@Philokalia said"First... MAGA is no longer fiscally conservative, so I do not think of it as cris-crossed."
First... MAGA is no longer fiscally conservative, so I do not think of it as cris-crossed.
SECOND... I suppose I should clarify that we are talking about the rhetorical consistency of normie cons. They can't help it that they are hawks who have to have a massive tax program to feed the Military Industrial Complex.
MAGA is the republican party. MAGA is the "conservatives". Whatever reagan style conservative is left is as impotent to influence maga as Bernie Sanders or AOC are to influence the democrats. Less so even
"SECOND... I suppose I should clarify that we are talking about the rhetorical consistency of normie cons. They can't help it that they are hawks who have to have a massive tax program to feed the Military Industrial Complex."
i don't know what to do with "rhetorical consistency". I don't know who you believe are normie cons. What use is there to say smaller government, smaller taxes when republicans are constantly doing larger government and tax cuts for the rich.
@Zahlanzi said(1) MAGA is a completley new brand within the GOP. They are populist conservatives that 'blew up conservatism' as Glenn Greenwald has spoken of and other intellectuals I folow.
"First... MAGA is no longer fiscally conservative, so I do not think of it as cris-crossed."
MAGA is the republican party. MAGA is the "conservatives". Whatever reagan style conservative is left is as impotent to influence maga as Bernie Sanders or AOC are to influence the democrats. Less so even
"SECOND... I suppose I should clarify that we are talking about the [i]rhet ...[text shortened]... nt, smaller taxes when republicans are constantly doing larger government and tax cuts for the rich.
Now, it is the case that the Democrat party is being blown up.
(2) Right. Normiecons are basically neoconservatives and the very normal GOP base. Evangelicals, for instance, who are not overly ideological might deivate to some degree from the normal GOP base, but I consider them to be normal constituents of normie gop which is really Bush style neoconservatism and stuff like the so-called compassionate conservatism.
By rhetorical consistency I mean that in spite of launching massive wars abroad and supporting what seems to actually be a lot of government glut, they consistently desire lower taxes and view the free market as the driver of the economy. Rhetorically, this does not change.
It's kind of like how much of the left remained rhetorically anti-war under Obama but, in practice, the Obama administration was incredibly engaged abroad.I vaguely recollect an American liberal I met even saying that this was the advantage of having Obama in office: they could actually be more effective as hawks abroad because much of the world was lulled into complicityu.
@Philokalia said"MAGA is a completley new brand within the GOP"
(1) MAGA is a completley new brand within the GOP. They are populist conservatives that 'blew up conservatism' as Glenn Greenwald has spoken of and other intellectuals I folow.
Now, it is the case that the Democrat party is being blown up.
(2) Right. Normiecons are basically neoconservatives and the very normal GOP base. Evangelicals, for instance, who are not over ...[text shortened]... ld actually be more effective as hawks abroad because much of the world was lulled into complicityu.
After more than 8 years, it is no longer new. Also, it's not within the GOP. It IS the GOP. There are no "reasonable" republicans.
"By rhetorical consistency I mean that in spite of launching massive wars abroad and supporting what seems to actually be a lot of government glut, they consistently desire lower taxes and view the free market as the driver of the economy. Rhetorically, this does not change. "
Is rhetoric useful in any way? Do i care that Lisa Murkowski is "moderate" but she votes with the trumpettes like 90% of the times. If anything, she is more unlikeable because of that.
"It's kind of like how much of the left remained rhetorically anti-war under Obama but, in practice, the Obama administration was incredibly engaged abroad.I vaguely recollect an American liberal I met even saying that this was the advantage of having Obama in office: they could actually be more effective as hawks abroad because much of the world was lulled into complicityu."
So basically you're saying both sides do the same but you only view one as "inconsistent"?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidEnuff said. All the elegance and eloquence of a fascist.
shut your mouth you hypocrite...
