Ron & Don - Who is More Impressive?

26,824 Views | 313 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by whiterock
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 12:26p, 6/8/23
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 12:27p, 6/8/23
sombear said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
So you use your own definitions.

Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 1:15p, 6/8/23
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
So you use your own definitions.

My point was not that my definition is better than anyone else's, but rather, that general conservative v. liberal polling has virtually nothing to do with establishment v. Trumpers.

For example, I submit that most establishment conservatives are more economically conservative than Trumpers. Trump was good in cutting regs but not traditionally conservative on trade, spending, allowing businesses to determine where and how to operate, or in his response to COVID.

Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 1:27p, 6/8/23
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
So you use your own definitions.

My point was not that my definition is better than anyone else's, but rather, that general conservative v. liberal polling has virtually nothing to do with establishment v. Trumpers.

For example, I submit that most establishment conservatives are more economically conservative than Trumpers. Trump was good in cutting regs but not traditionally conservative on trade, spending, allowing businesses to determine where and how to operate, or in his response to COVID.

My point is that when you wiggle about what a word means, you can make any argument you want, then pretend your opponent failed to understand what you meant.


Words like 'Conservative' are used the way we see 'Patriot' and 'Hero' used.

You end up with a useless exchange of noise, since no one has established a baseline for meaning.
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 4:07p, 6/8/23
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
So you use your own definitions.

My point was not that my definition is better than anyone else's, but rather, that general conservative v. liberal polling has virtually nothing to do with establishment v. Trumpers.

For example, I submit that most establishment conservatives are more economically conservative than Trumpers. Trump was good in cutting regs but not traditionally conservative on trade, spending, allowing businesses to determine where and how to operate, or in his response to COVID.

My point is that when you wiggle about what a word means, you can make any argument you want, then pretend your opponent failed to understand what you meant.


Words like 'Conservative' are used the way we see 'Patriot' and 'Hero' used.

You end up with a useless exchange of noise, since no one has established a baseline for meaning.
I'm not sure if you're referring back to me or not. Back to the beginning . . . Whiterock suggested that the rise in conservatism was bad for the establishment. I disagree. And its not because I consider myself establishment. Far from it. I just don't think the poll goes deep enough. That's all.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 4:28p, 6/8/23
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
So you use your own definitions.

My point was not that my definition is better than anyone else's, but rather, that general conservative v. liberal polling has virtually nothing to do with establishment v. Trumpers.

For example, I submit that most establishment conservatives are more economically conservative than Trumpers. Trump was good in cutting regs but not traditionally conservative on trade, spending, allowing businesses to determine where and how to operate, or in his response to COVID.

My point is that when you wiggle about what a word means, you can make any argument you want, then pretend your opponent failed to understand what you meant.


Words like 'Conservative' are used the way we see 'Patriot' and 'Hero' used.

You end up with a useless exchange of noise, since no one has established a baseline for meaning.
I'm not sure if you're referring back to me or not. Back to the beginning . . . Whiterock suggested that the rise in conservatism was bad for the establishment. I disagree. And its not because I consider myself establishment. Far from it. I just don't think the poll goes deep enough. That's all.
Actually, I was poking at both you and whiterock, and musing to myself in print.

I see all these arguments, and it's apparent the key words have different meanings according to who they apply to.

Trump, for example, is either the bestest POTUS we ever had, or he's a guy willing to destroy the country as long as he gets elected. No chance he could be a good President with some bad aspects and reasons for voters to be concerned.

Same for groups. Everyone in this thread wants to be seen as a 'Conservative America-loving Republican', not as some rabid partisan or worse, an hypocrite.

And we have at least another nine months of this climate before we even know who the nominee will be.

yay?

Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 6:43a, 6/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:03a, 6/9/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:45a, 6/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:22a, 6/9/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 9:17a, 6/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 11:05a, 6/9/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
The MAGA base has really shifted to a dangerous place, see Jan 6th. Hell, on this Board you hear several talking about "insurrection". That is a losing proposition and claiming them as your base is dangerous. Insurrection and/or violence is never on the table. You also seem to forget historically that the "zealot" right and left have been responsible for most of the misery, war and loss of life in the 20th Century. I don't think I can name one moderate government that caused a war in the modern era, almost every single action has come from the "far"- name your side of the political spectrum position. In my opinion, the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle where the far left and far right meet in terms of actions.

Reagan was a self-proclaimed Conservative! Goldwater is farther left than the MAGA crowd...
Reply Quote
LateSteak69
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:16a, 6/9/23
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LateSteak69 • 11:29a, 6/9/23
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
Isn't it time for your anti-delusion meds, FakeSteak? Your post suggests that to be the case.

Reply Quote
LateSteak69
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 11:37a, 6/9/23
Oldbear83 said:
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
Isn't it time for your anti-delusion meds, FakeSteak? Your post suggests that to be the case.

those are facts, oldballs. i know you can't understand that.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LateSteak69 • 11:44a, 6/9/23
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
That is the front runner for the "Party of Lincoln"? I just do not get it. He is a trainwreck and the more pissed he gets the more of a trainwreck he becomes.

I am starting to believe those defending him are really closet Biden supporters, it is all that makes sense. Trump has no track record of success, everything he touches ultimately crashes and burns...
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LateSteak69 • 12:29p, 6/9/23
LateSteak69 said:
Oldbear83 said:
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
Isn't it time for your anti-delusion meds, FakeSteak? Your post suggests that to be the case.

those are facts, oldballs. i know you can't understand that.
No, that is spewing, another incoherent rant.

Telling that you have reached a point where you can't even tell ...

Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:32p, 6/9/23
Amusing to be lectured to by someone who has not appeared in any of these forum threads until now.

You are a "Republican" in the same way Biden is "reducing the Debt".
Reply Quote
LateSteak69
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:44p, 6/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
That is the front runner for the "Party of Lincoln"? I just do not get it. He is a trainwreck and the more pissed he gets the more of a trainwreck he becomes.

I am starting to believe those defending him are really closet Biden supporters, it is all that makes sense. Trump has no track record of success, everything he touches ultimately crashes and burns...
it's truly unfathomable how he has managed to continue to con people, even after every ****ty thing he has done. He is not a republican, and has managed to at least temporarily ruin the party.

at this point, the only logical reason is that it is a cult. and by definition.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LateSteak69 • 12:47p, 6/9/23
LateSteak69 said:
FLBear5630 said:
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
That is the front runner for the "Party of Lincoln"? I just do not get it. He is a trainwreck and the more pissed he gets the more of a trainwreck he becomes.

I am starting to believe those defending him are really closet Biden supporters, it is all that makes sense. Trump has no track record of success, everything he touches ultimately crashes and burns...
it's truly unfathomable how he has managed to continue to con people, even after every ****ty thing he has done. He is not a republican, and has managed to at least temporarily ruin the party.

at this point, the only logical reason is that it is a cult. and by definition.
... says the TDS cultist.
Reply Quote
LateSteak69
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 12:48p, 6/9/23
Oldbear83 said:
LateSteak69 said:
FLBear5630 said:
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
That is the front runner for the "Party of Lincoln"? I just do not get it. He is a trainwreck and the more pissed he gets the more of a trainwreck he becomes.

I am starting to believe those defending him are really closet Biden supporters, it is all that makes sense. Trump has no track record of success, everything he touches ultimately crashes and burns...
it's truly unfathomable how he has managed to continue to con people, even after every ****ty thing he has done. He is not a republican, and has managed to at least temporarily ruin the party.

at this point, the only logical reason is that it is a cult. and by definition.
... says the TDS cultist.
sorry bud, not this guy. should i quote that cool internet meme from 2021 that you just learned?

now go have some kool aid.
Reply Quote
1 edit
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 1:10p, 6/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
The MAGA base has really shifted to a dangerous place, see Jan 6th. Hell, on this Board you hear several talking about "insurrection". That is a losing proposition and claiming them as your base is dangerous. Insurrection and/or violence is never on the table. You also seem to forget historically that the "zealot" right and left have been responsible for most of the misery, war and loss of life in the 20th Century. I don't think I can name one moderate government that caused a war in the modern era, almost every single action has come from the "far"- name your side of the political spectrum position. In my opinion, the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle where the far left and far right meet in terms of actions.

