Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

New hero of the left

12357

Comments

  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181

    Great. Thanks for that thought-provoking contribution.
    What is the difference between someone on the "far-right" and a conservative?
  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    jecornel said:

    Ooooh boy.
    Send a check to DJ, then fuck off.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863
    edited March 2019
    SFGbob said:

    What is the difference between someone on the "far-right" and a conservative?
    I'm sure you'd get different answers from different people. It's been my experience and observation that people always fall somewhere on a political spectrum. They are all just labels at the end of the day, and even within the categories that those labels purport to identify, it's almost never clean. I've known conservatives that are anti-big government who, in my estimation, are not nearly suspicious enough of government intrusion on civil rights. I've known liberals who want the government to solve all of life's issues but who are hawks on government over-reach on privacy matters.

    I myself and not a neat and clean ideologue. I would label myself a moderate conservative, but can be all over the map on issues, and fancy myself a progressive on some, a staunch conservative on others. I'm a blend. I'm a moderate Republican.

    Far right? Same as the far left. People who find appeal in dogma and identity of belief. The far right, or at least one branch of it, tends to have a religious element to it that matches the zeal with which the far left believes in their own fantasies. They are both guilty of a zero/sum game approach to things. As an empirical matter, I find more xenophobes on the far right than I do on the far left, but as you and others point out, the far left has made the white male (me) an object of xenophobia, so there's that. Also as an empirical matter, I find people on both extremes to fall into their stereotype more cleanly. Right wing people tend to want to adhere to tradition and resist change; left wing people tend to want to deconstruct everything. At the extreme, both ideologies are silly. These are gross generalizations, but you have to start with some idea or there's no making sense of any of it and we're just a bunch people who believe a bunch of different shit.

    Still, I don't get too caught up in nomenclature. It's a fool's study. People can point out that Republicans freed the slaves and that white Democrats in the south wanted to keep them. Those are names. The nature of the people, their philosophies and what they want/wanted what is the thing for me.

    Sure, the philosophy and the view that drove brave people to challenge the social norm of the pre-civil rights era south are my kind of progressive, and the people (there) who wanted it kept the way it was are not my kind of conservative. And on some level, as the father of daughters, I also support (in degrees) the progress of women in society and I'm able to see the bullshit when I see it.

  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 36,962 Founders Club
    edited March 2019

    A GOP candidate is supposed to be Nebraska classy

    And lose. Very important that they lose to be honored and loved

    When they win they stole it or committed other crimes and misdemeanors. And are horrible people. And mean and orange and an orange meanie

    A GOP candidate can be Nebraska classy and still win big. In the past 50 years the dems have needed a lot of help to win the WH- i.e., 1976 (post Watergate); 1992/96 (threesomes); and 2008/12 with the Great Recession and once in a lifetime hope and change candidate. It's a myth that only Trump could have beaten the Clintons. But he did win so deservedly gets the credit for busting down the blue wall.


  • creepycougcreepycoug Member Posts: 23,863

    A GOP candidate can be Nebraska classy and still win big. In the past 50 years the dems have needed a lot of help to win the WH- i.e., 1976 (post Watergate); 1992/96 (threesomes); and 2008/12 with the Great Recession and once in a lifetime hope and change candidate. It's a myth that only Trump could have beaten the Clintons. But he did win so deservedly gets the credit for busting down the blue wall.


    We'll never know how that election goes down in normal times, if there's ever been such a thing.

    Trump and Bannon (not Race - the other one) ran a great campaign. Simple as that.

    Hillary and what's his face ran a terrible campaign. Simple as that.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 111,085 Founders Club

    A GOP candidate can be Nebraska classy and still win big. In the past 50 years the dems have needed a lot of help to win the WH- i.e., 1976 (post Watergate); 1992/96 (threesomes); and 2008/12 with the Great Recession and once in a lifetime hope and change candidate. It's a myth that only Trump could have beaten the Clintons. But he did win so deservedly gets the credit for busting down the blue wall.


