The Conservative Agenda?
- Thread starter arbygil
- Start date
Ok. Go to any search engine and type in Reagan, most effective president of the 20th century.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...n-the-greatest-president-of-the-20th-century/
this just states that he was a 'visionary', that he had character, and that he was 'teachable'. it doesnt mention starving the beast at all.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/
This came up on the first page of google when typing in Reagan
This came up on the first page of google when typing in Reagan
Ok. Go to any search engine and typr in Reagan, most effective president of the 20th century.
It doesn't mention starving the beast for a reason. You asked for a start where to look, its a start. The information is there, you just have to be concerned with finding it.
why would i google "ronald reagan, most effective president of the 20th century"? thats asking for biased opinions. im not interested in spin, im interested in proven numbers and facts. if you can google "ronald reagan, starving the beast" and come up with a factual counter-argument to my claim, i will withdraw what i wrote completely.
Because you clearly already were looking at the opposite area of spin. You are clearly interested in spin so long as it supports your own current feelings. And honestly this is one reason I have no desire to give you a bunch of facts or data. Youll brush them aside because they dont play into your already formed opinion.
first off, im not a liberal or a conservative. i just happen to know that reagan had a strategy for cutting down the government budget until people no longer depended on it, or wanted it in their lives. actually, i think its genius in its own way. he executed an idea so well that it never went away. he convinced people that government is the root of all evil, because thats what he turned it into.
also, i dont believe in hearing two sides to everything. the whole premise that you have to listen to two pundits before you can make up your mind is so ridiculous. read things and make up your own mind. dont google "why reagan was an evil man" or "reagan was the best president ever, heres why". read up on what he actually did, think about it for a second, and see what opinion your stomach comes up with on its own.
As long aw this is the way you pursue information, its all anyone can ask for.
Hmm...I'd hoped this would be a more of a discourse on the conservatism agenda, but I think it's devolving. I'm not on one camp or the other - I actually was a conservative for a while (I'm not now) - but I think there's a middle ground here, that we're all missing. Somewhere, there's some kind of agenda (not what the press or conspiracies have cooked up) for both sides. And when I mean agenda, I mean the focus of the group. The end goal.
However, I don't think group X can label group Y successfully; for example, I don't think we can have conservatives labeling liberals with an agenda, or liberals labeling conservatives with an agenda - we really can't without de-evolving the discourse. If those labels aren't labeled by our groups, then we can't come up with our own ideology for those groups. So...if we take all of the rhetoric off the table, and all of the assumptions from one party or another off the table, and get down to the basics - what is the US conservative agenda? What do conservatives really feel are the best directions for the US, and why? I disagree with some of their ideologies, but I swear...everything I see on TV is a shouting match these days, and I just want some calm, honest dialog, with unbiased truth. If that's possible. Instead of stabbing at why such-and-such is wrong. Has conservatism in the US gone off the rails? Or are there any basic truths we could all agree within it?
However, I don't think group X can label group Y successfully; for example, I don't think we can have conservatives labeling liberals with an agenda, or liberals labeling conservatives with an agenda - we really can't without de-evolving the discourse. If those labels aren't labeled by our groups, then we can't come up with our own ideology for those groups. So...if we take all of the rhetoric off the table, and all of the assumptions from one party or another off the table, and get down to the basics - what is the US conservative agenda? What do conservatives really feel are the best directions for the US, and why? I disagree with some of their ideologies, but I swear...everything I see on TV is a shouting match these days, and I just want some calm, honest dialog, with unbiased truth. If that's possible. Instead of stabbing at why such-and-such is wrong. Has conservatism in the US gone off the rails? Or are there any basic truths we could all agree within it?
I believe it has gone off the rails and I subscribe again only to the ideala of fiscal conservatism which has not changed since I have been born. At least not in a way that matters in the end. I think the RNC is on its last legs because it has not changed with the times. I seriously cannot comprehend how the DNC is still standing but I suppose people just want to believe a comforting lie rather than a harsh truth.
