Political Roundtable Part XIX

[gtn130]

It would be great if our resident Conservatives could comment on Kushners dealings.

I think it interesting that people feel that Trump, Kushner, et al are conservative. I don't think they are social or fiscally conservative. I think they are demagogues.

If they were socially conservative Trump wouldn't be having sex with so many prostitutes. He would be engaged with the social conservative movement - you would see him in church, etc.

If he was a fiscal conservative he wouldn't have passed such a bad tax bill. His motives would be growth so he wouldn't be locking down immigration and fYcking up trade. He would be all about investment in the country...

Instead he vilifies groups that can't vote or wouldn't vote for him.

I worry that demagogues become the new normal... vilification of the other side vs. meaningful legislation. It worked for Trump - why wouldn't it work for the next POTUS?

Yeah Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to distance themselves from Trump. You break it you buy it. They fully embraced him and his policies with little push back from the party. They continue to enable his behavior and refuse to be any kind of check against his instability. This is what happens when a party is rotten to its core and is exposed as actually having no values or morals. Trumpism is Conservatism is the Republican party. Guess what they deserve to get vilified for supporting an morally bankrupt, corrupt taint like Trump. Many people correctly predicted how bad Trump would be, often pointing out how he goes against Conservative values. If reason won't work, maybe shame can get them to remove their heads out of their asses.

As I've been saying - Trumpism is conservatism now. The CPAC speaker list was literally made up of Trump loyalists, white nationalists, Putin friends, and NRA representatives, but in dckingsland the average conservative is John Kasich or something.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

Read on Twitter

it's a shame those Hollywood elites refuse to take Glenn Beck seriously

[dckingsfan]

I think it interesting that people feel that Trump, Kushner, et al are conservative. I don't think they are social or fiscally conservative. I think they are demagogues.

If they were socially conservative Trump wouldn't be having sex with so many prostitutes. He would be engaged with the social conservative movement - you would see him in church, etc.

If he was a fiscal conservative he wouldn't have passed such a bad tax bill. His motives would be growth so he wouldn't be locking down immigration and fYcking up trade. He would be all about investment in the country...

Instead he vilifies groups that can't vote or wouldn't vote for him.

I worry that demagogues become the new normal... vilification of the other side vs. meaningful legislation. It worked for Trump - why wouldn't it work for the next POTUS?

Yeah Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to distance themselves from Trump. You break it you buy it. They fully embraced him and his policies with little push back from the party. They continue to enable his behavior and refuse to be any kind of check against his instability. This is what happens when a party is rotten to its core and is exposed as actually having no values or morals. Trumpism is Conservatism is the Republican party. Guess what they deserve to get vilified for supporting an morally bankrupt, corrupt taint like Trump. Many people correctly predicted how bad Trump would be, often pointing out how he goes against Conservative values. If reason won't work, maybe shame can get them to remove their heads out of their asses.

As I've been saying - Trumpism is conservatism now. The CPAC speaker list was literally made up of Trump loyalists, white nationalists, Putin friends, and NRA representatives, but in dckingsland the average conservative is John Kasich or something.

hehehe - I like how you try to put me in that little corner

But I am not a social conservative in any way shape or form.

I have an opinion - I don't think you can define Trump as a Conservative. And redefining what something was by a demagogue that stances change with the wind... well, I don't see how you do that either.

As for being a fiscal conservative - there aren't any of those left in either party. Would you say Trumpism is fiscal conservatism as well? See, the argument doesn't hold.

[gtn130]

Yeah Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to distance themselves from Trump. You break it you buy it. They fully embraced him and his policies with little push back from the party. They continue to enable his behavior and refuse to be any kind of check against his instability. This is what happens when a party is rotten to its core and is exposed as actually having no values or morals. Trumpism is Conservatism is the Republican party. Guess what they deserve to get vilified for supporting an morally bankrupt, corrupt taint like Trump. Many people correctly predicted how bad Trump would be, often pointing out how he goes against Conservative values. If reason won't work, maybe shame can get them to remove their heads out of their asses.

As I've been saying - Trumpism is conservatism now. The CPAC speaker list was literally made up of Trump loyalists, white nationalists, Putin friends, and NRA representatives, but in dckingsland the average conservative is John Kasich or something.

hehehe - I like how you try to put me in that little corner

But I am not a social conservative in any way shape or form.

I have an opinion - I don't think you can define Trump as a Conservative. And redefining what something was by a demagogue that stances change with the wind... well, I don't see how you do that either.

As for being a fiscal conservative - there aren't any of those left in either party. Would you say Trumpism is fiscal conservatism as well? See, the argument doesn't hold.

So why are you constantly defending the GOP then, dude?

You're saying that all the people you identity with on the right have left the party, yet you're constantly going to bat for congressional GOP. Why?

[cammac]

As I've been saying - Trumpism is conservatism now. The CPAC speaker list was literally made up of Trump loyalists, white nationalists, Putin friends, and NRA representatives, but in dckingsland the average conservative is John Kasich or something.

hehehe - I like how you try to put me in that little corner

But I am not a social conservative in any way shape or form.

