This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Any Californians here?  (Read 2619 times)

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #75 on: August 30, 2021, 09:57:12 PM »
You have to remember that whites are the only group not allowed to have a preference for its own. You know, like everyone else does. Just an hour ago on the front page of a local paper was a BIG article about how young black medical students MUST have black mentors.

Who else would be able to speak jive to them?
Barbara Billingsly?

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #76 on: August 30, 2021, 10:37:53 PM »
  I do not see all that much that looks "far right" either.  I do see some political bickering where people who disagree about something end up being the enemy camp, but I also see some trolling and fishing about for an argument or two, so I am not sure it is a case of moderate looking far away from far right, or someone just calling who ever they disagree with the person they disagree with the most.   I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?   I remember LOTS of centrist bipartisan stances from around the 90's that are called far right all the time now.  So it gets pretty hard to keep up.
Most of the people on the board seem to be strongly leftist on social issues. At least by 90s standards.

A lot of the differences seem pretty artificial. It's tribalism, rather than substantive differences. That's why two branches of a neoliberal/neocon monoparty, who agreed on 99.99% of all things, and only disagreed on a few social hot-button issues, managed to become more and more polarized.

Of course that's complicated by another factor, the rise of real extremism in one of the factions, and its tacit and even active acceptance by the bulk of the leadership.

We're in a world where the differences used to be mostly token, but a good chunk of the world seems to have gone crazy, and a new alignment hasn't emerged. That's why it's all so confusing, because it's fluctuating wildly and nobody knows what will stick.

I support a lot of neocon views. That was very firmly considered conservative in the 90s, and these days it gets me called a traitor to the Republican party to view the world like Dole, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney...all of whom I voted for and who won Republican primaries for the Presidency. I also voted for John Kasich in 2016 for the Republican party, who also was considered firmly conservative in the 90s.

It's not me who moved their views here. Trump supporters calling for protectionism and trade wars and taxes on businesses that import goods, who are against a strong military and the use of force to check terrorism and communism in the world, and who are against immigration which supports businesses and labor, that's all new to the Republican party. Those are all positions supported by unions in the 90s and prior to that. Those in fact are all views supported by Joe Biden and John Edwards and the Kennedys and such in the 90s and prior.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2021, 10:43:14 PM by Mistwell »

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 3907
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #77 on: August 30, 2021, 10:47:49 PM »
  I do not see all that much that looks "far right" either.  I do see some political bickering where people who disagree about something end up being the enemy camp, but I also see some trolling and fishing about for an argument or two, so I am not sure it is a case of moderate looking far away from far right, or someone just calling who ever they disagree with the person they disagree with the most.   I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?   I remember LOTS of centrist bipartisan stances from around the 90's that are called far right all the time now.  So it gets pretty hard to keep up.
Most of the people on the board seem to be strongly leftist on social issues. At least by 90s standards.

A lot of the differences seem pretty artificial. It's tribalism, rather than substantive differences. That's why two branches of a neoliberal/neocon monoparty, who agreed on 99.99% of all things, and only disagreed on a few social hot-button issues, managed to become more and more polarized.

Of course that's complicated by another factor, the rise of real extremism in one of the factions, and its tacit and even active acceptance by the bulk of the leadership.

We're in a world where the differences used to be mostly token, but a good chunk of the world seems to have gone crazy, and a new alignment hasn't emerged. That's why it's all so confusing, because it's fluctuating wildly and nobody knows what will stick.