Reagan was a self-proclaimed Conservative! Goldwater is farther left than the MAGA crowd...
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 1:33p, 6/9/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
The MAGA base has really shifted to a dangerous place, see Jan 6th. Hell, on this Board you hear several talking about "insurrection". That is a losing proposition and claiming them as your base is dangerous. Insurrection and/or violence is never on the table. You also seem to forget historically that the "zealot" right and left have been responsible for most of the misery, war and loss of life in the 20th Century. I don't think I can name one moderate government that caused a war in the modern era, almost every single action has come from the "far"- name your side of the political spectrum position. In my opinion, the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle where the far left and far right meet in terms of actions.

Reagan was a self-proclaimed Conservative! Goldwater is farther left than the MAGA crowd...
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LateSteak69 • 2:13p, 6/9/23
LateSteak69 said:
Oldbear83 said:
LateSteak69 said:
FLBear5630 said:
LateSteak69 said:
actually, it's probably t**mp.

he's been impeached twice, indicted twice, lost the popular vote twice, lost 60+ court cases related to the 2020 election, has declared bankruptcy multiple times, and gets made fun of by old porn stars.

combine all that with the fact that he is a reality TV show star that duped millions of Americans.....now that's impressive!
That is the front runner for the "Party of Lincoln"? I just do not get it. He is a trainwreck and the more pissed he gets the more of a trainwreck he becomes.

I am starting to believe those defending him are really closet Biden supporters, it is all that makes sense. Trump has no track record of success, everything he touches ultimately crashes and burns...
it's truly unfathomable how he has managed to continue to con people, even after every ****ty thing he has done. He is not a republican, and has managed to at least temporarily ruin the party.

at this point, the only logical reason is that it is a cult. and by definition.
... says the TDS cultist.
sorry bud, not this guy. should i quote that cool internet meme from 2021 that you just learned?

now go have some kool aid.
You damn well are a TDSer.

And no thanks, I don't want any of your kool-aid.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 4:11p, 6/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
The MAGA base has really shifted to a dangerous place, see Jan 6th. Hell, on this Board you hear several talking about "insurrection". That is a losing proposition and claiming them as your base is dangerous. Insurrection and/or violence is never on the table. You also seem to forget historically that the "zealot" right and left have been responsible for most of the misery, war and loss of life in the 20th Century. I don't think I can name one moderate government that caused a war in the modern era, almost every single action has come from the "far"- name your side of the political spectrum position. In my opinion, the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle where the far left and far right meet in terms of actions.

Reagan was a self-proclaimed Conservative! Goldwater is farther left than the MAGA crowd...
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
I think you misunderstood my post, perhaps because you are new here and have missed my not entirely brief posting on the matter. Technically, what you are saying about who is fighting is correct, but only in a very limited and technical context. Substantively, that's not the situation at all. We are indeed in a proxy war with Russia in every meaningful sense of the term, both US and Nato. I am good with that. It is in our interest to see Russia delivered a humiliating defeat in Ukraine, ending the war remaining in not one inch of territory seized over the years.

On this war, there is one pretty obvious fact: the most conservative parts of the GOP base (which tends to be very strong Trump country) are among the most vocal opponents of US policy supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia. Not only did they not start the war, they are opposing the continuation of it! It's the more moderate part of both the GOP and Democrat parties most in support of the war. Support starts to wane if you get far enough left. So aspects of the Ukraine war exist firmly tension with your assertion.

