|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really?
I assume that is just part of the hypothetical, since the idea is "What can happen when Trump fails that makes conservatives/ism look as best as possible?"
|
On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash.
If we look at what Congress is doing, it is pretty clear that the failures will be conservative.
|
so is Steve King's political career over?
|
On March 13 2017 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. If we look at what Congress is doing, it is pretty clear that the failures will be conservative.
I think I was unclear. Much of the blame for failure will be on those members, but if we take healthcare for example, it's pretty clear that what they are doing isn't conservative. Nor is a 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill, blanket protectionism, etc.
On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really?
I mean from the right side of the aisle, obviously the Democrats are going to squawk at literally any bill that comes around. I think this bill has already met more resistance from conservative groups than they anticipated. Or not, given their secrecy on the roll out.
|
On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements
The debt is no big thing, we can just cut a deal.
|
On March 13 2017 04:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 04:14 zlefin wrote:there's always been crazies; how much you hear about them varies a lot over time. sometimes the media does more focus on such things so they seem more apparent and common. Crazies have always existed, sure. However they've roamed the streets since Reagan gutted mental healthcare. And since we don't take healthcare seriously at all in America let alone mental health this stuff is an actual real issue. On top of all that now you've got people feeding crazy people's bullshit ideas. Stoking the fires of their delusion and growing narratives based in mental illness.
Please educate yourself before you spout non-sense. The reason MH services are lacking is because of the Community Mental Heath Act of 1963, which pretty much emptied state MH facilities (nationalizing MH). They thought that MH services would be adequate if they tried to re-integrate the population into local communities, but the communities were not set up to handle so many. Between that and other federal mandates, they pretty much nationalized MH services. As we see it has been disastrous. As an OT I'm acutely aware of the state of MH and how it effects those with SPMI. Our state Hospital in Hawaii has only ~200 beds and almost all of them are occupied via the criminal system. I do agree with you that there isn't enough focus and money spent on MI services, but a lot of that has to do with our communities themselves. You're not really helping by talking about MI in terms of schizophrenia when MI encompasses a huge range of diagnosis' (you should read the DSM-5 sometime). My memory is a little fuzzy....wasn't it 'lefties' who cried foul when the GOP refused to restrict the rights of the MI (their 2nd amendment rights)? So, it's ok to stereotype and stigmatize over 25% of the country because it aligns with your gun-control narrative? Less than 2% of those with SPMI are violent or aggressive individuals. People who positive symptoms of schizophrenia are not a threat. They need our help, not to act like they're a danger to society. (And yes, MH issues are one of my interests)
|
On March 13 2017 08:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 04:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 13 2017 04:14 zlefin wrote:there's always been crazies; how much you hear about them varies a lot over time. sometimes the media does more focus on such things so they seem more apparent and common. Crazies have always existed, sure. However they've roamed the streets since Reagan gutted mental healthcare. And since we don't take healthcare seriously at all in America let alone mental health this stuff is an actual real issue. On top of all that now you've got people feeding crazy people's bullshit ideas. Stoking the fires of their delusion and growing narratives based in mental illness. My memory is a little fuzzy....wasn't it 'lefties' who cried foul when the GOP refused to restrict the rights of the MI (their 2nd amendment rights)? So, it's ok to stereotype and stigmatize over 25% of the country because it aligns with your gun-control narrative?
You wouldn't look so out of place complaining about that if the other side didn't go for a variation of "We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a mental health problem in this country" whenever there's a mass shooting. That's actual stigmatization, as opposed to being okay with a regulation that "required the Social Security Administration to report anyone mentally incapacitated to the extent that they require help managing their social security benefits to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)".
|
I keep reading about a bill going through congress about genetic testing at work, and if you say no you get heavily penalized. But I can't really find a credible source, any ideas?
|
On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash.
I do think the conservative-friendly options, wholly insufficient nods, were included for that blame approach by Ryan and allies. Drop in medicaid reform with an eye for modernization (reminder: Medicaid enrollees did not improve on their health outcomes compared to those not possessing health insurance according to NE Journal of Medicine). Do nothing on the bad parts of regulation (Wait for Part 2 and 3 they say ><), leave too much in federal hands, and of course a mandate-lite provision that still incentivizes people expecting high medical bills to only sign up when they actually go to the hospital. It still keeps it employer-centric and screws up tax credits. One thing you might call a "concession" to conservatives, a couple things that sound conservative in passing, and voila, you're blamed if passes and fails, you're criticized for not supporting it if it fails to pass.