I support a lot of neocon views. That was very firmly considered conservative in the 9s, and these days it gets me called a traitor to the Republican party to view the world like Dole Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney...all of whom I voted for and who won Republican primaries for the Presidency. It's not me who moved their views here.
Didn't say you did. Evidence suggests people typically don't change their views as they age. But among the small group who do, they tend to become more conservative by about a 3:1 margin.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/706889

What's happened here is a new wave emerged. Though I'm wondering if the 3:1 ratio may have flipped, because the growth in extremism in the last decade isn't just millennials and zoomers growing up. A lot of older, well-established leftists seem to have shifted far to the left to join them.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #78 on: August 31, 2021, 07:02:40 AM »
  I do not see all that much that looks "far right" either.  I do see some political bickering where people who disagree about something end up being the enemy camp, but I also see some trolling and fishing about for an argument or two, so I am not sure it is a case of moderate looking far away from far right, or someone just calling who ever they disagree with the person they disagree with the most.   I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?   I remember LOTS of centrist bipartisan stances from around the 90's that are called far right all the time now.  So it gets pretty hard to keep up.
Most of the people on the board seem to be strongly leftist on social issues. At least by 90s standards.

A lot of the differences seem pretty artificial. It's tribalism, rather than substantive differences. That's why two branches of a neoliberal/neocon monoparty, who agreed on 99.99% of all things, and only disagreed on a few social hot-button issues, managed to become more and more polarized.

Of course that's complicated by another factor, the rise of real extremism in one of the factions, and its tacit and even active acceptance by the bulk of the leadership.

We're in a world where the differences used to be mostly token, but a good chunk of the world seems to have gone crazy, and a new alignment hasn't emerged. That's why it's all so confusing, because it's fluctuating wildly and nobody knows what will stick.

I support a lot of neocon views. That was very firmly considered conservative in the 90s, and these days it gets me called a traitor to the Republican party to view the world like Dole, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney...all of whom I voted for and who won Republican primaries for the Presidency. I also voted for John Kasich in 2016 for the Republican party, who also was considered firmly conservative in the 90s.

It's not me who moved their views here. Trump supporters calling for protectionism and trade wars and taxes on businesses that import goods, who are against a strong military and the use of force to check terrorism and communism in the world, and who are against immigration which supports businesses and labor, that's all new to the Republican party. Those are all positions supported by unions in the 90s and prior to that. Those in fact are all views supported by Joe Biden and John Edwards and the Kennedys and such in the 90s and prior.

   Well I can say I understand 100 percent how people would decide exporting our jobs (and subsidizing the nations taking them with government money) and shutting down factories might want a bit of "protectionism".  I guess we can just tell them all #learntocode and #gotolawschool.  Not to mention how weak it makes a nation to have no infrastructure capable of large scale manufacturing.   I have a feeling if you were also one of the people actually having to carry out the force against all that terrorism and communism you might shift opinion on how much of that is really needed, since neocons just want to nation build and make their pals some money (and Biden voted to do the same).   It is super easy to support force when there is zero chance you ever bleed from the decision.

   Trump people are as much populist as anything, so I can certainly see where they would not line up with neocon point of views.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2021, 07:09:41 AM by oggsmash »

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #79 on: August 31, 2021, 08:34:14 AM »
Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Romney, McCain, the Bushes--all do-nothing neo-con politicians more interested in having dinner with Deomocrats and sucking bipartisan Marxist cock than actually getting anything done, or digging in and doing real fighting. Most of their ilk is preoccupied with "Losing Gracefully" instead of fucking winning. Lots of empty promises, lots of circle-jerking, but somehow, nothing ever meaningful gets accomplished by them. Yeah, they are all Globalist cock-sucking politicians. There are good reasons why the PEOPLE have rejected them and their bullshit messaging. All of them--have been entirely mediocre--at best, in regards to championing actual Conservative values.

The weak fucking "Republican" Party needs to get rid of every fucking one of the cock-sucking Globalist Neo-cons. Noone gives a fuck about the suit-and-tie wearing polite Republican party that is content to "Lose Gracefully". The new Republican party needs to be strong and bold, and fiercely loyal to Conservative values. Otherwise, they are just another flavour of luke-warm fucking Marxist Liberals--and they will continue to get buried in any election. The PEOPLE are not interested in supporting weak, cock-sucking, Globalist bureaucrats.