    I don't know how old you are but RR was accused of running a racist dog whistle hate campaign. His announcement was in Mississippi. Lee Atwater was demonized because he made commercials that made Jimmy look foolish and weak

    RR was a smooth operator but no one on the left thought he was classy. At all. They hated him with a passion and he fought back. He refused to be labled by his opponents which is the lesson Trump learned from him. Not so smooth but in the end who gives a fuck. the left celebrated his death as well

    Its about winning. Ask the left
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 111,085 Founders Club

    I'm sure you'd get different answers from different people. It's been my experience and observation that people always fall somewhere on a political spectrum. They are all just labels at the end of the day, and even within the categories that those labels purport to identify, it's almost never clean. I've known conservatives that are anti-big government who, in my estimation, are not nearly suspicious enough of government intrusion on civil rights. I've known liberals who want the government to solve all of life's issues but who are hawks on government over-reach on privacy matters.

    I myself and not a neat and clean ideologue. I would label myself a moderate conservative, but can be all over the map on issues, and fancy myself a progressive on some, a staunch conservative on others. I'm a blend. I'm a moderate Republican.

    Far right? Same as the far left. People who find appeal in dogma and identity of belief. The far right, or at least one branch of it, tends to have a religious element to it that matches the zeal with which the far left believes in their own fantasies. They are both guilty of a zero/sum game approach to things. As an empirical matter, I find more xenophobes on the far right than I do on the far left, but as you and others point out, the far left has made the white male (me) an object of xenophobia, so there's that. Also as an empirical matter, I find people on both extremes to fall into their stereotype more cleanly. Right wing people tend to want to adhere to tradition and resist change; left wing people tend to want to deconstruct everything. At the extreme, both ideologies are silly. These are gross generalizations, but you have to start with some idea or there's no making sense of any of it and we're just a bunch people who believe a bunch of different shit.

    Still, I don't get too caught up in nomenclature. It's a fool's study. People can point out that Republicans freed the slaves and that white Democrats in the south wanted to keep them. Those are names. The nature of the people, their philosophies and what they want/wanted what is the thing for me.

    Sure, the philosophy and the view that drove brave people to challenge the social norm of the pre-civil rights era south are my kind of progressive, and the people (there) who wanted it kept the way it was are not my kind of conservative. And on some level, as the father of daughters, I also support (in degrees) the progress of women in society and I'm able to see the bullshit when I see it.

    I like to crystallize your posts that I agree with like this one

    The other guy is extreme. I'm moderate. Both sides have been far more successful demonizing the opponent than following through on promises. So that's what we get. Far right far left far out man

    If you live as long as I do you better have a history of voting or both parties IMO*


    *in my opinion
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 36,962 Founders Club

    I don't know how old you are but RR was accused of running a racist dog whistle hate campaign. His announcement was in Mississippi. Lee Atwater was demonized because he made commercials that made Jimmy look foolish and weak

    RR was a smooth operator but no one on the left thought he was classy. At all. They hated him with a passion and he fought back. He refused to be labled by his opponents which is the lesson Trump learned from him. Not so smooth but in the end who gives a fuck. the left celebrated his death as well

    Its about winning. Ask the left
    I was born during Carter but vividly remember the 1980s. Yes, the left hated Reagan and he was a fighter no doubt, but he also got deals done with Dems and got a hell of a lot of Dems to vote for him. Reagan's persona and style gets you 60% landslides. Trump may well be reelected in the EC and maybe even the popular vote this time, but he's never gonna break 47% or 48% because of who he is.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 36,962 Founders Club

    I don't have a problem with this. As long as he wins

    You get a perfect candidate once if you're lucky

    My point is more that any GOP who runs to be popular with democrats won't be popular with either. RR didn't compromise in his words but as you said he worked with Tip. It was a different democrat back then too you know

    McCain is the poster boy for being fooled by a fawning media until he ran against Obama
    I would have like to see how REAL maverick McCain might have done vs Gore. By 2008 Iraq was an albatross.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 111,085 Founders Club

    I would have like to see how REAL maverick McCain might have done vs Gore. By 2008 Iraq was an albatross.
    My guess would be he'd probably win but be treated like W was

    W is another example of a guy who wouldn't fight back and ended up in the 30s for approval