My best theory right now is that Ryan expected Trump to bully enough Republican congressional representatives into support. He's criticized an establishment that deserved it, and won an election off the back of it, so why not expect further measures to work? Conservatives are supposed to play dumb and praise the thin conservative provisions while supporting, stalwarts are supposed to get individually targeted and threatened by Trump for not playing as a team, and a couple Dems are supposed to cross over because it's basically Obamacare-lite and they have tough Red-state races coming up.
Negative is they give up on every campaign promise in 2012, 2014, 2016, and show the 2015 bill sent to Obama's desk was just an empty document for posturing, not actually legislation they believed in. Paul Ryan makes overtures to conservatism and so do a lot in his leadership, but when push comes to shove, it's all political posturing and no policy prescriptions. Which is exactly why RINO faux conservatives acquired their reputation and tarnished the movement.
|
the answer is its a bit more complicated. like everything
http://www.snopes.com/genetic-testing-bill/
H.R. 1313 states that employers may provide additional insurance premium discounts to workers who take part in their companies’ voluntary wellness programs. Once enrolled, the bill says, businesses are allowed to collect “information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member” of participating employees.
The bill, which was sponsored by committee chair Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part.
A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent.
The GINA bill, which was passed in 2008, also prohibits employers from using genetic information as the basis for hiring, terminating, or promoting their employees. But both that measure and the ADA contain exceptions for wellness programs. Vendors operating the programs are often not required to follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which restricts the information doctors and hospitals can share regarding their patients.
|
On March 13 2017 08:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 04:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 13 2017 04:14 zlefin wrote:there's always been crazies; how much you hear about them varies a lot over time. sometimes the media does more focus on such things so they seem more apparent and common. Crazies have always existed, sure. However they've roamed the streets since Reagan gutted mental healthcare. And since we don't take healthcare seriously at all in America let alone mental health this stuff is an actual real issue. On top of all that now you've got people feeding crazy people's bullshit ideas. Stoking the fires of their delusion and growing narratives based in mental illness. Please educate yourself before you spout non-sense. The reason MH services are lacking is because of the Community Mental Heath Act of 1963, which pretty much emptied state MH facilities (nationalizing MH). They thought that MH services would be adequate if they tried to re-integrate the population into local communities, but the communities were not set up to handle so many. Between that and other federal mandates, they pretty much nationalized MH services. As we see it has been disastrous. As an OT I'm acutely aware of the state of MH and how it effects those with SPMI. Our state Hospital in Hawaii has only ~200 beds and almost all of them are occupied via the criminal system. I do agree with you that there isn't enough focus and money spent on MI services, but a lot of that has to do with our communities themselves. You're not really helping by talking about MI in terms of schizophrenia when MI encompasses a huge range of diagnosis' (you should read the DSM-5 sometime). My memory is a little fuzzy....wasn't it 'lefties' who cried foul when the GOP refused to restrict the rights of the MI (their 2nd amendment rights)? So, it's ok to stereotype and stigmatize over 25% of the country because it aligns with your gun-control narrative? Less than 2% of those with SPMI are violent or aggressive individuals. People who positive symptoms of schizophrenia are not a threat. They need our help, not to act like they're a danger to society. (And yes, MH issues are one of my interests)
I know that the myth of St. Reagan is strong with conservatives, but in your words "Please educate yourself before you spout non-sense".
Ronald Reagan repealed the "Mental Health Systems Act of 1980" which ended up unleashing people with serious mental illness on society. Emptying mental institutions of their patients which desperately need help makes them worse off and society at large worse off. So you end up with people going untreated doing crazy and dangerous stuff, people homeless with no way to take care of themselves, and people ending up in prison where their issues will never actually be treated properly. There's a reason that after Ronny repealed the act prison populations began to swell and we decided to treat mental problems as criminal problems. But go ahead and gloss over Reagan emptying out institutions and us never recovering since. Let us also not forget Republicare doesn't list Mental Health as an "essential health benefit" which will only make things even worse than they currently are.