Moderate Government is a pretty subjective term, but as an old Cold Warrior I can share one idea you wont like but is nonetheless true. In the Russian context, Putin is quite a bit more moderate than Chernenko, Andropov, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, etc..... You could even throw quite a few Czars onto that list.

Moderate governments also often end up being wholly or partially responsible for getting their countries into wars by failing to stand up to bullies in time, policies of appeasement & all that. WWII provides some lessons on that. And the only radical in the WWI panorama was that guy Princeps who shot the Archduke. Pretty much all the other governments was in the same bucket of reasonableness. It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it. Having mentioned diplomacy, it's worth noting that a line in a speech by SOS Acheson at the National Press club, of all places, caused NK to conclude we wouldn't care if they invaded South Korea, thus prompting the Korean War. China only intervened because they were concerned that we were going to extinguish the NK state by advancing all the way up to the Yalu. I think we can agree NK is a radical regime, but you can still get a pretty good debate about who was the irresponsible party with respect to the Chinese incursion.

And so on.



Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 4:16p, 6/9/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
The MAGA base has really shifted to a dangerous place, see Jan 6th. Hell, on this Board you hear several talking about "insurrection". That is a losing proposition and claiming them as your base is dangerous. Insurrection and/or violence is never on the table. You also seem to forget historically that the "zealot" right and left have been responsible for most of the misery, war and loss of life in the 20th Century. I don't think I can name one moderate government that caused a war in the modern era, almost every single action has come from the "far"- name your side of the political spectrum position. In my opinion, the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle where the far left and far right meet in terms of actions.

Reagan was a self-proclaimed Conservative! Goldwater is farther left than the MAGA crowd...
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it.
Thank goodness we'll never make that mistake again.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 4:20p, 6/9/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
The MAGA base has really shifted to a dangerous place, see Jan 6th. Hell, on this Board you hear several talking about "insurrection". That is a losing proposition and claiming them as your base is dangerous. Insurrection and/or violence is never on the table. You also seem to forget historically that the "zealot" right and left have been responsible for most of the misery, war and loss of life in the 20th Century. I don't think I can name one moderate government that caused a war in the modern era, almost every single action has come from the "far"- name your side of the political spectrum position. In my opinion, the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle where the far left and far right meet in terms of actions.

Reagan was a self-proclaimed Conservative! Goldwater is farther left than the MAGA crowd...
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it.
Thank goodness we'll never make that mistake again.
Nato has done a pretty good job of that. The coalition is big enough no one wants to test it directly, and as we have seen in this conflict, it also greatly restricts unilateral actions by member states. Were it not for Nato, the PSHR as well as Bulgaria would have moved with more, and far more quickly to support Ukraine. ETC...
Reply Quote
Whiskey Pete
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sombear • 4:29p, 6/9/23
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
So you use your own definitions.

My point was not that my definition is better than anyone else's, but rather, that general conservative v. liberal polling has virtually nothing to do with establishment v. Trumpers.

For example, I submit that most establishment conservatives are more economically conservative than Trumpers. Trump was good in cutting regs but not traditionally conservative on trade, spending, allowing businesses to determine where and how to operate, or in his response to COVID.

"Allowing" businesses to determine where and how to operate is a conservative value.

Well at least it used to be....

My definition of conservatism is less government infringing on private lives, private businesses, private hospitals, private schools, private, private, private, etc... etc... etc...

Today's republican party is not conservative and hasn't been for decades.

Democrats and Republicans (in general) are two sides of the same coin, wanting to impose their will and beliefs on the unwashed.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 4:35p, 6/9/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

What I am curious about is if the actual definitions and the corresponding policy match up to what the people think they are. Personally, I believe people are more moderate than they believe when they see what a policy actually entails.
That's certainly true in a number of ways. A common dynamic is that they either don't have a strong opinion on something because the are neither interested nor well-versed in it, in which case it's far easier to split the baby than dig-in and make hard decisions. Reinforcing that dynamic is when there are social costs (or worse) to whatever opinion is chosen. What such folks (and I would assess them to be a plurality of the public) are actually most interested in is making sure everyone else knows...."I'm not crazy." And the irony is, actually digging into details on an issue inherently requires them to move left or right, so as a general rule, they resist thinking deeply about politics for fear they will "move into the crazy."
Funny, most well adjusted, rational people have aspects of both, conservative and liberal. Personally, I liked what Eisenhower said about being fiscally conservative but wanting to help people as much as possible.

