Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by BrntOrngStmpeDe, Jan 25, 2021.
Speaking of Heathens, here's one from the shi-hole OU campus. Classy!
Put me down as a republican who is looking for change.
I could probably caveat that I'm moderate on a couple of issues, but Trump is the first Republican leader that I decided not to support. So, for those who will dismiss my opinion out of hand because of this, so be it. However, I will say that claims that a Republican could only have a differing opinion from Trump if they were brainwashed by the media are part if why I think he has to go. That's a cult-like way of thinking.
Being in the right, being strong of conviction, and unwavering in our stance, should be something that is solid and proactive, not reactionary. Some of the Trump supporters react...Republicans who disagree are sellouts. Democrats who disagree are liars... This motivates most of the base, but loses "the middle" and "the young" long term. The middle are between 10%-20% of the voters. Our elections since 1988 have been decided by less than 10% of the vote. "motivating the base" shouldn't mean "alienating the middle/undecided."
1) It is an age long and universal truth, regardless of what Trump chooses to propagate, that men & women with exceptional intelligence, character, and knowledge come to different conclusions and applications of the same principles to which they hold dear. This is true between and within political parties. It used to be that men would shake hands before and after a battle, because they did not have hate in their heart for one another. They could have respect toward those with which they disagreed, and could possibly kill.
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." - Abraham Lincoln
Intellectual integrity requires us to acknowledge that smart, educated, well intended people disagree in earnest. The inability to engage in discussion without resorting to calling people sellouts or liars or "woke" is imo what will kill young people becoming Republicans. If you want new Texas Exes joining the Republican party, you have to be able to discuss the issues in a reasoned way, and not throw out the "liberal media" as a reaction to every issue. Of course they flavor it, but that doesn't mean we can't find the baby in the bath water and have a reasoned response.
This is where Trump was light years BEHIND other modern leaders. He used a dumbed-down attacking mode for how he disagreed with opponents (and teammates who disagreed with him). It's what the big dumb bullies do in all the movies. You can see it a mile away.
I'm not going to be part of a party that can't reason with those with whom they disagree.
2) Going back to the issue of our youth...We need young minds to join the Republican party. The youth are, for the most part, post-racism. Perspectives like the derogatory use of the word "woke" misses this. This only sounds like a closed minded perspective. The youth imo actually have some naturally libertarian views that fit the Republican party if they don't think it sounds like us old white men.
* I don't care what color, religion, or ethnicity you are as long as you work for what you get. If you work for what you get, I have no problem with you. That's much better messaging than "The poor inner city voters are just entitled. That's why Biden gets the black vote. etc." This might not be you, but it's all over my Facebook feed
* Do not trust the government to take care of you. They can't. Even when they try, it is short-lived because it's actually people who take care of each other and ourselves. "Welfare is just big government for lazy people who don't want to work." Make our platform about the principles, not about the exceptions. It sounds bad.
* Neighborhoods, Cities, States know their needs better than a one size fit all federal government perspective. There are some things that the federal government should have no say in, it should be our state. Some things the state should have no say in, the city/county should. And as often as possible, we should give authority to the smaller entity before the bigger entity take over. We're not Italy or France which are only the size of a state. We're too big to be managed federally except for a few things.
* We believe in the whole constitution, we don't pick and choose which amendments we adhere to. There's a reason we have a right to bear arms. [insert history lesson]. For that matter, Republicans believe in all of our Freedoms, even when we hate how people exercise them.
I have other thoughts, but I think we should be a party that is compelling to young adults because of the principles we have that are part of our platform. This current way of attacking the liberal media, name calling democrats and republicans who disagree will lose our younger base. Trump is not a long term play for the party. We shouldn't win the battle and lose the war. We have to leave this cult of personality thinking.
I do think he's a pragmatic businessman. I think he got several things done. But the USA isn't a company selling widgets. You can't run it EXACTLY as if it was.
There's a lot of good stuff in this. However, to attract young voters, we need to relearn how to teach and persuade people of the merits of conservatism. We used to be good at that, but for the last 20 years, we've been terrible at it. Way too much preaching to the choir and dick slapping and far too little outreach and ideological advocacy.
