Why have conservatives lost hope in the future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Agema:
I can barely imagine anyone thinking Obama is the best president ever, outside the realm of minority ethnic achievement.

Out of interest, do you have a list of best presidents? I'm a bit vague on US presidential history myself, but I'd put him in the "not bad" category, which gives him a shot at first.

Agema:

The funny thing is, the Remainers aren't overseeing Brexit. It's an ongoing clusterfuck, and if the Remainers aren't carrying it out, who else do you think is?

The abysmal failure that is May, who's only in power because her opponent was Corbyn, the only mad alive who could lose an election to her.

found they don't have the negotiating power against the EU they thought they did

That's an odd way to frame the refusal of May to use the leverage the UK has in this, given the one sided nature of the balance of power in the negotiations. Hopefully the clusterfuck in Italy won't be squandered given that's even more ammunition for the UK. Not that she was bringing everything to the table to begin with though.

Smithnikov:

erttheking:

And you're accusing the left of being stuck in the past when Trump ran on the slogan of "making America great AGAIN."

A movement that wants a return to whites only lunch counters and revocation of marital rape laws has no business telling anyone how stuck in the past they are.

So the Democrats need to shut up about how in the past the Republicans are? Because there's only one side that's calling for segregation to be brought back outside of the fringes, and it's not coming from the right. Progressives use different reasoning, but they want Jim Crow back.

Thaluikhain:

Agema:
I can barely imagine anyone thinking Obama is the best president ever, outside the realm of minority ethnic achievement.

Out of interest, do you have a list of best presidents? I'm a bit vague on US presidential history myself, but I'd put him in the "not bad" category, which gives him a shot at first.

The title of best really depends on which achievements you think where most worthy of praise. I go for Eisenhower personally.

Here is the link to the 2017 results from CSPAN's Survey of historians.

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall

Obama ranks 12th in his inaugural time in the rankings.

Zontar:

Agema:

The funny thing is, the Remainers aren't overseeing Brexit. It's an ongoing clusterfuck, and if the Remainers aren't carrying it out, who else do you think is?

The abysmal failure that is May, who's only in power because her opponent was Corbyn, the only mad alive who could lose an election to her.

found they don't have the negotiating power against the EU they thought they did

That's an odd way to frame the refusal of May to use the leverage the UK has in this, given the one sided nature of the balance of power in the negotiations. Hopefully the clusterfuck in Italy won't be squandered given that's even more ammunition for the UK. Not that she was bringing everything to the table to begin with though.

Smithnikov:

erttheking:

And you're accusing the left of being stuck in the past when Trump ran on the slogan of "making America great AGAIN."

A movement that wants a return to whites only lunch counters and revocation of marital rape laws has no business telling anyone how stuck in the past they are.

So the Democrats need to shut up about how in the past the Republicans are? Because there's only one side that's calling for segregation to be brought back outside of the fringes, and it's not coming from the right. Progressives use different reasoning, but they want Jim Crow back.

Ok. Stop. Proof on that segregation conspiracy theory you love to bring up but never back up. Because we all know it's a load of shit

erttheking:

Ok. Stop. Proof on that segregation conspiracy theory you love to bring up but never back up. Because we all know it?s a load of shit

Assuming you've ever done so, when was the last time you went to an institution of post secondary education? The language is flowery, and the groups for who it's the protection of have changed, but the calls for racial segregation from the anti-liberal elements of the left have been going on for years now. "Safe spaces" is usually the go to term, though ever since normies started calling it out en mass about two years ago I've seen a lot less of it. Either way, pretending it isn't the case is just that. Motivation doesn't matter, segregation is segregation.

Zontar:

erttheking:

Ok. Stop. Proof on that segregation conspiracy theory you love to bring up but never back up. Because we all know it?s a load of shit

Assuming you've ever done so, when was the last time you went to an institution of post secondary education? The language is flowery, and the groups for who it's the protection of have changed, but the calls for racial segregation from the anti-liberal elements of the left have been going on for years now. "Safe spaces" is usually the go to term, though ever since normies started calling it out en mass about two years ago I've seen a lot less of it. Either way, pretending it isn't the case is just that. Motivation doesn't matter, segregation is segregation.