For example, you can be a fiscal conservative but believe the Public Service Loan Forgiveness is a good policy. (Not the outright forgiveness in court, but the work in Public Service. Work in Govt for 10 years, pay your loans for 10 years and the balance is forgiven. The vast majority of the forgiveness is interest, as the 10 years of payments usually takes care of the principal.)

I have no issue and even applaud making the criteria more doable. If we are going to continue to lead, we need quality people in Public Service too. Making it a drudgery, with little benefit will only attract those who don't want to work. Govt does too many important things to rely on those who can't get hired anywhere else. I understand the dichotomy and how you can believe both sides.

My issue is with the zealots on both sides that are ALL one way. That is not a tenable position.
Beware the middle ground fallacy. The truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes, one side is mostly right and the other is mostly wrong.

It's hardly uncommon for well adjusted people to find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum on the policy side. The common ground I find with my liberal friends is in the philosophical realm....importance of due process, free speech, search for common good, etc.... I appreciate they are there to test my perceptions. What have I overlooked? Occasionally, I readjust. Same for them, too. On any given issue, we might end up in completely different places, opposite ends, even though we agree on many of the key facts of the issue..... But we look for places to agree and usually find some. That is classical liberalism. Keep arguing. Keep coming back to the square, day after day. Take what you can get today. Come back tomorrow for some more. It takes work and dedication. Sadly, we are losing interest in doing that.

It's important to appreciate the value of having those competing principles on either end to frame the issue for us, to make sure all parties in social contract get a fair hearing of their concerns. Indeed, in a free society, being heard, having a chance to speak out, to make an impact (however small it might be), to engage in assembly with the like minded, etc.....those are but a few of the hallmarks of classical liberalism which diffuse tensions and bind a people together. The true danger of progressivism is that it defines anything which disagrees with it as unworthy of enfranchisement, and moves to take it out in order to build a new cultural hegemony. One could hardly find a more potent acid to the ties that bind.

We see that bad philosophy increasingly manifesting itself in politics. Rather than just go beat Trump at the ballot box, Dems seem to genuinely perceive moral imperative to usurp political power to take him out of the game. Really, really, really bad dynamic there, but then, the left has given up on classical liberalism, so what are we to expect?


I just believe we are all, even the most Alpha-Fiscal Conservative, a mix, or a zealot. There are social issues that fall under the Moderate to Progressive umbrella that we all are in favor, granted everyone has a different one. For example, "W"'s view on immigration was not in line with the hard core Right. Eisenhower's view on social programs is not hard core right. Even Reagan, here's a list:

  • Federal government expanded on his watch
  • Abortion was never seriously pursued
  • Compromised with the Soviets on arms control
  • Saved Social Security.
  • Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  • Raised taxes three times

He even Reagan recognized that some measures to achieve equity of opportunity and fairness were necessary and in the purview of the federal government.

By MAGA's standards, Reagan was no conservative. That is my point. The problem I have with MAGA and Progressive, they are the same, they are extremists. Someone can't be a conservative and be for SS or Medicare. That is rubbish. In the history of the world, zealots never end well.

beware historicist contortions.

Reagan was alleged by his adversaries and the media (but I repeat myself) to be radically conservative back in his day. As your note alludes, he really did less on a classically conservative agenda than he did on stopping a liberal agenda. In context, that was much appreciated. The pro-lifers today where the same people then. They believed the same things - that government has a duty to protect life from natural conception to natural death. And they were ALL IN for Reagan. Same for the religious conservatives. They and others wer ethe "social conservatives" that formed one of the "three legs of the stool" that was the Reagan Coalition. The real significance of Reagan was that he set in motion a movement that when on to accomplish even more over the next two decades. So it's a little misleading to point to what he did/didn't do for parameters on where the right/center/left is today. He did what he could in his time, with mostly Democrat congresses to deal with.