Mental health issues need to be taken seriously, all health issues do. There's a solution to this problem, really only one reasonable solution and it's not Republicans that have ever pushed for it it's Bernie. People need free and effective healthcare, especially mental healthcare. Catch things early before it might ruin a life, treat problems while they're more easily manageable, educate folks, and institutionalize those that need to be institutionalized. Do not just say "tough shit", as we have for decades, till someone ends up in prison where they're never rehabilitated to begin with, let alone getting mental health treatment. Our current system is a damn joke and has been forever. You say they need our help. Ok, make it so everyone can get the help they need, straight up. Fund it, free of charge to the patient. Lets take care of the problem shall we?
|
On March 13 2017 09:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 08:25 Wegandi wrote:On March 13 2017 04:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 13 2017 04:14 zlefin wrote:there's always been crazies; how much you hear about them varies a lot over time. sometimes the media does more focus on such things so they seem more apparent and common. Crazies have always existed, sure. However they've roamed the streets since Reagan gutted mental healthcare. And since we don't take healthcare seriously at all in America let alone mental health this stuff is an actual real issue. On top of all that now you've got people feeding crazy people's bullshit ideas. Stoking the fires of their delusion and growing narratives based in mental illness. Please educate yourself before you spout non-sense. The reason MH services are lacking is because of the Community Mental Heath Act of 1963, which pretty much emptied state MH facilities (nationalizing MH). They thought that MH services would be adequate if they tried to re-integrate the population into local communities, but the communities were not set up to handle so many. Between that and other federal mandates, they pretty much nationalized MH services. As we see it has been disastrous. As an OT I'm acutely aware of the state of MH and how it effects those with SPMI. Our state Hospital in Hawaii has only ~200 beds and almost all of them are occupied via the criminal system. I do agree with you that there isn't enough focus and money spent on MI services, but a lot of that has to do with our communities themselves. You're not really helping by talking about MI in terms of schizophrenia when MI encompasses a huge range of diagnosis' (you should read the DSM-5 sometime). My memory is a little fuzzy....wasn't it 'lefties' who cried foul when the GOP refused to restrict the rights of the MI (their 2nd amendment rights)? So, it's ok to stereotype and stigmatize over 25% of the country because it aligns with your gun-control narrative? Less than 2% of those with SPMI are violent or aggressive individuals. People who positive symptoms of schizophrenia are not a threat. They need our help, not to act like they're a danger to society. (And yes, MH issues are one of my interests) I know that the myth of St. Reagan is strong with conservatives, but in your words "Please educate yourself before you spout non-sense". Ronald Reagan repealed the "Mental Health Systems Act of 1980" which ended up unleashing people with serious mental illness on society. Emptying mental institutions of their patients which desperately need help makes them worse off and society at large worse off. So you end up with people going untreated doing crazy and dangerous stuff, people homeless with no way to take care of themselves, and people ending up in prison where their issues will never actually be treated properly. There's a reason that after Ronny repealed the act prison populations began to swell and we decided to treat mental problems as criminal problems. But go ahead and gloss over Reagan emptying out institutions and us never recovering since. Let us also not forget Republicare doesn't list Mental Health as an "essential health benefit" which will only make things even worse than they currently are. Mental health issues need to be taken seriously, all health issues do. There's a solution to this problem, really only one reasonable solution and it's not Republicans that have ever pushed for it it's Bernie. People need free and effective healthcare, especially mental healthcare. Catch things early before it might ruin a life, treat problems while they're more easily manageable, educate folks, and institutionalize those that need to be institutionalized. Do not just say "tough shit", as we have for decades, till someone ends up in prison where they're never rehabilitated to begin with, let alone getting mental health treatment. Our current system is a damn joke and has been forever. You say they need our help. Ok, make it so everyone can get the help they need, straight up. Fund it, free of charge to the patient. Lets take care of the problem shall we?
I don't even like Reagan and I'm not a conservative. Educate your self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act
The problems we have in MI comes from this act, not from a 1980 grant that was repealed that didn't do a whole lot anyways.