The PEOPLE want leaders of strength, passion, and real convictions.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the fa├žade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 4237
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #80 on: August 31, 2021, 09:59:08 AM »
Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Romney, McCain, the Bushes--all do-nothing neo-con politicians more interested in having dinner with Deomocrats and sucking bipartisan Marxist cock than actually getting anything done, or digging in and doing real fighting. Most of their ilk is preoccupied with "Losing Gracefully" instead of fucking winning. Lots of empty promises, lots of circle-jerking, but somehow, nothing ever meaningful gets accomplished by them. Yeah, they are all Globalist cock-sucking politicians. There are good reasons why the PEOPLE have rejected them and their bullshit messaging. All of them--have been entirely mediocre--at best, in regards to championing actual Conservative values.

The weak fucking "Republican" Party needs to get rid of every fucking one of the cock-sucking Globalist Neo-cons. Noone gives a fuck about the suit-and-tie wearing polite Republican party that is content to "Lose Gracefully". The new Republican party needs to be strong and bold, and fiercely loyal to Conservative values. Otherwise, they are just another flavour of luke-warm fucking Marxist Liberals--and they will continue to get buried in any election. The PEOPLE are not interested in supporting weak, cock-sucking, Globalist bureaucrats.

The PEOPLE want leaders of strength, passion, and real convictions.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Thank goodness that SHARK doesn't actually speak for the people, because his all-or-nothing, pick-your-team (and the other team is The Enemy) beliefs are the kind of fanaticism that all reasonable people should oppose (and pity).

KingCheops

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 1193
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #81 on: August 31, 2021, 11:30:58 AM »
I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?

We need to politically enforce Christian (preferably Catholic) virtues on society, we need to bring back the House Unamerican Activities Committee to stamp out communism, and we should at a bare minimum derecognize islam as a religion (it's a totalitarian political ideology not a religion) but escalate to banning any immigration of mudslimes and seriously consider shipping ours to the desert in one of those shitholes (I say let them keep their side/long arms so they can proceed to slaughter each other as they always do).

Does that float your boat?

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2515
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #82 on: August 31, 2021, 01:24:04 PM »
Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Romney, McCain, the Bushes--all do-nothing neo-con politicians more interested in having dinner with Deomocrats and sucking bipartisan Marxist cock than actually getting anything done, or digging in and doing real fighting. Most of their ilk is preoccupied with "Losing Gracefully" instead of fucking winning. Lots of empty promises, lots of circle-jerking, but somehow, nothing ever meaningful gets accomplished by them. Yeah, they are all Globalist cock-sucking politicians. There are good reasons why the PEOPLE have rejected them and their bullshit messaging. All of them--have been entirely mediocre--at best, in regards to championing actual Conservative values.

The weak fucking "Republican" Party needs to get rid of every fucking one of the cock-sucking Globalist Neo-cons. Noone gives a fuck about the suit-and-tie wearing polite Republican party that is content to "Lose Gracefully". The new Republican party needs to be strong and bold, and fiercely loyal to Conservative values. Otherwise, they are just another flavour of luke-warm fucking Marxist Liberals--and they will continue to get buried in any election. The PEOPLE are not interested in supporting weak, cock-sucking, Globalist bureaucrats.

The PEOPLE want leaders of strength, passion, and real convictions.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Thank goodness that SHARK doesn't actually speak for the people, because his all-or-nothing, pick-your-team (and the other team is The Enemy) beliefs are the kind of fanaticism that all reasonable people should oppose (and pity).
Yeah, it's so much more convenient to surrender when the going gets tough.

But we'll leave that to you.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 4237
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #83 on: August 31, 2021, 01:56:45 PM »
Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Romney, McCain, the Bushes--all do-nothing neo-con politicians more interested in having dinner with Deomocrats and sucking bipartisan Marxist cock than actually getting anything done, or digging in and doing real fighting. Most of their ilk is preoccupied with "Losing Gracefully" instead of fucking winning. Lots of empty promises, lots of circle-jerking, but somehow, nothing ever meaningful gets accomplished by them. Yeah, they are all Globalist cock-sucking politicians. There are good reasons why the PEOPLE have rejected them and their bullshit messaging. All of them--have been entirely mediocre--at best, in regards to championing actual Conservative values.