Three fucking weeks ago attending my last classes of the semester. There are no non white or white only places. The only safe place I could find was a LGBT zone. And they let my cis het ass in without complaint.

So when was the last time YOU were on campus? Because as it stands this is just knee jerk college bashing. And you spreading misinformation. Again

erttheking:
And you spreading misinformation. Again

You do realize most people here remember BLM's activities on campus', right?

Zontar:

erttheking:
And you spreading misinformation. Again

You do realize most people here remember BLM's activities on campus', right?

And just like that you shift gears to a totally different subject matter that has nothing to do with the safe spaces you know nothing about, or a desire to bring back racial segregation. Because BLM isn't pro segregation. That's something even their harshest critics realize.

So yup. A bunch of baseless claims with nothing backing them up. As per fucking usual. You?re so predictable with your alternate facts.

erttheking:

And just like that you shift gears to a totally different subject matter that has nothing to do with the safe spaces you know nothing about, or a desire to bring back racial segregation. Because BLM isn?t pro segregation. That?s something even their harshest critics realize.

You didn't see the demands those in Toronto where making. Not that BLM had any reason to be in Canada to begin with given we're UK level of "no reason to exist here".

Zontar:

erttheking:

And just like that you shift gears to a totally different subject matter that has nothing to do with the safe spaces you know nothing about, or a desire to bring back racial segregation. Because BLM isn?t pro segregation. That?s something even their harshest critics realize.

You didn't see the demands those in Toronto where making. Not that BLM had any reason to be in Canada to begin with given we're UK level of "no reason to exist here".

So because of the Toronto BLM wanting to be segregated (citation needed) all liberals want segregation because of safe spaces. Top tier logic /s. Hey, annoying preachers keep coming to my school, dies that mean all right winger that practice religion are nuts by your standards?

erttheking:

Zontar:

erttheking:

And just like that you shift gears to a totally different subject matter that has nothing to do with the safe spaces you know nothing about, or a desire to bring back racial segregation. Because BLM isn?t pro segregation. That?s something even their harshest critics realize.

You didn't see the demands those in Toronto where making. Not that BLM had any reason to be in Canada to begin with given we're UK level of "no reason to exist here".

So because of the Toronto BLM wanting to be segregated (citation needed) all liberals want segregation because of safe spaces. Top tier logic /s. Hey, annoying preachers keep coming to my school, dies that mean all right winger that practice religion are nuts by your standards?

I've gone out of my way to point out that progressives are not liberals and are opposed to liberalism, Jesus Christ I couldn't go harder on that without pretending that liberals are right wing (which is a thing some people here believe for reasons that are beyond me).

At this point I'm wondering how much closer to liberalism a conservative like me is when compared to progressives.

Zontar:

erttheking:

Zontar:

You didn't see the demands those in Toronto where making. Not that BLM had any reason to be in Canada to begin with given we're UK level of "no reason to exist here".

So because of the Toronto BLM wanting to be segregated (citation needed) all liberals want segregation because of safe spaces. Top tier logic /s. Hey, annoying preachers keep coming to my school, dies that mean all right winger that practice religion are nuts by your standards?

I've gone out of my way to point out that progressives are not liberals and are opposed to liberalism, Jesus Christ I couldn't go harder on that without pretending that liberals are right wing (which is a thing some people here believe for reasons that are beyond me).

At this point I'm wondering how much closer to liberalism a conservative like me is when compared to progressives.

Oh I saw that. I just think it?s a load. Mainly because you mix your messages when progressives can?t do anything about Trump. Like they?re the only ones opposing him. Also nearly all progressives identify as liberals. What you think doesn't matter there.