|
On March 13 2017 09:41 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 09:29 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 13 2017 08:25 Wegandi wrote:On March 13 2017 04:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On March 13 2017 04:14 zlefin wrote:there's always been crazies; how much you hear about them varies a lot over time. sometimes the media does more focus on such things so they seem more apparent and common. Crazies have always existed, sure. However they've roamed the streets since Reagan gutted mental healthcare. And since we don't take healthcare seriously at all in America let alone mental health this stuff is an actual real issue. On top of all that now you've got people feeding crazy people's bullshit ideas. Stoking the fires of their delusion and growing narratives based in mental illness. Please educate yourself before you spout non-sense. The reason MH services are lacking is because of the Community Mental Heath Act of 1963, which pretty much emptied state MH facilities (nationalizing MH). They thought that MH services would be adequate if they tried to re-integrate the population into local communities, but the communities were not set up to handle so many. Between that and other federal mandates, they pretty much nationalized MH services. As we see it has been disastrous. As an OT I'm acutely aware of the state of MH and how it effects those with SPMI. Our state Hospital in Hawaii has only ~200 beds and almost all of them are occupied via the criminal system. I do agree with you that there isn't enough focus and money spent on MI services, but a lot of that has to do with our communities themselves. You're not really helping by talking about MI in terms of schizophrenia when MI encompasses a huge range of diagnosis' (you should read the DSM-5 sometime). My memory is a little fuzzy....wasn't it 'lefties' who cried foul when the GOP refused to restrict the rights of the MI (their 2nd amendment rights)? So, it's ok to stereotype and stigmatize over 25% of the country because it aligns with your gun-control narrative? Less than 2% of those with SPMI are violent or aggressive individuals. People who positive symptoms of schizophrenia are not a threat. They need our help, not to act like they're a danger to society. (And yes, MH issues are one of my interests) I know that the myth of St. Reagan is strong with conservatives, but in your words "Please educate yourself before you spout non-sense". Ronald Reagan repealed the "Mental Health Systems Act of 1980" which ended up unleashing people with serious mental illness on society. Emptying mental institutions of their patients which desperately need help makes them worse off and society at large worse off. So you end up with people going untreated doing crazy and dangerous stuff, people homeless with no way to take care of themselves, and people ending up in prison where their issues will never actually be treated properly. There's a reason that after Ronny repealed the act prison populations began to swell and we decided to treat mental problems as criminal problems. But go ahead and gloss over Reagan emptying out institutions and us never recovering since. Let us also not forget Republicare doesn't list Mental Health as an "essential health benefit" which will only make things even worse than they currently are. Mental health issues need to be taken seriously, all health issues do. There's a solution to this problem, really only one reasonable solution and it's not Republicans that have ever pushed for it it's Bernie. People need free and effective healthcare, especially mental healthcare. Catch things early before it might ruin a life, treat problems while they're more easily manageable, educate folks, and institutionalize those that need to be institutionalized. Do not just say "tough shit", as we have for decades, till someone ends up in prison where they're never rehabilitated to begin with, let alone getting mental health treatment. Our current system is a damn joke and has been forever. You say they need our help. Ok, make it so everyone can get the help they need, straight up. Fund it, free of charge to the patient. Lets take care of the problem shall we? I don't even like Reagan and I'm not a conservative. Educate your self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_ActThe problems we have in MI comes from this act, not from a 1980 grant that was repealed that didn't do a whole lot anyways.
I'm not saying the CMHA did any favors. The MHSA provided funding for mental health and was axed by Reagan to save a buck. It even references it in your wiki article. Reagan gutted what little was there to begin with leaving us with the pathetic system (shouldn't even sully the word system here honestly) we currently have.
|
On March 13 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really? I assume that is just part of the hypothetical, since the idea is "What can happen when Trump fails that makes conservatives/ism look as best as possible?"
The quote from Publiuc Decius Mus (whoever that is) does the exact same rebranding. It accepts the premise that "true" conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years. Apparently Bush's economic policies were liberal, although there is no comparison in America's history or the Western world to make that true.
In other words, the unpopular George Bush presidencies, whose policies and actions haven't been polished and glossed as shiny as Reagan's has, weren't "true" conservatives. And if Trump leaves office unpopular and unsuccessful (likely) it will be because he wasn't a "true" conservative, and if he'd listened to this "true" conservative over here with the Libertarian card, things would have been better.
So never-mind what happened the past 20 years and ignore the guy we just elected: next time, just vote for the true Scotsman.
Republicans have this habit of cheerlead-then-forget. How were the Bushes not true conservatives? They didn't cut taxes progressively towards the "job creators"? Or they didn't cut enough? They increased spending overall, but mostly on military -- which is exactly what happened under Reagan. These things don't really matter. They weren't popular, they're viewed as failures, ergo "true conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years!" Yeah, right.