However, to do that, we need to start caring about making the appeal to young people. Many on the Right think they shouldn't have to persuade young people and think they're entitled to have them just go along. Many more think young voters simply can't be persuaded. That mindset has to change. We actually have a pretty good pitch for young voters if we'll actually make a serious effort and not act stupid.
We also need to rebuild our credibility on fiscal conservatism. This pattern of only caring about it when a Democrat is in the White House has effectively ruined our advantage on fiscal responsibility. To get it back, we need to prioritize balancing the budget over all other fiscal priorities including tax cuts. We also need to advocate for long term fiscal responsibility (meaning even when a Republican is in the White House). That means actively pursuing a Balanced Budget constitutional amendment.
A good start would be to stop attacking higher education which encourages free thinking and forming your own opinions based on available facts. As a father of 3 sons, they laugh at conservative attacks on the educational establishment. To them it's as is if conservatives are upset that they aren't being indoctrinated into some narrative bereft of facts. That narrative could apply to religion, history or social issues. They accepted LGBTQ and racial sensitivity issues long before their elders. Now when some attack transgendered athletes or BLM you're simply demonstrating your own resistance to social evolution that they've already decided to accept for themselves, without being told.
Not saying @Mr. Deez does this but rather conservatives often do.
Yes, I do also realize that college students can be some of the leaders in the "cancel culture" movement and need to be more open to listening to alternate viewpoints.
I don't see conservatives ever making peace with modern higher education. It's simply too hostile to them. Furthermore, they get confronted with too many situations in which higher education doesn't encourage free thought or basing opinions on facts. Everytime a conservative speaker gets booed off campus or gets treated like a freak while there's seemingly no leftist too nutty for campus, higher education justifiability loses respect from conservatives.
I also don't see conservatives ever embracing leftist views on racial justice. The agenda of guys like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi and their allies in college campuses simply isn't reconcilable with any conservative principle or frankly any liberty-oriented philosophy. It is per se totalitarian.
That doesn't mean conservatives should outwardly crap on higher education. I think they should infiltrate it. I think conservatives should try to join faculties and attempt to debate the Left on the merits on campus every chance they get.
Have you read Legal Insurrection? It is run by a Law Prof at Cornell.
He has tried exactly that with reasoned points
And has been boycotted over and over with calls for his resignation.
He is not alone.
I know you have read many stories of Conservative Academics invited to colleges only to be kicked off by an outcry of liberal staff and students.
Yep, it's gonna happen, but you keep it up. The more they cancel and kick people out, the more they lose credibility. That sort of thing is a sign of weakness.
Exactly with whom do they lose credibility?
In the meantime all those Conservatives who lost gigs and speaking jobs were demolished in the press and had their families subject to the sane chit.
Tell a 7 yr old he has to put up with shame and bullying because the parent wants to infiltrate .
You said it best. There is no lefty too whacked out to be praised by the rest of the left while they are running conservatives off.
I think tolerance needs to be practiced more on all sides, even more so on campuses. I'm torn on just how much tolerance should be allowed though. The "booted off campus" incidents I'm aware of are Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopolis and similar ilk. The former doesn't have any right to a platform to espouse his hateful ideology. The latter is simply profiting off taking "shocking" positions. I have no problem with protests outside his venues but think he should be allowed to speak. As you can imagine, I'm not fond of extremist views being given a platform. That applies to left or right. I suspect the real problem of many conservatives is that the left's extremists are given a pass while the right's are shushed off campus. Not sure how to solve that other than to recruit more conservative youth. I'm certain thee are conservative youth showing up to protest liberal extremists just not in as big of numbers thus less effective. Additionally, "cancel culture" is a buzzword that get conservatives excited thus get broadcasted on conservative media sites much more often. In some cases, like Milo @UC Berkely the attempt is purposeful to get media coverage.
I do think Conservatives need to recruit more of their vain to faculty. Conservative faculty aren't as sparse as conservatives believe based on my recent experience as well as my sons. Education is simply a common trope to attack by conservatives disappointed that their ideas aren't more embraced by our youth. In turn, they blame the faculty when in reality its likely the conservative positions that alienate them to the majority of youth, and have for decades.