    He was savaged and he's pretty moderate. Probably voted for Hillary like his dad
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181

    I was born during Carter but vividly remember the 1980s. Yes, the left hated Reagan and he was a fighter no doubt, but he also got deals done with Dems and got a hell of a lot of Dems to vote for him. Reagan's persona and style gets you 60% landslides. Trump may well be reelected in the EC and maybe even the popular vote this time, but he's never gonna break 47% or 48% because of who he is.
    Country has completely changed as has the Rat party. The moderate and even conservative Rats have all left the party. There are no Scoop Jackson Rats left and a Scoop Jackson Rat could never get elected in a Rat party primary. Remember California used to be a Red to purple state. Reagan nor any other Republican running nationally will ever win California in the foreseeable future.

  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    SFGbob said:

    Country has completely changed as has the Rat party. The moderate and even conservative Rats have all left the party. There are no Scoop Jackson Rats left and a Scoop Jackson Rat could never get elected in a Rat party primary. Remember California used to be a Red to purple state. Reagan nor any other Republican running nationally will ever win California in the foreseeable future.

    Good. I don’t want people like Scoop Jackson, father of the neoconservatives that gave us Iraq (Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.), in my party.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181

    Good. I don’t want people like Scoop Jackson, father of the neoconservatives that gave us Iraq (Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.), in my party.
    Yeah I know, you like to see people who think a $25 Billion increase in Welfare spending is an example of Welfare being "gutted" and then you like to lie about it and run and hide. Your party is filled with those kinds of Kunts today.
  • HardlyClothedHardlyClothed Member Posts: 937
    SFGbob said:

    Yeah I know, you like to see people who think a $25 Billion increase in Welfare spending is an example of Welfare being "gutted" and then you like to lie about it and run and hide. Your party is filled with those kinds of Kunts today.
    Amazing how you butcher basic history of the Clinton administration even when that history aligns with your racist anti-welfare state political values.

    My mistake was misremembering that you only included medicaid and not medicare in your bullshit welfare spending went up claim. And then you lied about saying medicaid was a welfare program and got called out on it. To no one’s surprise.

    You’d think you’d stop digging such an enormous crater but here we are.
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 36,962 Founders Club

    Good. I don’t want people like Scoop Jackson, father of the neoconservatives that gave us Iraq (Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.), in my party.
    People forget the neocons got it right on rolling back the Soviet Union. Wasn’t till Iraq that they really fucked up. Scoop was dead long before that.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    My guess would be he'd probably win but be treated like W was

    W is another example of a guy who wouldn't fight back and ended up in the 30s for approval

    He was savaged and he's pretty moderate. Probably voted for Hillary like his dad
    W was Nazi. Everysaid so
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    Yeah I know, you like to see people who think a $25 Billion increase in Welfare spending is an example of Welfare being "gutted" and then you like to lie about it and run and hide. Your party is filled with those kinds of Kunts today.
    I've watched this argument. And it is truly amazing how ignorant and partisan you are.

    photo 96B11AD1-6E6F-4D95-B862-64DB453E4897_zpsbrqnqkij.png

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181

    Amazing how you butcher basic history of the Clinton administration even when that history aligns with your racist anti-welfare state political values.

    My mistake was misremembering that you only included medicaid and not medicare in your bullshit welfare spending went up claim. And then you lied about saying medicaid was a welfare program and got called out on it. To no one’s surprise.

    You’d think you’d stop digging such an enormous crater but here we are.
    Another lie. I actually didn't include either Medicaid or Medicare in the dollar total I gave. Medicaid is a welfare program what's my lie? The numbers I cited didn't include Medicaid spending.


    Now, tell us why welfare reform is racist?
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 33,181
    2001400ex said:

    I've watched this argument. And it is truly amazing how ignorant and partisan you are.

    photo 96B11AD1-6E6F-4D95-B862-64DB453E4897_zpsbrqnqkij.png

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending
    Translation: Hey every look at me everybody I'm Hondo the lying Kunt and I like to post links that don't refute a fucking word the other person said.


Sign In or Register to comment.