The weak fucking "Republican" Party needs to get rid of every fucking one of the cock-sucking Globalist Neo-cons. Noone gives a fuck about the suit-and-tie wearing polite Republican party that is content to "Lose Gracefully". The new Republican party needs to be strong and bold, and fiercely loyal to Conservative values. Otherwise, they are just another flavour of luke-warm fucking Marxist Liberals--and they will continue to get buried in any election. The PEOPLE are not interested in supporting weak, cock-sucking, Globalist bureaucrats.

The PEOPLE want leaders of strength, passion, and real convictions.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Thank goodness that SHARK doesn't actually speak for the people, because his all-or-nothing, pick-your-team (and the other team is The Enemy) beliefs are the kind of fanaticism that all reasonable people should oppose (and pity).
Yeah, it's so much more convenient to surrender when the going gets tough.

But we'll leave that to you.
What is your definition of surrender?

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #84 on: August 31, 2021, 02:50:05 PM »
  I do not see all that much that looks "far right" either.  I do see some political bickering where people who disagree about something end up being the enemy camp, but I also see some trolling and fishing about for an argument or two, so I am not sure it is a case of moderate looking far away from far right, or someone just calling who ever they disagree with the person they disagree with the most.   I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?   I remember LOTS of centrist bipartisan stances from around the 90's that are called far right all the time now.  So it gets pretty hard to keep up.
Most of the people on the board seem to be strongly leftist on social issues. At least by 90s standards.

A lot of the differences seem pretty artificial. It's tribalism, rather than substantive differences. That's why two branches of a neoliberal/neocon monoparty, who agreed on 99.99% of all things, and only disagreed on a few social hot-button issues, managed to become more and more polarized.

Of course that's complicated by another factor, the rise of real extremism in one of the factions, and its tacit and even active acceptance by the bulk of the leadership.

We're in a world where the differences used to be mostly token, but a good chunk of the world seems to have gone crazy, and a new alignment hasn't emerged. That's why it's all so confusing, because it's fluctuating wildly and nobody knows what will stick.

I support a lot of neocon views. That was very firmly considered conservative in the 9s, and these days it gets me called a traitor to the Republican party to view the world like Dole Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney...all of whom I voted for and who won Republican primaries for the Presidency. It's not me who moved their views here.
Didn't say you did. Evidence suggests people typically don't change their views as they age. But among the small group who do, they tend to become more conservative by about a 3:1 margin.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/706889

What's happened here is a new wave emerged. Though I'm wondering if the 3:1 ratio may have flipped, because the growth in extremism in the last decade isn't just millennials and zoomers growing up. A lot of older, well-established leftists seem to have shifted far to the left to join them.

I agree entirely. A lot of my friends who used to be ordinary Democrats are now "progressives" and far more authoritarian than they used to be.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #85 on: August 31, 2021, 02:54:46 PM »
  I do not see all that much that looks "far right" either.  I do see some political bickering where people who disagree about something end up being the enemy camp, but I also see some trolling and fishing about for an argument or two, so I am not sure it is a case of moderate looking far away from far right, or someone just calling who ever they disagree with the person they disagree with the most.   I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?   I remember LOTS of centrist bipartisan stances from around the 90's that are called far right all the time now.  So it gets pretty hard to keep up.
Most of the people on the board seem to be strongly leftist on social issues. At least by 90s standards.

A lot of the differences seem pretty artificial. It's tribalism, rather than substantive differences. That's why two branches of a neoliberal/neocon monoparty, who agreed on 99.99% of all things, and only disagreed on a few social hot-button issues, managed to become more and more polarized.