Even though I don't agree with you as a pro-Trumper on everything here I do admit this is by far the most logical post here by someone who doesn't like Trump.
Just to give context. THIS is the video that ultimately "cancelled" Milo Yiannopolis. Yes, he advocated for the benefits of what society calls pedophilia saying in the "gay" culture it was particularly acceptable.
It has happened to more than those guys, and it's more than just protestors endangering people. It's also "disinvitations" - people getting invited and then told they can't show up because an angry mob might attack them. It happened to Condoleezza Rice. It happened to Charles Murray. It happened to Ben Shapiro. It also doesn't always happen to conservatives. Sometimes it happens to liberals who aren't sufficiently woke on a particular topic (especially with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian controversy). However, the push for it pretty much always comes from the left.
Also, I'm no fan of Milo Yiannopolis or Richard Spencer. However, some of these incidents have happened at public universities. Well, at a public university, you can't engage in viewpoint discrimination. Richard Spencer has as much right to speak (and students have as much right to hear him) there as anybody else does. Keep in mind that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of people even more offensive than Richard Spencer. (Shockingly, they do exist.)
That's a huge part of it, but personally, I don't want anybody getting shushed off campus. College campuses are supposed to be places of free and open expression and inquiry, and I fear someone having the power to restrict speech far more than I fear any speech. For example, I think Louis Farrakahn should be allowed to speak on college campuses, and I think those who want to hear him should be allowed to hear him. I detest what he says, but my remedy isn't to shut him down. It's to speak out against him myself or to invite my own speaker to rebut him. I have no right to say he can't come. I have no right to attack him physically. I have no right to disrupt him while he's speaking. I have no right to destroy property, threaten those who want to hear him, or block their access to the auditorium.
But that wouldn't be consistent with a free society either. You solve the problem by having a college administration (especially at public colleges and universities) that prioritizes freedom of speech over not offending people. When a mob of pissed off students complains to the administration about someone speaking, the administration should tell them not to attend, peacefully protest, or to invite their own speaker. They shouldn't kowtow to them.
For example, when I was in Young Conservatives of Texas at Baylor, the Association of Black Students often didn't like what we had to say in our newspaper (especially about the hate crimes law that was under consideration at the time) and didn't like some of the people we invited to campus to speak. Did they try to shut us down or disrupt our activities? No, they challenged one of our members to organize a debate over hate crimes bill like intelligent adults, and of course, we debated them. That's how it's supposed to work.
They aren't as sparse, but they are grossly outnumbered. Furthermore, they are intimidated and far less likely to be vocal about their views, because they'll be ridiculued.
FWIW, Reagan won the youth vote. John Kerry won it in 2004, but it wasn't a blowout. Obviously, they'd rather young people be more conservative, but it's more than frustration with the outcome. They don't think it's a fair battle, because the left has a great deal of control in education and isn't afraid to exercise that control. What you see on college campuses is a big part of that.
That video is what effectively ruined his career. It's the reason he doesn't get invited to speak anymore. However, his troubles on campus predate that by quite a bit. By the way, I've always though he was a jackass and bad for conservatism, even when some of the people here thought he was great.
I agree. Sadly it will have to take place when a Republican is in office or it's hollow. The GOP could have taken the high ground after 2016 but chose to swim in the swamp. Think about the type of Republicans who have risen to power over the last 4 years. Gaetz, Jordan, etc. Not the ones with the best reputations.
To me, they'd have to push for a constitutional amendment. That would signal a long term commitment that isn't selective or partisan. However, I haven't heard a Republican even bring up a balanced budget amendment for discussion in at least ten years. Last time they made it a major issue was in 1995, when they actually passed it through the House and missed passage in the Senate by only one vote. They had a lot not credibility back then.
What other option do you have?
Neither party cares one iota about fiscal responsibility at this point. This is where populism runs roughshod over principles.