Where we are today is, the three legs of the traditional GOP stool each think the other two are crazy nuts, the "problem," the reason we cannot win, etc..... Reality is, the three legs of the stool still need one another. They just have to rediscover the value of the "zealots." It's the zealots that move/widen the Overton Window. It's the zealots who facilitate the Motte/Bailey strategies it takes to move agendas forward. It's the zealots who actually do all the hard work in the muddy trenches to win hearts/minds.

You cannot win without the zealots. You either build a coaltion with the zealots on your side, or you will be stuck with liberals, who will whiplash you to death triangulating between you and the progressives, with liberals in the middle pretending to be moderates. Neither construction is necessarily fun. But one is decidedly better at delivering policy wins to you. Choose wisely.

Never fight with your base. Never. Ever. If you win, you have a smaller coalition. If you lose...well, you lose.
The MAGA base has really shifted to a dangerous place, see Jan 6th. Hell, on this Board you hear several talking about "insurrection". That is a losing proposition and claiming them as your base is dangerous. Insurrection and/or violence is never on the table. You also seem to forget historically that the "zealot" right and left have been responsible for most of the misery, war and loss of life in the 20th Century. I don't think I can name one moderate government that caused a war in the modern era, almost every single action has come from the "far"- name your side of the political spectrum position. In my opinion, the political spectrum is not a line, but a circle where the far left and far right meet in terms of actions.

Reagan was a self-proclaimed Conservative! Goldwater is farther left than the MAGA crowd...
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it.
Thank goodness we'll never make that mistake again.
Nato has done a pretty good job of that. The coalition is big enough no one wants to test it directly, and as we have seen in this conflict, it also greatly restricts unilateral actions by member states. Were it not for Nato, the PSHR as well as Bulgaria would have moved with more, and far more quickly to support Ukraine. ETC...
Unfortunately, as we're seeing in this conflict, no one has to test us directly if we're determined to test them.
Reply Quote
sombear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Whiskey Pete • 4:39p, 6/9/23
Rawhide said:
sombear said:
Oldbear83 said:
sombear said:
whiterock said:
Establishment types facing some stiff winds.

Far too simplistic. May establishment types are very conservative. Many Trumpers are not. My definition of conservative is far different than many on here.
So you use your own definitions.

My point was not that my definition is better than anyone else's, but rather, that general conservative v. liberal polling has virtually nothing to do with establishment v. Trumpers.

For example, I submit that most establishment conservatives are more economically conservative than Trumpers. Trump was good in cutting regs but not traditionally conservative on trade, spending, allowing businesses to determine where and how to operate, or in his response to COVID.

"Allowing" businesses to determine where and how to operate is a conservative value.

Well at least it used to be....

My definition of conservatism is less government infringing on private lives, private businesses, private hospitals, private schools, private, private, private, etc... etc... etc...

Today's republican party is not conservative and hasn't been for decades.

Democrats and Republicans (in general) are two sides of the same coin, wanting to impose their will and beliefs on the unwashed.
Could not agree more, and Trump spent far too much time telling businesses where and how to do their business and who to trade with.