Of course that's complicated by another factor, the rise of real extremism in one of the factions, and its tacit and even active acceptance by the bulk of the leadership.

We're in a world where the differences used to be mostly token, but a good chunk of the world seems to have gone crazy, and a new alignment hasn't emerged. That's why it's all so confusing, because it's fluctuating wildly and nobody knows what will stick.

I support a lot of neocon views. That was very firmly considered conservative in the 90s, and these days it gets me called a traitor to the Republican party to view the world like Dole, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney...all of whom I voted for and who won Republican primaries for the Presidency. I also voted for John Kasich in 2016 for the Republican party, who also was considered firmly conservative in the 90s.

It's not me who moved their views here. Trump supporters calling for protectionism and trade wars and taxes on businesses that import goods, who are against a strong military and the use of force to check terrorism and communism in the world, and who are against immigration which supports businesses and labor, that's all new to the Republican party. Those are all positions supported by unions in the 90s and prior to that. Those in fact are all views supported by Joe Biden and John Edwards and the Kennedys and such in the 90s and prior.

   Well I can say I understand 100 percent how people would decide exporting our jobs (and subsidizing the nations taking them with government money) and shutting down factories might want a bit of "protectionism".  I guess we can just tell them all #learntocode and #gotolawschool.  Not to mention how weak it makes a nation to have no infrastructure capable of large scale manufacturing.   I have a feeling if you were also one of the people actually having to carry out the force against all that terrorism and communism you might shift opinion on how much of that is really needed, since neocons just want to nation build and make their pals some money (and Biden voted to do the same).   It is super easy to support force when there is zero chance you ever bleed from the decision.

   Trump people are as much populist as anything, so I can certainly see where they would not line up with neocon point of views.

I am one of the people still running a manufacturing business here in the U.S. and I can say with 100% certainty Trumps trade war harmed my business directly and forced me to downsize my business and hire fewer U.S. employees. If the intended effect was to protect our factories and U.S. workers, it had the opposite effect on my business. I can back that up with as many specifics and numbers as you'd like, though it's pretty boring.

And I am not asking Trump supporters to line up with Neocon views. I am saying Neocon views WERE conservative views in the 90s and those views you called "populist" were the blue collar Democratic views in the 90s. It ain't me who flipped their political views. Calling me a "SJW liberal" because I still support the same views as every modern nominee to the Presidency from the Republican party prior to Trump is bullshit. As you say, it's Trump who changed to a populist platform. HE was the change to what "conservative" means, not me. How am I being called a traitor to conservatism when Trump adopted Democratic views and called it "conservatism"?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2021, 02:58:29 PM by Mistwell »

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #86 on: August 31, 2021, 04:56:54 PM »
  I do not see all that much that looks "far right" either.  I do see some political bickering where people who disagree about something end up being the enemy camp, but I also see some trolling and fishing about for an argument or two, so I am not sure it is a case of moderate looking far away from far right, or someone just calling who ever they disagree with the person they disagree with the most.   I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?   I remember LOTS of centrist bipartisan stances from around the 90's that are called far right all the time now.  So it gets pretty hard to keep up.
Most of the people on the board seem to be strongly leftist on social issues. At least by 90s standards.

A lot of the differences seem pretty artificial. It's tribalism, rather than substantive differences. That's why two branches of a neoliberal/neocon monoparty, who agreed on 99.99% of all things, and only disagreed on a few social hot-button issues, managed to become more and more polarized.

Of course that's complicated by another factor, the rise of real extremism in one of the factions, and its tacit and even active acceptance by the bulk of the leadership.

We're in a world where the differences used to be mostly token, but a good chunk of the world seems to have gone crazy, and a new alignment hasn't emerged. That's why it's all so confusing, because it's fluctuating wildly and nobody knows what will stick.

I support a lot of neocon views. That was very firmly considered conservative in the 90s, and these days it gets me called a traitor to the Republican party to view the world like Dole, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney...all of whom I voted for and who won Republican primaries for the Presidency. I also voted for John Kasich in 2016 for the Republican party, who also was considered firmly conservative in the 90s.

