Cenk Uygur is sitting around 5.8% with over 60% reporting in CA 25

LOL, union-busting prick

Reports that Warren and Sanders aides are talking to help find an off ramp and to unite the progressive front in the primary. I am going to be sad to see Senator Warren go.

slugsrbad wrote:Reports that Warren and Sanders aides are talking to help find an off ramp and to unite the progressive front in the primary. I am going to be sad to see Senator Warren go.

Too little, too late thankfully.

Would prefer if that she help enlighten Biden. Hell, I'd like her as his VP.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:so many people who were so wrong in 2016 insist that they have the pulse on the American electorate

jerseyhoya, tomatopie, and werthless got everything they wanted policy-wise over the last 20 years and then were surprised to find that out that their party was fueled by racism, sexism, and xenophobia and their country defined by inequality, but now we take their advice as the way forward

There is no reason to troll and shit in a thread that people actually spend time contributing in. Besides, your post is actually 4 years too late.

"The Obama administration made a decision on testing that turned out to be very detrimental to what we're doing," Trump said Wednesday during on a meeting addressing the coronavirus outbreak. "And we undid that decision a few days ago so that the testing can take place in a much more rapid and accurate fashion."

Fucking liar

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:so many people who were so wrong in 2016 insist that they have the pulse on the American electorate

jerseyhoya, tomatopie, and werthless got everything they wanted policy-wise over the last 20 years and then were surprised to find that out that their party was fueled by racism, sexism, and xenophobia and their country defined by inequality, but now we take their advice as the way forward

There is no reason to troll and shit in a thread that people actually spend time contributing in. Besides, your post is actually 4 years too late.

Kelly Anne Conway was on Fox news today saying Biden is HRC 2.0. So

^
reply #666

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:so many people who were so wrong in 2016 insist that they have the pulse on the American electorate

jerseyhoya, tomatopie, and werthless got everything they wanted policy-wise over the last 20 years and then were surprised to find that out that their party was fueled by racism, sexism, and xenophobia and their country defined by inequality, but now we take their advice as the way forward

There is no reason to troll and shit in a thread that people actually spend time contributing in. Besides, your post is actually 4 years too late.

Kelly Anne Conway was on Fox news today saying Biden is HRC 2.0. So

That’s the strategy that’s coming. Make Hilary a talking point.

Why I Still Consider Myself a Conservative/Libertarian. (I declined to use PtK font, but this is long. My apologies for the journal entry.)

I have put a lot of thought into how I identify myself, given my current disagreement with the GOP on nearly every substantive issue today. It’s quite incredible, when I look at the list of issues that I view as foundational to conservatism, that the current GOP seems to systematically take the opposite issue. Why would I not switch, and call myself a liberal? Afterall, I currently identify with the liberal position on nearly every issue. Well, I’ve decided to continue to call myself a conservative because I want to preserve the idea of conservative thought as more than simple nativism, even if it’s in my narrow community of friends and family. I want to be able to argue what conservatism can be, what it can aspire to be… what it has been in the past.

Let’s see, where is the GOP wrong today?

We used to be for free trade. Freedom of exchange makes everyone better off, right? Now we think we are somehow being the country exploited with cheap goods (when in actuality, the US has been a long-term beneficiary).

We used to support states rights, and the differentiation you can get between states. It’s easier to move from NY to PA than it is to move from the US to Canada, as it should be. Conservatives used to welcome a state’s willingness to be different. That’s fine if California wants to impose a bunch of taxes in a nanny state… better there, than in the federal government. Legal weed here, outlawed there… states can figure it out. Now, it seems that conservatives want the federal government to step in and answer every question. What are we doing here?!?

We used to support conservation of our land. Republican Teddy Roosevelt did more for the preservation of our environment than any other President. Richard Nixon started the EPA. Now it seems that conservatives don’t believe in science, let alone have conviction about the value of maintaining our country’s land as it is today.