If Reagan defines some ideal, true conservative, then the vast majority of Republicans the past 20 years, including both Bushes, are perfectly suitable conservatives. If you want ideological conservatism a Libertarian could be proud of, those policies haven't been tried in America since roads were made from dirt. Those were the days.
|
On March 13 2017 11:10 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really? I assume that is just part of the hypothetical, since the idea is "What can happen when Trump fails that makes conservatives/ism look as best as possible?" The quote from Publiuc Decius Mus (whoever that is) does the exact same thing. It accepts the premise that "true" conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years. Apparently Bush's economic policies were liberal, although there is no comparison in America's history or the Western world to make that true. In other words, the unpopular George Bush presidencies, whose policies and actions haven't been polished and glossed as shiny as Reagan's has, weren't "true" conservatives. And if Trump leaves office unpopular and unsuccessful (likely) it will be because he wasn't a "true" conservative, and if he'd listened to this "true" conservative over here playing the "Libertarian" card, things would have been better. So never-mind what happened the past 20 years and ignore the guy we just elected: next time, just vote for the true Scotsman. Republicans have this habit of cheerlead-then-forget. How were the Bushes not true conservatives? They didn't cut taxes progressively towards the "job creators"? Or they didn't cut enough? Doesn't really matter. They weren't popular, they're viewed as failures, ergo "true conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years!" Yeah, right.
Bush's were neo-conservatives, which is a bit different than say...Ted Cruz and the like. There's a reason the Tea Party sprang up after Bush, and it wasn't because he was unpopular to the general public at large so they wanted to distance themselves from him so they could win elections. That's just pure revisionist garbage. As someone who used to be in the GOP I'm sick of conservatives, neo-conservatives, and NE types like Romney. Oh how I wish Rand would have won :>
Remember this is the same person who did Common Core, Medicare Part D (huge entitlement expansion), was fine with amnesty, created new federal departments, and spent like it was sprouting up from every tree in the land (did I forget to mention TARP bailout as well..lol). So I can understand where 'conservatives' are coming from citing Bush as not one of them...because he wasn't (hence the Tea Party). I mean what is your argument? Tax cuts? Every GOP loser does that, but that's just one small thing conservatives tend to be for. Gotta have more than that.
By the way in regards to your edit: I'd be happy with Neo-Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland Alexander. You don't have to go back to John Tyler or Thomas Jefferson lmao. (if we're talking about elected Presidents...)
|
On March 13 2017 11:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 11:10 Leporello wrote:On March 13 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really? I assume that is just part of the hypothetical, since the idea is "What can happen when Trump fails that makes conservatives/ism look as best as possible?" The quote from Publiuc Decius Mus (whoever that is) does the exact same thing. It accepts the premise that "true" conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years. Apparently Bush's economic policies were liberal, although there is no comparison in America's history or the Western world to make that true. In other words, the unpopular George Bush presidencies, whose policies and actions haven't been polished and glossed as shiny as Reagan's has, weren't "true" conservatives. And if Trump leaves office unpopular and unsuccessful (likely) it will be because he wasn't a "true" conservative, and if he'd listened to this "true" conservative over here playing the "Libertarian" card, things would have been better. So never-mind what happened the past 20 years and ignore the guy we just elected: next time, just vote for the true Scotsman. Republicans have this habit of cheerlead-then-forget. How were the Bushes not true conservatives? They didn't cut taxes progressively towards the "job creators"? Or they didn't cut enough? Doesn't really matter. They weren't popular, they're viewed as failures, ergo "true conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years!" Yeah, right. Bush's were neo-conservatives, which is a bit different than say...Ted Cruz and the like. There's a reason the Tea Party sprang up after Bush, and it wasn't because he was unpopular to the general public at large so they wanted to distance themselves from him so they could win elections. That's just pure revisionist garbage. As someone who used to be in the GOP I'm sick of conservatives, neo-conservatives, and NE types like Romney. Oh how I wish Rand would have won :> Remember this is the same person who did Common Core, Medicare Part D (huge entitlement expansion), was fine with amnesty, created new federal departments, and spent like it was sprouting up from every tree in the land. So I can understand where 'conservatives' are coming from citing Bush as not one of them...because he wasn't (hence the Tea Party). I mean what is your argument? Tax cuts? Every GOP loser does that, but that's just one small thing conservatives tend to be for. Gotta have more than that.
I get the Rand Paul/Libertarian viewpoint.