For Republicans, it's a combination of two things. Yes, you have the populists who don't care about the debt and in practice would oppose entitlement reform as much as Democrats do. However, as I've said before, though Trump and the populists made the GOP worse on fiscal policy, they didn't start the problem. The GOP donor class created the problem by prioritizing protecting tax rates over deficit reduction and spending cuts when forging budget deals.
Personally, I'm a tax cutter, but running big deficits without a very clear and justifiable reason (such as a major war or global pandemic) simply isn't defensible. And doing so shouldn't be on the table to keep both sides from having to make concessions.
Running big budget deficits should be reserved for wars and economic crises. Running them during economic boons borders on treachery to our future generations. I long for the politician that is principled enough to say that entitlements need to be on the table for budget reform. That's probably why I liked Kasich.
I think the idea of lower taxes, limited government scope, etc has "fiscal responsibility" built in.
Large scale government programs have a lot of waste embedded in them. The nature (bias) of limited govt is fiscal responsibility. THOUGH...the Republicans have had a Hx of spending more on defense than the Dems want.
I agree. The biggest government program is the military by the way and all the things you said about other government programs apply.
This is true. The problem is that no one actually wants smaller government. Three GOP spends more on defense, but they spend a lot on everything. If the public wants that, so be it, but they should pay for the government they demand.
Social Security is bigger than the military. Medicare and Medicaid are each almost as big. Combined, they're much bigger.
That was my primary complaint about the Trump tax cut. During R's admins we cut the taxes and increase spending. The D's raise taxes and increase spending but it never goes towards our debts but merely covers new programs (if it covers at all). We have historically low income and corporate tax rates. As a society we can't say we want more government services (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Military, Welfare) then put the cost of that on the backs of future generations. This may be controversial but the Boomer generation might collectively be the greatest bunch of "takers" our nation has experienced.
As an aside, these "First 100 days" giveaway/tax cut deals are going to bankrupt our nation. Bush in 2001 (not 100 days, I know), Obama, Trump and now Biden. They are all huge debt accelerators. All are being leveraged as "stimulus" to the economy yet their main result the bottom line to the debt.
Well, that’s one Cherubim you won’t find in the British Museum in London.
Jordan and Gaetz have bad reps? Like AOC and squad, Spy ******, Schiff, She Jack, Maxine, etc.?
Do you seriously not understand the difference between LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration.
Did our president sneak his wife into the country? No, he followed the law and did everything legally.
Stopping illegal immigration has been his goal and should be the goal of all of us.
And yes, I want secession, I know for a fact that Texas and the Southern states can better manage themselves without being chained to poorly run states like California and New York. They don't give a crap about Texas except that for every dollar we provide to the federal government we only take back .94 cents while for every dollar they provide they take back about 3 bucks. We are their slaves and they will do what it takes to keep it that way. If we want to keep this country together then we need a good blood letting and then to the victors go the spoils.
I'm done with tolerance for the left. There is no way out except through fighting or separation. Pick your poison as one or the other is going to happen.
They want slavery for the masses to prop up their social elites, I refuse to be their slave.
I don't know. You could always get reparations later.
I used to worry non stop about debt but then I realized all debt is fixable with hyper inflation. Lets say our debt is 100 trillion dollars. but inflation has decreased the dollar to the value of a penny. that means that something that cost 1 dollar now costs 100 bucks. Well, when money is so worthless then our debt is worthless as well. Especially when everyone will be making well into the millions of dollars per year. Then the taxes will be enough to wipe out the debt because we carried it so long.
Here is what I'm talking about. My dad bought his first house in 1976 for 35K. Today that house is worth about 200K. It wasn't a big house about 1200 sqft 3/2/2.
By today's standards a 35k house is a total steal. Back then it was a lot of money. Today we see our national debt as a lot of money but for future generations it's just a drop in the bucket.
Sheldon wants “a good bloodletting”.
Lots of dead Americans will lead to a new southern confederacy more to his liking.
Hate to tell you Shel but not much of anybody except looney ideologues shares your fantasy.
watch less tv and go for some long walks. Smile some. Grimness is a disease. Wag more and bark less as they say
keep voting for the narcissistic whor:monger of your choice if you must but try to get your blood pressure down