Libertarians’ principled hesitation to all new taxes presents a unique opportunity, if we actually chose to use it, to open a conversation about the relative morality of different taxes. If taxes are all inherently problematic, and need to be justified, we can then talk about how not all tax revenue is equal. Moral arguments are the foundation of progressive taxation, that the first dollar of income is worse to tax than someone’s millionth dollar of income. But the complete lack of conservative introspection on this topic, and the amount of wealth in politics, means that conservative tax policy is communicated in amoral/selfish terms. “Your taxes will go down.” No one is willing to make the argument that the collection of income taxes is less moral than capital gains taxes, which is less moral than corporate taxes, which is less moral than estate taxes. GOP tax policy reflects none of that. Personally, I’d rather tax a dead man and encourage charity/discourage dynastic wealth, than someone’s wage income. Now, for some reason, that’s a conversation that no conservative wishes to engage on. We freaking defend carried interest and other rich person carveouts. C’mon.

We used to be for charter schools because we thought it would lead to better outcomes for kids, and I always felt it was a winning issue… everyone supports equal opportunity for children! Now that there is evidence that charter schools have mixed or negative results, the GOP appoints a charter school heiress to run the Education dept into the ground.

We used to be for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. Now we disparage peaceful protests (why don’t they get jobs?), frame immigration policy around the religion of the emigrants’ country, and sue journalists in attempts to silence opposition.

We used to support small government. Now, conservatives love their big militaries. We used to want the government to butt out of our business. Now we want the US government to ensure that marriage is defined between folks consistent with my religious beliefs.

The last issue I'm going to mention, and this is such a wedge issue I almost didn’t mention it, is how can a pro-life party take so many stances on issues that are so inhumane? How can someone call themselves pro-life and support the death penalty, when even 1 person has been erroneously executed? (You would think even a dollars and cents fiscal conservative would recognize that it’s much more expensive for the state to pursue the death penalty). How can a pro-life person take such anti-immigrant stances? The unborn baby has the same citizenship status of the 5 year old el Salvadorian boy sitting in a cage. How can a pro-life person be against sex education, and access to reproductive healthcare services that lower the incidence of abortions? On what moral principle can we block Medicaid expansions for a state you’re representing? The voting record of self-professed pro-life politicians do not seem very pro-life.

I consider myself an evidence-based person. I use data at my job to make decisions, make recommendations where others are making the decision, and actively seek out data that challenges my assumptions. In politics, this doesn’t seem popular among conservatives. At all. Charter schools, gun control, student loan policy, private health insurance networks… these are all areas where conservatives had some good ideas in principle, but they are falling short. How can conservatives profess to be in support of the status quo with respect to healthcare? Why wouldn’t we consider a plan for insuring 20 million additional people, saving 68k lives per year, and costing less money per year for healthcare spend? Do we think the continued escalation of college tuition costs is not severely damaging to class mobility and the achievement of the American dream? Do we want to bury our head in the sand on school shootings? We are the only 1st world country where our kids go through active-shooter drills.

So yes, this country has a lot of problems, and I hate the GOP position (dare I say, consensus) on so many of these issues. But I see the possibilities, and I continue to see the American Dream through a libertarian lens. A government that works, and works for all Americans, should be a universal goal. Healthcare policy that leads to better medical outcomes, at lower societal costs, should be universal goals. Tax policy can be moral. Support of the 1st amendment shouldn't be a political tool or argument.

Lastly, if anyone is still reading, perhaps I’m such an idealist that you can call me delusional. I can understand that criticism. And across both aisles, I’m disappointed in many current politicians. And here is where I think I understand brantt. We have so many politicians who seem like actors reading from a script, following the latest poll, and so few politicians who lead based on principle. We can sense when a politician is a fake, and when they are authentic. I hate fake people. It’s why I disliked Mayor Pete, and liked Sanders. It's why I was open to Medicare 4 All, because I know that policy is something that genuine politicians care deeply about. It’s why Trump resonated with so many people who voted for Obama, even when these 2 politicians disagree on so many issues. Trump says whatever pops into his twisted head, so he feels authentic/real/genuine. He is not a normal politician, and the issues themselves almost don’t matter to many supporters. Across the aisle, Obama believed in his mission completely. Biden projects authenticity, and if he doesn’t have a health scare between now and November, he’ll probably win. I’m on the lookout for the next batch of politicians, and desperately hoping that there are people out there that believe in conservatism, and can relate to people out there in an authentic way. They must exist. There is not an easy home for people like me, and jerseyhoya would agree that the polling numbers for such a candidate would be terrible in any type of primary contest at any level of government. But I’m on the lookout for the next generation, and I hope they’re better than the Rubio/Ryan unprincipled slop I’ve seen in recent years.