What bothers me is the Reagan appeal, "20 years". If you want to argue for "true" conservatism, I just don't see how Reagan fits that bill, but the Bushes don't. Reagan increased spending in many areas, created new payroll tax systems, etc.
It seems less a difference of policy, and more on simple popularity and general opinion.
|
no reason for me to get into the conversation this late and I think its going fine already.
|
On March 13 2017 11:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 11:10 Leporello wrote:On March 13 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really? I assume that is just part of the hypothetical, since the idea is "What can happen when Trump fails that makes conservatives/ism look as best as possible?" The quote from Publiuc Decius Mus (whoever that is) does the exact same thing. It accepts the premise that "true" conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years. Apparently Bush's economic policies were liberal, although there is no comparison in America's history or the Western world to make that true. In other words, the unpopular George Bush presidencies, whose policies and actions haven't been polished and glossed as shiny as Reagan's has, weren't "true" conservatives. And if Trump leaves office unpopular and unsuccessful (likely) it will be because he wasn't a "true" conservative, and if he'd listened to this "true" conservative over here playing the "Libertarian" card, things would have been better. So never-mind what happened the past 20 years and ignore the guy we just elected: next time, just vote for the true Scotsman. Republicans have this habit of cheerlead-then-forget. How were the Bushes not true conservatives? They didn't cut taxes progressively towards the "job creators"? Or they didn't cut enough? Doesn't really matter. They weren't popular, they're viewed as failures, ergo "true conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years!" Yeah, right. Bush's were neo-conservatives, which is a bit different than say...Ted Cruz and the like. There's a reason the Tea Party sprang up after Bush, and it wasn't because he was unpopular to the general public at large so they wanted to distance themselves from him so they could win elections. That's just pure revisionist garbage. As someone who used to be in the GOP I'm sick of conservatives, neo-conservatives, and NE types like Romney. Oh how I wish Rand would have won :> Remember this is the same person who did Common Core, Medicare Part D (huge entitlement expansion), was fine with amnesty, created new federal departments, and spent like it was sprouting up from every tree in the land (did I forget to mention TARP bailout as well..lol). So I can understand where 'conservatives' are coming from citing Bush as not one of them...because he wasn't (hence the Tea Party). I mean what is your argument? Tax cuts? Every GOP loser does that, but that's just one small thing conservatives tend to be for. Gotta have more than that. By the way in regards to your edit: I'd be happy with Neo-Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland Alexander. You don't have to go back to John Tyler or Thomas Jefferson lmao. (if we're talking about elected Presidents...)
I assume your making fun of Reagan with the last paragraph. mildly amusing
|
On March 13 2017 11:39 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 11:36 Wegandi wrote:On March 13 2017 11:10 Leporello wrote:On March 13 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really? I assume that is just part of the hypothetical, since the idea is "What can happen when Trump fails that makes conservatives/ism look as best as possible?" The quote from Publiuc Decius Mus (whoever that is) does the exact same thing. It accepts the premise that "true" conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years. Apparently Bush's economic policies were liberal, although there is no comparison in America's history or the Western world to make that true. In other words, the unpopular George Bush presidencies, whose policies and actions haven't been polished and glossed as shiny as Reagan's has, weren't "true" conservatives. And if Trump leaves office unpopular and unsuccessful (likely) it will be because he wasn't a "true" conservative, and if he'd listened to this "true" conservative over here playing the "Libertarian" card, things would have been better. So never-mind what happened the past 20 years and ignore the guy we just elected: next time, just vote for the true Scotsman. Republicans have this habit of cheerlead-then-forget. How were the Bushes not true conservatives? They didn't cut taxes progressively towards the "job creators"? Or they didn't cut enough? Doesn't really matter. They weren't popular, they're viewed as failures, ergo "true conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years!" Yeah, right. Bush's were neo-conservatives, which is a bit different than say...Ted Cruz and the like. There's a reason the Tea Party sprang up after Bush, and it wasn't because he was unpopular to the general public at large so they wanted to distance themselves from him so they could win elections. That's just pure revisionist garbage. As someone who used to be in the GOP I'm sick of conservatives, neo-conservatives, and NE types like Romney. Oh how I wish Rand would have won :> Remember this is the same person who did Common Core, Medicare Part D (huge entitlement expansion), was fine with amnesty, created new federal departments, and spent like it was sprouting up from every tree in the land. So I can understand where 'conservatives' are coming from citing Bush as not one of them...because he wasn't (hence the Tea Party). I mean what is your argument? Tax cuts? Every GOP loser does that, but that's just one small thing conservatives tend to be for. Gotta have more than that. I get the Rand Paul/Libertarian viewpoint. What bothers me is the Reagan appeal, "20 years". If you want to argue for "true" conservatism, I just don't see how Reagan fits that bill, but the Bushes don't. Reagan increased spending in many areas, created new payroll tax systems, etc. It seems less a difference of policy, and more on simple popularity and general opinion.