It's not me who moved their views here. Trump supporters calling for protectionism and trade wars and taxes on businesses that import goods, who are against a strong military and the use of force to check terrorism and communism in the world, and who are against immigration which supports businesses and labor, that's all new to the Republican party. Those are all positions supported by unions in the 90s and prior to that. Those in fact are all views supported by Joe Biden and John Edwards and the Kennedys and such in the 90s and prior.

   Well I can say I understand 100 percent how people would decide exporting our jobs (and subsidizing the nations taking them with government money) and shutting down factories might want a bit of "protectionism".  I guess we can just tell them all #learntocode and #gotolawschool.  Not to mention how weak it makes a nation to have no infrastructure capable of large scale manufacturing.   I have a feeling if you were also one of the people actually having to carry out the force against all that terrorism and communism you might shift opinion on how much of that is really needed, since neocons just want to nation build and make their pals some money (and Biden voted to do the same).   It is super easy to support force when there is zero chance you ever bleed from the decision.

   Trump people are as much populist as anything, so I can certainly see where they would not line up with neocon point of views.

I am one of the people still running a manufacturing business here in the U.S. and I can say with 100% certainty Trumps trade war harmed my business directly and forced me to downsize my business and hire fewer U.S. employees. If the intended effect was to protect our factories and U.S. workers, it had the opposite effect on my business. I can back that up with as many specifics and numbers as you'd like, though it's pretty boring.

And I am not asking Trump supporters to line up with Neocon views. I am saying Neocon views WERE conservative views in the 90s and those views you called "populist" were the blue collar Democratic views in the 90s. It ain't me who flipped their political views. Calling me a "SJW liberal" because I still support the same views as every modern nominee to the Presidency from the Republican party prior to Trump is bullshit. As you say, it's Trump who changed to a populist platform. HE was the change to what "conservative" means, not me. How am I being called a traitor to conservatism when Trump adopted Democratic views and called it "conservatism"?

  Also, I dont remember calling trump conservative...I also didnt call you anything.   As for running your manufacturing business, that is a position caused by the nation being sold off to china in many ways by those neocons, most manufacturing had long since left, sounds like you made it through it ok after firing a few people.  Best to fire end of day on Friday to prevent outbursts.

   What do you manufacture?

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #87 on: August 31, 2021, 05:03:38 PM »
Thank goodness that SHARK doesn't actually speak for the people, because his all-or-nothing, pick-your-team (and the other team is The Enemy) beliefs are the kind of fanaticism that all reasonable people should oppose (and pity).

Fortunately no need to worry about any reasonable people ever finding out.
There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 4237
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #88 on: August 31, 2021, 05:12:34 PM »
Thank goodness that SHARK doesn't actually speak for the people, because his all-or-nothing, pick-your-team (and the other team is The Enemy) beliefs are the kind of fanaticism that all reasonable people should oppose (and pity).

Fortunately no need to worry about any reasonable people ever finding out.
Not around here.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4063
Re: Any Californians here?
« Reply #89 on: August 31, 2021, 05:46:37 PM »
  I do not see all that much that looks "far right" either.  I do see some political bickering where people who disagree about something end up being the enemy camp, but I also see some trolling and fishing about for an argument or two, so I am not sure it is a case of moderate looking far away from far right, or someone just calling who ever they disagree with the person they disagree with the most.   I guess I should ask, what is a far right stance?   I remember LOTS of centrist bipartisan stances from around the 90's that are called far right all the time now.  So it gets pretty hard to keep up.
Most of the people on the board seem to be strongly leftist on social issues. At least by 90s standards.

A lot of the differences seem pretty artificial. It's tribalism, rather than substantive differences. That's why two branches of a neoliberal/neocon monoparty, who agreed on 99.99% of all things, and only disagreed on a few social hot-button issues, managed to become more and more polarized.