Also still waiting on that citation and for you to stopping changing the subject when I've made a point.

erttheking:

Oh I saw that. I just think it?s a load. Mainly because you mix your messages when progressives can?t do anything about Trump. Like they?re the only ones opposing him. Also nearly all progressives identify as liberals. What you think doesn?t matter there.

Since when have I pretended that progressives are the only ones opposing Trump? And I don't know about where you live, but in Eastern Canada and the Rustbelt, progressives very openly disassociate themselves from liberals, and liberals do the same.

case in point:

Given the fact that liberalism and progressivism are fundamentally incompatible to the point I'm pretty sure conservatives have more ideological overlap with liberals.

Yeah no more distractions. Citation now please, then we go forward.

Zontar:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3710701/White-people-march-Black-Lives-Matter-protest-leader-calls-racial-segregation-demonstration-outside-DNC-Philadelphia.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/16976/segregation-all-rage-black-lives-matter-groups-amanda-prestigiacomo

There, happy?

(inb4 "that's fake news" from people who read The Guardian)

So, because they host black events, and have black people walk first in Black Lives Matter events, they want segregation of the races across all of society?

Do rich people hosting rich people only events want segregation of classes?

Would Jews hosting a jewish event want segregation of all religions?

undeadsuitor:

So, because they host black events, and have black people walk first in Black Lives Matter events, they want segregation of the races across all of society?

They certainly where calling for university spaces to be segregated based on race not 3 years ago for "the book of minorities". Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Do rich people hosting rich people only events want segregation of classes?

Would Jews hosting a jewish event want segregation of all religions?

Yes actually, though in the latter case you can make the choice to qualify for entry, while the former, well that's less flexible. Not that I'd want to stick into a group that's either entirely stereotypical corpratists or progressives to begin with.

Zontar:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3710701/White-people-march-Black-Lives-Matter-protest-leader-calls-racial-segregation-demonstration-outside-DNC-Philadelphia.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/16976/segregation-all-rage-black-lives-matter-groups-amanda-prestigiacomo

There, happy?

(inb4 "that's fake news" from people who read The Guardian)

No, because getting you to follow basic debating etiquette is like pulling teeth.

Also when you said demands I thought you meant a segregated society, so the first source is some weak sauce and you making a mountain out of a molehill . The second is a ranting blogger. I asked for sources. News sites.

And what does this have to do with safe spaces?

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:

So, because they host black events, and have black people walk first in Black Lives Matter events, they want segregation of the races across all of society?

They certainly where calling for university spaces to be segregated based on race not 3 years ago for "the book of minorities". Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Do rich people hosting rich people only events want segregation of classes?

Would Jews hosting a jewish event want segregation of all religions?

Yes actually, though in the latter case you can make the choice to qualify for entry, while the former, well that's less flexible. Not that I'd want to stick into a group that's either entirely stereotypical corpratists or progressives to begin with.

Doesn't really sound familiar, I don't keep up with every unsourced claim you make to throw people off your posts.

I mean, in your opinion the mere existence of activity clubs is Segregation with a capital S. Gotta wonder though why you care so much about BLM making black only spaces, but even though you claim that the two groups I mentioned are equally awful, you don't seem to care about them at all?

undeadsuitor:

I mean, in your opinion the mere existence of activity clubs is Segregation with a capital S. Gotta wonder though why you care so much about BLM making black only spaces, but even though you claim that the two groups I mentioned are equally awful, you don't seem to care about them at all?

Well people certainly act as though activity clubs that don't specifically cater to social justice minority interests are segregation. Perfect examples are how progressives treated the Boy Scouts, Warhammer fandom, gaming community, anime community, and really any niche that wasn't focused on their issues by nature.

As for the other groups, everyone hates the rich already. Even the rich hate the rich (it's why progressivism even exists). And for religious activity clubs, well with the exception of small sects that only exist in the middle east you can always join them via conversion.