That I agree with. After Reagan was shot any conservatism he had was gone.
|
On March 13 2017 11:44 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2017 11:36 Wegandi wrote:On March 13 2017 11:10 Leporello wrote:On March 13 2017 07:40 Gahlo wrote:On March 13 2017 07:37 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2017 07:25 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2017 06:44 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 06:30 xDaunt wrote:On March 13 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On March 13 2017 04:52 biology]major wrote:
I know the debt problem is for the next decade but it's the one thing no one takes seriously. What is the actual consequence down the line? Fixing it requires massive cuts to military and entitlements Bankrupting the future, man. But it's something like political suicide right now. "Do it for the children" just doesn't have the same pull as "What problem?" Conservative summary (shitposter warning: you probably won't agree with any of the premises) of health legislation process https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/840957770669150208 Like Publius Decius Mus said so aptly last year: More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? I wish I could think populism's failures will result in popular renewed interest in conservative explanations. Aka we tried a radical backlash option against leftist connected-multinationals and cultural directives, and still came up short. But really, the Republican Party will probably collapse with no revival of "making the case," and we're in for political party creative destruction while Dems take 8 years of power. Which, to Decius's point, is just a delayed market reaction. Far even from that, we will be told that these failures were conservative, and thus we must move in the opposite direction. It won't matter that the loudest objecting voices came from conservatives, espeically if Trump uses a bully pulpit to get their votes in the end. Just because Trump is in the cockpit doesn't mean we won't still crash. really? I assume that is just part of the hypothetical, since the idea is "What can happen when Trump fails that makes conservatives/ism look as best as possible?" The quote from Publiuc Decius Mus (whoever that is) does the exact same thing. It accepts the premise that "true" conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years. Apparently Bush's economic policies were liberal, although there is no comparison in America's history or the Western world to make that true. In other words, the unpopular George Bush presidencies, whose policies and actions haven't been polished and glossed as shiny as Reagan's has, weren't "true" conservatives. And if Trump leaves office unpopular and unsuccessful (likely) it will be because he wasn't a "true" conservative, and if he'd listened to this "true" conservative over here playing the "Libertarian" card, things would have been better. So never-mind what happened the past 20 years and ignore the guy we just elected: next time, just vote for the true Scotsman. Republicans have this habit of cheerlead-then-forget. How were the Bushes not true conservatives? They didn't cut taxes progressively towards the "job creators"? Or they didn't cut enough? Doesn't really matter. They weren't popular, they're viewed as failures, ergo "true conservatism hasn't been tried in 20 years!" Yeah, right. Bush's were neo-conservatives, which is a bit different than say...Ted Cruz and the like. There's a reason the Tea Party sprang up after Bush, and it wasn't because he was unpopular to the general public at large so they wanted to distance themselves from him so they could win elections. That's just pure revisionist garbage. As someone who used to be in the GOP I'm sick of conservatives, neo-conservatives, and NE types like Romney. Oh how I wish Rand would have won :> Remember this is the same person who did Common Core, Medicare Part D (huge entitlement expansion), was fine with amnesty, created new federal departments, and spent like it was sprouting up from every tree in the land (did I forget to mention TARP bailout as well..lol). So I can understand where 'conservatives' are coming from citing Bush as not one of them...because he wasn't (hence the Tea Party). I mean what is your argument? Tax cuts? Every GOP loser does that, but that's just one small thing conservatives tend to be for. Gotta have more than that. By the way in regards to your edit: I'd be happy with Neo-Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland Alexander. You don't have to go back to John Tyler or Thomas Jefferson lmao. (if we're talking about elected Presidents...) I assume your making fun of Reagan with the last paragraph. mildly amusing
Yes, Reagan was terrible (from a libertarian viewpoint). I mean there's a reason after-all why Ron Paul left the party in the 80s.
Edit: By the way John Tyler doesn't get the cred he deserves :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