I have an opinion - I don't think you can define Trump as a Conservative. And redefining what something was by a demagogue that stances change with the wind... well, I don't see how you do that either.

As for being a fiscal conservative - there aren't any of those left in either party. Would you say Trumpism is fiscal conservatism as well? See, the argument doesn't hold.

So why are you constantly defending the GOP then, dude?

You're saying that all the people you identity with on the right have left the party, yet you're constantly going to bat for congressional GOP. Why?

Frankly dckingfan hasn't any party affiliation he is a independent so he doesn't need to be on any side. Both parties have flaws and big ones and part of being a independent is to expose both. He is a fiscal conservative and so am I both parties are wastrels and both parties have agendas that I don't agree with. You are trying to put people in neat little boxes and that isn't reality. Americans have a wide spectrum of views some which I don't agree with on the Democratic side. In many ways the midterms are a vote against the lesser of 2 evils which in my case would be the Democrats. I have no idea who dckingfan favors but it is his right to state his views in the coherent way he does. Sometimes I agree with him sometimes I don't that what Democracy is about.

[montestewart]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm pretty sure dck voted for Clinton. His primary "contrarian' theme relates to where the funds will come from. I don't always agree with him, and sometimes what he says is over my head, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand. It's a valid concern and his delivery seems pretty devoid of partisanship.

[stilldropin20]

As I've been saying - Trumpism is conservatism now. The CPAC speaker list was literally made up of Trump loyalists, white nationalists, Putin friends, and NRA representatives, but in dckingsland the average conservative is John Kasich or something.

hehehe - I like how you try to put me in that little corner

But I am not a social conservative in any way shape or form.

I have an opinion - I don't think you can define Trump as a Conservative. And redefining what something was by a demagogue that stances change with the wind... well, I don't see how you do that either.

As for being a fiscal conservative - there aren't any of those left in either party. Would you say Trumpism is fiscal conservatism as well? See, the argument doesn't hold.

So why are you constantly defending the GOP then, dude?

You're saying that all the people you identity with on the right have left the party, yet you're constantly going to bat for congressional GOP. Why?

this phuckin guy. jesus christ. him and point god do nothing in this thread besides attack posters.

[gtn130]

Frankly dckingfan hasn't any party affiliation he is a independent so he doesn't need to be on any side.

I know. He, like 40+% of America, identifies as independent. Independents still fall somewhere on the ideological spectrum even if they're too woke to identify a better party.

Both parties have flaws and big ones and part of being a independent is to expose both. He is a fiscal conservative and so am I both parties are wastrels and both parties have agendas that I don't agree with.

This centrist false equivalence is getting tiresome.

One party welcomes white nationalists and hate-mongering ideologues into their party while working tirelessly to help only wealthy people at the expense of everyone else.

The other party is somewhat ineffective and has imperfect policy ideas.

These are not the same thing! I think you can see why!

You are trying to put people in neat little boxes and that isn't reality.

I'm not. How am I doing that? I'm aware dckingsfan isn't an alt-right lunatic, but he is still 100% wrong about the GOP and their corruption, hypocrisy and general depravity.

Americans have a wide spectrum of views some which I don't agree with on the Democratic side.

Dude, most Americans are huge idiots. Trump is president. Having a broad range of ideas isn't a grand statement about America when head-in-the-sand independents are stroking their beards long and hard while deciding between a klansman and a democrat.

In many ways the midterms are a vote against the lesser of 2 evils which in my case would be the Democrats.

Here we go again.

I have no idea who dckingfan favors but it is his right to state his views in the coherent way he does.

Do you think I'm trying to stifle his opinions by asking him about them?

Sometimes I agree with him sometimes I don't that what Democracy is about.

Cool, but sometimes things are also provably true or false.

[gtn130]

The GOP literally endorsed a pedophile but independents are here to tell us that both parties are evil.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

interesting

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

Excerpt from a quora discussion:

Gun advocates say there is no need for gun control measures because the penalties inherent in the criminal justice system are sufficient to ensure that the costs of crimes committed with guns equals the benefits of gun ownership. This cannot be true. If it were, assuming we put the same weight on the value of life in the United States as other countries at similar income levels do, we would have about the same rate of homicide deaths as those other countries. We do not - we have the highest overall homicide rate among high income countries, due mainly to an extremely high firearm homicide rate.

The total number of guns in the United States is determined by the decisions of legal purchasers of guns. Legal purchasers of guns do not internalize the expected costs of crimes committed by their stolen guns because they are not held liable for crimes committed by guns that are stolen from them (despite the fact that a large majority of crimes committed with guns are with guns that are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained, e.g. through straw purchases). Therefore, the stock of guns owned in the United States must be higher than what would be socially optimal, and the damages inflicted on gun victims are higher than socially optimal.