Of course that's complicated by another factor, the rise of real extremism in one of the factions, and its tacit and even active acceptance by the bulk of the leadership.

We're in a world where the differences used to be mostly token, but a good chunk of the world seems to have gone crazy, and a new alignment hasn't emerged. That's why it's all so confusing, because it's fluctuating wildly and nobody knows what will stick.

I support a lot of neocon views. That was very firmly considered conservative in the 90s, and these days it gets me called a traitor to the Republican party to view the world like Dole, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney...all of whom I voted for and who won Republican primaries for the Presidency. I also voted for John Kasich in 2016 for the Republican party, who also was considered firmly conservative in the 90s.

It's not me who moved their views here. Trump supporters calling for protectionism and trade wars and taxes on businesses that import goods, who are against a strong military and the use of force to check terrorism and communism in the world, and who are against immigration which supports businesses and labor, that's all new to the Republican party. Those are all positions supported by unions in the 90s and prior to that. Those in fact are all views supported by Joe Biden and John Edwards and the Kennedys and such in the 90s and prior.

   Well I can say I understand 100 percent how people would decide exporting our jobs (and subsidizing the nations taking them with government money) and shutting down factories might want a bit of "protectionism".  I guess we can just tell them all #learntocode and #gotolawschool.  Not to mention how weak it makes a nation to have no infrastructure capable of large scale manufacturing.   I have a feeling if you were also one of the people actually having to carry out the force against all that terrorism and communism you might shift opinion on how much of that is really needed, since neocons just want to nation build and make their pals some money (and Biden voted to do the same).   It is super easy to support force when there is zero chance you ever bleed from the decision.

   Trump people are as much populist as anything, so I can certainly see where they would not line up with neocon point of views.

I am one of the people still running a manufacturing business here in the U.S. and I can say with 100% certainty Trumps trade war harmed my business directly and forced me to downsize my business and hire fewer U.S. employees. If the intended effect was to protect our factories and U.S. workers, it had the opposite effect on my business. I can back that up with as many specifics and numbers as you'd like, though it's pretty boring.

And I am not asking Trump supporters to line up with Neocon views. I am saying Neocon views WERE conservative views in the 90s and those views you called "populist" were the blue collar Democratic views in the 90s. It ain't me who flipped their political views. Calling me a "SJW liberal" because I still support the same views as every modern nominee to the Presidency from the Republican party prior to Trump is bullshit. As you say, it's Trump who changed to a populist platform. HE was the change to what "conservative" means, not me. How am I being called a traitor to conservatism when Trump adopted Democratic views and called it "conservatism"?

  Also, I dont remember calling trump conservative...I also didnt call you anything.   As for running your manufacturing business, that is a position caused by the nation being sold off to china in many ways by those neocons, most manufacturing had long since left, sounds like you made it through it ok after firing a few people.  Best to fire end of day on Friday to prevent outbursts.

   What do you manufacture?

Mostly graduation caps and gowns. We import the inexpensive stuff which is used one time, and manufacture the custom stuff used by people who get advanced degrees (and judges robes and some similar higher end stuff). We basically have a balanced company which sells about 50% imported inexpensive goods and 50% American-made more expensive custom goods. Taxing our company for importing hurt us - and it's not like we can make those things here because all our competitors also import and price their goods accordingly. American workers don't want to make crappy cheap simple gowns day after day on an assembly line so it's not like China "stole" that manufacturing but rather our own labor pool is more skilled than that and isn't interested in those jobs. At best if we wanted to make them here we'd use robotics and not people. Anyone with sewing skills is qualified to make more advanced things than that.

If Trump wanted to benefit manufacturing, what he should have done is offer zero interest equipment loans secured by the equipment for robotics purchased from American companies who make those robotics in the U.S.. He didn't do that - all he did was tax small businesses and act like that would magically solve the issues. Which of course it didn't.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2021, 05:49:02 PM by Mistwell »