I was/am a Bernie supporter, btw. I think if Sanders won, and we got Medicare for All passed, it would have been a net positive for the country. We already have a societal consensus that we don’t wish for hospitals to turn away patients because they can’t pay. And that’s the law, too. We need to go a step further and ensure that everyone has access to preventative care, and take out a bunch of the friction in the healthcare administration market (27% of private healthcare costs are administrative, versus less than 10% of public healthcare costs). My idealistic side thought that the election of Sanders would have had the secondary benefit of inspiring future conservative leaders to step into politics and connect with young voters, in the same way that passionate young Democrats swept into office in 2018 and are inspired to actually legislate changes. Because this is the biggest crisis for conservatism… too many people like me have been shamed into the shadows, or slinked over to the liberals, and the conservative movement is being dominated by nativist anti-intellectuals. I will continue to applaud conservative wins, as rare as they may be (thank you Romney), and try to keep the tent open to decent people. After all, do we really want the few GOP leaders with any principles to be pushed aside, primaried, or forced to retire? I want a future Republican party with more Jeff Flakes and Mitt Romneys than Mitch McConnells, and that means that we need to demand it.

Signed, Republican for Biden 2020

I skimmed this while not doing a great job falling asleep, looking forward to reading and responding (maybe IRL and not here). Not for the first time I can't quite get my head all the way around how you translate your objectives to practical preferences, but I'm sure you'd say the same about me. And have issues with the preferences and evidence presented and whatnot, as well.

Had dinner with our most conservative friend this evening, who is in a place where he's half rooting for Bernie because he thinks it'll help Trump get reelected, but he's genuinely undecided if it's a Trump Biden race. The world is weird.

Taliban peace deal going well.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics ... index.html

Good stuff Werthless. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope everyone takes the time to read it and that it limits some of the attacks we see here.

I'll hold my questions and other comments for fear of hijacking the thread if everyone joins in.

I'm in a similar spot in many ways as Werthless - and that was a superb post.

The non-sequitur there, for me, is how you go from "disgusted with the nativists who have unseated thoughtful conservatives in the GOP" to supporting Bernie.

No matter how much it is authentic and how much people like free stuff, M4A is antithetical to fundamental conservative principles. All of Bernie's core positions are about spending your money on his dreams, and grade school math proves it's impossible. He's genuine, sure, but a genuine dope and hostile to the Democratic party. He delivered Trump to us once and he's a threat to repeat.

My reaction to Trump and Trumpism is these priorities:

1) stop Trump
2) within the parameters of (1), find the least liberal version. Amy, Pete, and Joe all filled that requirement for me.

Essential, but much harder, is replacing scum like Ryan and McConnell with people like Amash. You can count principled conservatives on two hands, and 8 of them are pundits.

Werthless, I read and enjoyed your post.

My only qualm is that you frame yourself as someone with libertarian ideals yet many of the things you’re in support of are the complete opposite of what libertarians would want.

One thing that I’ve been thinking lately (and your post really drives this belief even further) is that ranked choice voting is something this country desperately needs. Rather than having two candidates where a voter maybe kind of agrees with one of them, we could have an array of candidates that better reflects the spectrum of viewpoints in the electorate.

Warren to suspend her campaign today.

TomatoPie wrote:M4A is antithetical to fundamental conservative principles.

They merit re-evaluation, then, as Werthless describes

threecount wrote:Warren to suspend her campaign today.

Sad. I wonder if she’ll endorse Bernie. There’s an interesting ideology vs demographics question on where her supporters will go. Also, lucky she seems rational and tough enough to ignore the contingent of Bernie Bro’s who blamed her for Super Tuesday.

I have to assume she will. She does not like Biden.