My reading of the consequences of the Heller decision is that all *existing* gun control measures are permitted, but no *new* gun control measures may be considered, even ones that do a better job of matching the social costs and benefits of gun ownership than the current batch do.

That is absurd on its face.

Eliminating all gun control measures and simply imposing a tax on guns equal to the difference between the gun purchaser’s costs and total social cost would be an enormous improvement on the current patchwork regime of gun control policies. An even better (more market driven) way to force gun purchasers to internalize society’s costs is to have them be at least partially liable for the costs inflicted by them negligently allowing their gun to be stolen. This way, owners who can prove objectively that they are conscientious gun owners would pay lower premiums than, say, owners with a track record of “losing” guns. Requiring such insurance would also make straw purchases more difficult - the insurance company would probably charge relatively high premiums to a gun purchaser known to have recently abused crack, for example (crack users were cited in the article attached to the original question as likely candidates for straw purchasers). Making purchases by risky individuals relatively more costly is a cheaper way of preventing straw purchases than requiring police officers to unwind straw purchases from crimes already committed, waving our hands at the 2nd amendment issues.

You could solve the lack of liability by legislatively imposing a civil penalty when a gun is lost or stolen (say, $20k, about the same amount of liability required by automobile insurance), combined with liability for damages resulting from crimes committed with a gun that you failed to report as lost/stolen (to overcome the incentive to not report the gun as stolen). Then you require insurance be purchased to cover those two eventualities, and the insurance company estimates the expected cost to society of allowing you to purchase a gun. If you are low risk, you pay some trivial premium, probably around $20/year, at least according to the Cato Institute’s estimates. The revenues from the civil penalty go to a victim compensation fund.

If the second amendment, based on the Heller decision, prohibits this kind of common sense action, aimed specifically at ensuring that the benefits of gun ownership in society are balanced with the costs, then the 2nd amendment gives the right to own guns a higher priority than the right to live, which cannot be true - all rights end where others’ rights begin, as we were taught in high school.

[Zonkerbl]

One party welcomes white nationalists and hate-mongering ideologues into their party while working tirelessly to help only wealthy people at the expense of everyone else.

The other party is somewhat ineffective and has imperfect policy ideas.

These are not the same thing! I think you can see why!

I don't think I could put it any better than this. This is the objective truth. It's not demagoguery.

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

Further proof that this government is Putin owned.

[cammac]

Frankly dckingfan hasn't any party affiliation he is a independent so he doesn't need to be on any side.

I know. He, like 40+% of America, identifies as independent. Independents still fall somewhere on the ideological spectrum even if they're too woke to identify a better party.

Both parties have flaws and big ones and part of being a independent is to expose both. He is a fiscal conservative and so am I both parties are wastrels and both parties have agendas that I don't agree with.

This centrist false equivalence is getting tiresome.

One party welcomes white nationalists and hate-mongering ideologues into their party while working tirelessly to help only wealthy people at the expense of everyone else.

The other party is somewhat ineffective and has imperfect policy ideas.

These are not the same thing! I think you can see why!

You are trying to put people in neat little boxes and that isn't reality.

I'm not. How am I doing that? I'm aware dckingsfan isn't an alt-right lunatic, but he is still 100% wrong about the GOP and their corruption, hypocrisy and general depravity.

Americans have a wide spectrum of views some which I don't agree with on the Democratic side.

Dude, most Americans are huge idiots. Trump is president. Having a broad range of ideas isn't a grand statement about America when head-in-the-sand independents are stroking their beards long and hard while deciding between a klansman and a democrat.

In many ways the midterms are a vote against the lesser of 2 evils which in my case would be the Democrats.

Here we go again.

I have no idea who dckingfan favors but it is his right to state his views in the coherent way he does.

Do you think I'm trying to stifle his opinions by asking him about them?

Sometimes I agree with him sometimes I don't that what Democracy is about.

Cool, but sometimes things are also provably true or false.

I don't believe dckingfan has ever condoned Trump or the radical alt right!
I believe in many ways the Democratic Party hasn't articulated a coherent message to the populous. The only one that has is Bernie and while I like him as a man he is trying to turn a massive ocean liner too fast and in a fundamentally wrong way. Yes I believe the American populous was like a bag of rocks electing Donald Trump shame on you. But Hilary was a very flawed candidate with low numbers. Her campaign was poorly run plus the revelations in the last week by the FBI and Russian interference doomed her.

The Democrats have a chance to change history in the midterms and in 2020 but they will not do it by rejecting [b]centralist[/b] like dckingfan because he isn't ideologically pure in your comprehension. Independent make up the largest numbers of any group in America and I believe the vast majority are ready to vote democratic with a good number of Republican women. To radicalize the Democratic Party is a mistake because to demonizes everyone else. Do I think Trumpsters are nice people hell no SD20 and Nate are zealots have no redeeming qualities. But I also haven't heard from popper in quite a while who I think is reevaluating his stance on the administration.

[Wizardspride]

Read the entire story.

Read on Twitter

?s=20