Zontar:

So the Democrats need to shut up about how in the past the Republicans are? Because there's only one side that's calling for segregation to be brought back outside of the fringes, and it's not coming from the right.

I didn't know Vox Day was a left winger all of a sudden.

Progressives use different reasoning, but they want Jim Crow back.

Yet which spectrum is the one calling for the revocation of the Civil Rights act?

Smithnikov:
Yet which spectrum is the one calling for the revocation of the Civil Rights act?

?ber-libertarians who view every government action since 1933 as unconstitutional and illegal? And continue to argue using legal reasoning that SCOTUS has rejected since the 1940s?

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:

I mean, in your opinion the mere existence of activity clubs is Segregation with a capital S. Gotta wonder though why you care so much about BLM making black only spaces, but even though you claim that the two groups I mentioned are equally awful, you don't seem to care about them at all?

Well people certainly act as though activity clubs that don't specifically cater to social justice minority interests are segregation. Perfect examples are how progressives treated the Boy Scouts, Warhammer fandom, gaming community, anime community, and really any niche that wasn't focused on their issues by nature.

So, you agree with those regressives that these BLM niche situations that don't focus on your issues are segregation.

I guess conservatives are liberals now

CM156:

Smithnikov:
Yet which spectrum is the one calling for the revocation of the Civil Rights act?

?ber-libertarians who view every government action since 1933 as unconstitutional and illegal? And continue to argue using legal reasoning that SCOTUS has rejected since the 1940s?

You got the scent, hound dog...

Zontar:
That's an odd way to frame the refusal of May to use the leverage the UK has in this, given the one sided nature of the balance of power in the negotiations. Hopefully the clusterfuck in Italy won't be squandered given that's even more ammunition for the UK. Not that she was bringing everything to the table to begin with though.

So Brexit is turning out terribly, but you blame this on the person overseeing the exit, and not on the decision to exit itself? Based on leverage that you believe the UK possesses but which May is not using?

Can I ask a question? Why would Theresa May not use this leverage you say she possesses? Her political fortunes at this point are irrevocably tied to the outcome of Brexit. It makes no sense whatsoever for her to have the leverage necessary to extract a better deal and then not use it, because she is simply sabotaging her own administration.

bastardofmelbourne:

Zontar:
That's an odd way to frame the refusal of May to use the leverage the UK has in this, given the one sided nature of the balance of power in the negotiations. Hopefully the clusterfuck in Italy won't be squandered given that's even more ammunition for the UK. Not that she was bringing everything to the table to begin with though.

So Brexit is turning out terribly, but you blame this on the person overseeing the exit, and not on the decision to exit itself? Based on leverage that you believe the UK possesses but which May is not using?

Can I ask a question? Why would Theresa May not use this leverage you say she possesses? Her political fortunes at this point are irrevocably tied to the outcome of Brexit. It makes no sense whatsoever for her to have the leverage necessary to extract a better deal and then not use it, because she is simply sabotaging her own administration.

because she is a stupid filthy neo marxist leftist ofc.
she isn't using her obviously superior position because she wants the UK to suffer for when they rightfully broke themselves free from the truly horrible and evil fascist organisation known as the EU. also she is secretly a Islamist that goes to bed fantasizing about the prophet Muhammed while wearing a bhurka and secretly plots to replace all the pure noble white people with rapist muslims.
also she is a lizard person either from space or the hollow earth possible both.

bastardofmelbourne:

Can I ask a question? Why would Theresa May not use this leverage you say she possesses? Her political fortunes at this point are irrevocably tied to the outcome of Brexit. It makes no sense whatsoever for her to have the leverage necessary to extract a better deal and then not use it, because she is simply sabotaging her own administration.