But I still vote Republican b/c it is by far the more conservative party on regulation, taxes, labor, health care, trade, 2nd Amendment, the judicial branch, and personal freedom/liberty.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 6:53a, 6/10/23
Sam Lowry said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it.
Thank goodness we'll never make that mistake again.
Nato has done a pretty good job of that. The coalition is big enough no one wants to test it directly, and as we have seen in this conflict, it also greatly restricts unilateral actions by member states. Were it not for Nato, the PSHR as well as Bulgaria would have moved with more, and far more quickly to support Ukraine. ETC...
Unfortunately, as we're seeing in this conflict, no one has to test us directly if we're determined to test them.
Exactly. When you have an opportunity to show you should not be tested, you should show that you should not be tested. It's called "deterrence."
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 3:36p, 6/10/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it.
Thank goodness we'll never make that mistake again.
Nato has done a pretty good job of that. The coalition is big enough no one wants to test it directly, and as we have seen in this conflict, it also greatly restricts unilateral actions by member states. Were it not for Nato, the PSHR as well as Bulgaria would have moved with more, and far more quickly to support Ukraine. ETC...
Unfortunately, as we're seeing in this conflict, no one has to test us directly if we're determined to test them.
Exactly. When you have an opportunity to show you should not be tested, you should show that you should not be tested. It's called "deterrence."
Yes, Ukraine is certainly a fine example of deterrence at work.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 4:26p, 6/10/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it.
Thank goodness we'll never make that mistake again.
Nato has done a pretty good job of that. The coalition is big enough no one wants to test it directly, and as we have seen in this conflict, it also greatly restricts unilateral actions by member states. Were it not for Nato, the PSHR as well as Bulgaria would have moved with more, and far more quickly to support Ukraine. ETC...
Unfortunately, as we're seeing in this conflict, no one has to test us directly if we're determined to test them.
Exactly. When you have an opportunity to show you should not be tested, you should show that you should not be tested. It's called "deterrence."
Yes, Ukraine is certainly a fine example of deterrence at work.


Actually, it is a sign of weakness at work.Putun saw our Afghanistan withdrawal and went all in. Deterrence only works if there is fear of the other side pulling the trigger.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 8:03a, 6/11/23
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Every Republican is a self-proclaimed conservative, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The GOP base is far larger and more diverse in opinion than your argument conjures. That, and your comment about the cause of wars is quite at odds with reality. It's the hard right that is hardest against our policy on the Ukraine War. I get blasted for being a Trumper solely for suggesting that he not only IS electable, but perhaps will be the most electable of all, yet I am among the firmest supporters of our policy on the Ukraine War. And you don't have to look hard to see the Trump supporters here being mostly war opponents.

I see a big tent on that issue, not a bunch of crazies.

But that's what moderates tend to do....brand pretty much everything to the right of them as crazy. Hard to think of a more self-limiting approach to politics.
I disagree with your assessment of the Ukraine War.

First, it is Putin an hard-line Facist dictator that invaded Ukraine. He, a zealot, is the cause of this war. He doesn't invade, there is no war. If you are trying to say that Putin is a moderate???? Well...

Second, the US is not fighting in the Ukraine War, we are supplying arms and intel. There is a huge difference between being a combatant and an allie.

Name me one moderate that started a war? I can name a bushel of left and right wing zealots that go violent. Name me one moderate Govt that started a war? Many have been sucked in, but those that start wars are rarely moderate.
It wasn't any extraordinary radicality of any of the regimes that greased the skids to war, but rather the existence of an array of treaty obligations which tended to crowd out diplomacy needed to stop it.
Thank goodness we'll never make that mistake again.
Nato has done a pretty good job of that. The coalition is big enough no one wants to test it directly, and as we have seen in this conflict, it also greatly restricts unilateral actions by member states. Were it not for Nato, the PSHR as well as Bulgaria would have moved with more, and far more quickly to support Ukraine. ETC...
Unfortunately, as we're seeing in this conflict, no one has to test us directly if we're determined to test them.
Exactly. When you have an opportunity to show you should not be tested, you should show that you should not be tested. It's called "deterrence."
Yes, Ukraine is certainly a fine example of deterrence at work.


Actually, it is a sign of weakness at work.Putun saw our Afghanistan withdrawal and went all in. Deterrence only works if there is fear of the other side pulling the trigger.
yes & no. perceived weakness caused Putin to mis-assess our intentions and abilities. He is now getting a very sober lesson that will make Russia (and China) pause & recalculate = deterrence restored.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.