@Philokalia saidThe proof is in the pudding. Show me where Republicans are fiscally conservative.
What has been most interesting to me since 2016 is seeing Democrats and other moderate liberals come up with often comically criss-crossed ideas about economics.
Say what you want about the normie cons and their fiscal conservatism, but at least there is routinely a lot of consistency.
@Lundos saidOh, another 'predictor' in our midst. Trump WILL do it. I will put that in my journal.
One step at a time.
Like with the breaking down the Constitution, the rule of law, the media, the Dems, the education system, the judiciary, the law firms, the military, the opposition, the ways elections are held, etc.
He's doing it right in front of you and he doesn't even bother hiding it.
And you might (claim) not be an American but you are certainly bootlicking like the best of the morons.
Meanwhile, if you wnat to talk doom, check this out....Doom for the Dems.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/state/3780673/joe-concha-democrats-are-never-going-to-win-nationally-if-zohran-mamdani-wins/
@AverageJoe1 saidWhat you really mean is you want the democratic party to be declared illegal so there will only ever be republicans and therefore only Trump in charge of the entire US, ALL of the agencies, CIA, FBI, AG, DOJ, SCOTUS, House and Senate and no way to stop Trump from becoming a real dictator which is his most fervent wish.
Oh, another 'predictor' in our midst. Trump WILL do it. I will put that in my journal.
Meanwhile, if you wnat to talk doom, check this out....Doom for the Dems.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/state/3780673/joe-concha-democrats-are-never-going-to-win-nationally-if-zohran-mamdani-wins/
Did you notice one little bit of dictatorship in public: Firing cabinet officials but they are not really fired, about 8 of them so far fired but not gone, just assigned as ambassador to some county or other, the latest firing has the dude as the ambassador to India. A slap in the face of international diplomacy but Trump is WAY to stupid AND arrogant at the same time to understand ANY workings of diplomacy, since how he governs is through fear.
@Zahlanzi said"After more than 8 years, it is no longer new. Also, it's not within the GOP. It IS the GOP. There are no "reasonable" republicans. "
"MAGA is a completley new brand within the GOP"
After more than 8 years, it is no longer new. Also, it's not within the GOP. It IS the GOP. There are no "reasonable" republicans.
"By rhetorical consistency I mean that in spite of launching massive wars abroad and supporting what seems to actually be a lot of government glut, they consistently desire lower taxes and vi ...[text shortened]... icityu."
So basically you're saying both sides do the same but you only view one as "inconsistent"?
OK, but 8 years is quite recent to me. Still feels news, but I get your point. However, it is useful to consider it the new, variant faction in the context of the classic GOP.
IF there are no reasonable Republicans... What does that mean for democracy? Just food for thought.
"Is rhetoric useful in any way? Do i care that Lisa Murkowski is "moderate" but she votes with the trumpettes like 90% of the times. If anything, she is more unlikeable because of that."
It's very useful, I think, in understanding the state of democracy and what people want or what they are doing and such.
"So basically you're saying both sides do the same but you only view one as "inconsistent"?"
Oh no, the GOP was very inconsistent about this, yes. I would agree with such an assessment. However, it should be caveated by noting that one of the few things that they believed was a valid use of government funds was the military.
@wildgrass saidYeah, I agree. They aren't as much as they should be. Now a lot of the GOP is dropping this as a priority for themselves.
The proof is in the pudding. Show me where Republicans are fiscally conservative.
1 edit
@Zahlanzi saidThe LA deployment which was completely unnecessary cost $134 million and counting. They're now using the national guard to pick up trash in Washington DC because they're bored. The estimated per day cost is $550 per soldier to taxpayers.
"First... MAGA is no longer fiscally conservative, so I do not think of it as cris-crossed."