Two reasons I can think of, first is that using every card the UK has will lead to short term pains that are larger then if the UK rolled over, and she could be reluctant to do that, especially given the fact that it could be seen as remainers as an excuse to pretend they where, in fact, right about the economic impact, given they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

Another possibility is that she's not as competent as we've been led to believe. She had an opportunity to not only sweep the election, but above 50% popular vote was a realistic outcome when it began, and what did we get? The worst Tory campaign since the 70s, so bad Corbyn is the only man in the UK who could have lost.

Whatever the issue is, what she's doing and what she could be doing are two very different thing.

Zontar:
That's an odd way to frame the refusal of May to use the leverage the UK has in this, given the one sided nature of the balance of power in the negotiations. Hopefully the clusterfuck in Italy won't be squandered given that's even more ammunition for the UK. Not that she was bringing everything to the table to begin with though.

You know, the really funny thing about this is that 14 consecutive YouGov pols have indicated that the majority of UK people now believe the UK was "wrong" to vote to leave the EU, and at the same time Theresa May's personal opinion polls have risen by 20 points as she's moved away from hard Brexit (in fact, she's now polling higher than Jeremy Corbyn, imagine that!)

I don't think Stalingrad is going as well as you'd hoped, Zontar. But then, maybe that wasn't a very wise military comparison, under the circumstances..

Zontar:

Two reasons I can think of, first is that using every card the UK has will lead to short term pains that are larger then if the UK rolled over, and she could be reluctant to do that, especially given the fact that it could be seen as remainers as an excuse to pretend they where, in fact, right about the economic impact, given they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

"Shown to be wrong" before we've even left is quite an optimistic statement (particularly considering the value of the pound, the rate of recovery, and inflation have all been worse than expected since the referendum).

Keep in mind also that it's not just the remainers that have given a poor forecast; the government's own impact analysis gave a pretty shoddy image of our future prospects, as well.

This is the impact analysis that David Davies originally said had already been carried out (before Oct '17), then claimed it hadn't been carried out (Dec 17/ Jan 18?), then (when it turned out it had indeed been carried out, though not to the extent he had originally claimed, and that the projection was very poor) claimed that the analysis was worthless anyway... and then finally, he admitted he hadn't read it. Gentlemen, our chief negotiator.

Thaluikhain:

Out of interest, do you have a list of best presidents? I'm a bit vague on US presidential history myself, but I'd put him in the "not bad" category, which gives him a shot at first.

Wikipedia has a page that lists a load of polls as I recall.

Generally, the top three are likely to be Washington, Lincoln and FD Roosevelt. Washington and Lincoln are no-brainers. FDR can be a little more tricky as elements of the US right tend to hate him. Most of the rest of the top tend to be the early, founding father type ones (e.g. Jefferson.) After that, Eisenhower and Truman usually come out well.

Realistically, I think it would be extremely hard to assess anyone post-1980, particularly with popular polls, as emotions tend to run a bit high.

Zontar:
The abysmal failure that is May, who's only in power because her opponent was Corbyn, the only mad alive who could lose an election to her.

May is certainly a failure. But she's pursuing - or at least has tried to pursue, a Brexiter Brexit. All the main cabinet positions dealing with Brexit-related issues, including the department specifically set up to oversee it, are run by Brexiters.

That's an odd way to frame the refusal of May to use the leverage the UK has in this, given the one sided nature of the balance of power in the negotiations. Hopefully the clusterfuck in Italy won't be squandered given that's even more ammunition for the UK. Not that she was bringing everything to the table to begin with though.

What leverage?

This is a lot of the problem. Brexiters thought the UK had the leverage... and it doesn't - that's the only reason the UK isn't using it. Brexiters need to wake up and realise the leverage never existed, not make up conspiracy theories about sabotage. It really is awfully simple: UK economy ~US$3 trillion dollars, EU economy about US$15 trillion. The EU runs all manner of systems and programs (science, agriculture, trade, etc.) that the UK uses and benefits from, all of which it can run perfectly well without the UK. The UK, however, does not have them on its own.

I appreciate Brexit doesn't really matter to you - it's just an abstract idea to hang your various ideological fantasies on. Unfortunately we British actually have to deal with it and live with the consequences. The reality, as millions of Britons are already experienced including the working classes you want to champion, is that they are getting poorer. There are policies that are suggested to counteract this for long-term growth... it's just that they fundamentally oppose what so many Brexiters actually wanted.

You just don't seem to realise that the political classes - the elites - will fuck off to Europe or the USA as it suits them because they are rich, highly skilled and mobile. As was in the news recently, Brexiter and one-time chancellor Nigel Lawson has applied for French residency. It's oh-so-easy for him and the people like him - Brexit barely touches them. The people stuck are the people who are poorer and less skilled - we're the ones who now have all sorts of added barriers.

The super-successful economic Brexit model is a massively globalised UK. It is an ultra-neoliberal, laissez-faire, free trade Brexit where we effectively try to replicate the EU: except with China, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Unfortunately for Brexiters, that also means high immigration, especially from parts of the world with skin colours and cultures your sort of nationalist particularly don't like.

And that's Brexit in a nutshell. Multiple competing ideas - dreams - of a future Britain: many of which were incompatible and some of which were unfortunately never possible. So in the end, most of what we get is disappointment, and millions of people angry, confused, frustrated and very likely worse off. But not you at least: you can go pleasure yourself with whatever ideological wank-fantasy you like whilst other people suck up the pain.

CaitSeith:

runic knight:
snip

It's strange how from everything you could argue against in that comparison, you decide to focus more in the naming, and less on the ideology or even the activities. After Charleston rally, it's almost fascinating how bad your argument is.

How so? Since you snipped my post, I don't know which one you refer to. Do you mean the name of conservatives in the same vein Zontar mentioned in how there is different groups now? Or do you refer to your friend calling all conservatives nazi's and my calling out that sort of dishonest, polarizing, demonization of political opponents for what it is?

Add on to that, you haven't really explained or addressed anything and just dismissively said "you are wrong", so there is little I can add other than "prove it."

Zontar:
-snip-

I had planned on talking about that difference between factions some, though it seems you covered it in a lot more depth and from a more personal perspective than I could.

I am curious though, since we are on this topic, about your view on the growth and change in conservationism from the Bill Clinton era to today. Things like putting Bob Dole as Bill's opposition, the winning of the Bush election by court decision, the response to 9/11, and the rise of the Tea-party , and how they reflected aspects worldwide or were setting trends at the time.

runic knight:

CaitSeith:

runic knight:
snip

It's strange how from everything you could argue against in that comparison, you decide to focus more in the naming, and less on the ideology or even the activities. After Charleston rally, it's almost fascinating how bad your argument is.

How so? Since you snipped my post, I don't know which one you refer to. Do you mean the name of conservatives in the same vein Zontar mentioned in how there is different groups now? Or do you refer to your friend calling all conservatives nazi's and my calling out that sort of dishonest, polarizing, demonization of political opponents for what it is?

Add on to that, you haven't really explained or addressed anything and just dismissively said "you are wrong", so there is little I can add other than "prove it."

Zontar:
-snip-

I had planned on talking about that difference between factions some, though it seems you covered it in a lot more depth and from a more personal perspective than I could.

I am curious though, since we are on this topic, about your view on the growth and change in conservationism from the Bill Clinton era to today. Things like putting Bob Dole as Bill's opposition, the winning of the Bush election by court decision, the response to 9/11, and the rise of the Tea-party , and how they reflected aspects worldwide or were setting trends at the time.

The right regularly wrongfully demonizes political opponents. Why is it ok when they do it?

The title of this topic should be "Why have liberals lost hope in the future." Because let's face it, liberalism is dead. The GOP controls all branches of government, there are more red states than blue states, and once all those red state dems are gone from the senate, the gop will have a super majority. The GOP might lose a few seats in the mid terms, but they'll keep the house and the dems won't ever win back the senate for a long time if ever.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here