MAGA is the republican party. MAGA is the "conservatives". Whatever reagan style conservative is left is as impotent to influence maga as Bernie Sanders or AOC are to influence the democrats. Less so even
"SECOND... I suppose I should clarify that we are talking about the [i]rhet ...[text shortened]... nt, smaller taxes when republicans are constantly doing larger government and tax cuts for the rich.
Do the math. $80 an hour for trash collectors. Insanely wasteful spending for theatrics.
1 edit
@Philokalia said"OK, but 8 years is quite recent to me"
"After more than 8 years, it is no longer new. Also, it's not within the GOP. It IS the GOP. There are no "reasonable" republicans. "
OK, but 8 years is quite recent to me. Still feels news, but I get your point. However, it is useful to consider it the new, variant faction in the context of the classic GOP.
IF there are no reasonable Republicans... What does ...[text shortened]... ne of the few things that they believed was a valid use of government funds was the military.
it would be recent for a movie release or as an answer for "when did you plant that tree". Not for a period in which America went completely bonkers.A list of events a mile long.
"However, it is useful to consider it the new, variant faction in the context of the classic GOP."
on the countrary it's not useful, it's dangerous. It would have been called optimism in 2015 to say it's new, the majority of the GOP doesn't feel that way and they will quickly overwhelm it and make it disappear. 10 years later it is no longer new it is the entirety of the GOP that matters. it is established
"IF there are no reasonable Republicans... What does that mean for democracy?"
What democracy, the Us is a republic, as dumb republicans say all the time. They have a 6-3 supreme court that dictated the president can do whatever they want, ICE is a gestapo like police force that detains whoever they want, the president ignores court orders, and the list goes on.
All while "reasonable republicans" sit and do nothing
"However, it should be caveated by noting that one of the few things that they believed was a valid use of government funds was the military."
When you pump obscene amounts of money into the military but you have starving children in your nation the validity of funds usage is dubious to put it mildly
@Zahlanzi saidI'd just point out that there are no children starving in the US because the government denies access to food programs to them.
"OK, but 8 years is quite recent to me"
it would be recent for a movie release or as an answer for "when did you plant that tree". Not for a period in which America went completely bonkers.A list of events a mile long.
"However, it is useful to consider it the new, variant faction in the context of the classic GOP."
on the countrary it's not useful, it's dangerous. It ...[text shortened]... ut you have starving children in your nation the validity of funds usage is dubious to put it mildly
I'd also point out that there is nothing Fascist happening in the USA.
I think this is where our discussion is puttering out, sadly, because I do not think we can establish enough similar ground to carry on having meaningful tension between our statements. The statements are just too different to come into contact.
@Philokalia said"I'd just point out that there are no children starving in the US because the government denies access to food programs to them.
I'd just point out that there are no children starving in the US because the government denies access to food programs to them.
I'd also point out that there is nothing Fascist happening in the USA.
I think this is where our discussion is puttering out, sadly, because I do not think we can establish enough similar ground to carry on having meaningful tension between our statements. The statements are just too different to come into contact.
I'd also point out that there is nothing Fascist happening in the USA. "
Is this some form of sarcasm i am not getting?
"I think this is where our discussion is puttering out, sadly, because I do not think we can establish enough similar ground to carry on having meaningful tension between our statements. The statements are just too different to come into contact."
Did someone hacked your account? this poor performance is not how i remembered you
@Zahlanzi saidLOL, thank you, brother.
"I'd just point out that there are no children starving in the US because the government denies access to food programs to them.
I'd also point out that there is nothing Fascist happening in the USA. "
Is this some form of sarcasm i am not getting?
"I think this is where our discussion is puttering out, sadly, because I do not think we can establish enough similar gr ...[text shortened]... e into contact."
Did someone hacked your account? this poor performance is not how i remembered you
I am older now, and so perhaps I am not as sharp of a thinker. 😆
But no, really, I feel more refined. I am aging like wine. I have not become dumb... In fact, I think your response is out of frustration. But that's OK. We all do a little good natured ribbing when we are frustrated.