To be fair, I think both sides lie and the truth is somewhere in the middle. No one side has all the answers, and the US will never have a president - or Congress, for that matter - that will be "all things to all people." Personally, I don't think the current Republican Party is conservative, and doesn't seem moderate. I do see hints of nationalism with their current rhetoric and candidate choice, which concerns me. I think you're right in one sense, @Eventhorizon, that religion in the Republican party has created an uncomfortable situation. I've yet to see good come from nations fueled by religious extremism, no matter the side.
This is my concern - my honest concern: I don't think Donald Trump is a conservative in any sense. He seems to choose what he wants to say in any given situation, and he seems to choose to side with those who will make him most popular. He's definitely a Capitalist, but I don't agree with most of his policies. But would you consider him a Republican and/or a Conservative? If so, why and how? Are the two terms necessarily synonymous?
This is my concern - my honest concern: I don't think Donald Trump is a conservative in any sense. He seems to choose what he wants to say in any given situation, and he seems to choose to side with those who will make him most popular. He's definitely a Capitalist, but I don't agree with most of his policies. But would you consider him a Republican and/or a Conservative? If so, why and how? Are the two terms necessarily synonymous?
No of course the Republican Party is not synonymous with the Conservative ideology any more than the Democratic Party is synonymous with the Progressive ideology. When there are only viable choices, the tent is very big and both ideologies tend to get watered down or in some cases changed altogether,
Trump and Trumpism is not a coherent ideology per se. Its more based on feeling rather than ideas about how to improve the country. Such is the nature of populism. I would call Trumpism populism tinged with nationalism. The core idea is that the country has deteriorated under Obama and needs to made great again. Simple solutions to complex problems (there are too many immigrants, so lets build a wall to keep them out) are pitched. The main is to capitalize on anger and fear. These are the predominate feelings. Trump never really talks about policies very much at all, just the idea that America is losing losing losing and needs to win again. People support this because they are able to project their own ideas about what this actually means. Trump is channel for their anger but ultimately he is just reflecting their own anger back at them and if he were ever elected nothing would change, but he has no plan to change anything. His ridiculous proposals would come to nothing because they are totally unworkable and things would keep on going as they are.
Trump and Trumpism is not a coherent ideology per se. Its more based on feeling rather than ideas about how to improve the country. Such is the nature of populism. I would call Trumpism populism tinged with nationalism. The core idea is that the country has deteriorated under Obama and needs to made great again. Simple solutions to complex problems (there are too many immigrants, so lets build a wall to keep them out) are pitched. The main is to capitalize on anger and fear. These are the predominate feelings. Trump never really talks about policies very much at all, just the idea that America is losing losing losing and needs to win again. People support this because they are able to project their own ideas about what this actually means. Trump is channel for their anger but ultimately he is just reflecting their own anger back at them and if he were ever elected nothing would change, but he has no plan to change anything. His ridiculous proposals would come to nothing because they are totally unworkable and things would keep on going as they are.
I think this is an important point, @brightmoon, along with your other points. I think fear has been an overwhelming factor, for both sides, and fear has watered down - or outright obliterated - the truth. Note: I'm not being purposely dense, but I am trying to find a center. I honestly feel that the only way we'll come together as a nation is if we break down the ideologies of "this group hates this" and instead start saying, "what's good about X?" And I mean that for both sides. Truthfully, I think we all have to come to terms with what we've seen this past month (if a seasoned officer can't protect themselves with a gun, how in the world could average citizens? By the way, I'm talking about responsible gun ownership, not the abolishing of guns). There *has* to be a balance, and we all have to admit that we can't go to the far side of either group.
I used to believe in compassionate conservatism. I wanted to see a nation that wanted its citizens to have jobs before welfare - because welfare itself is hell. I wanted to see programs that created jobs, and cared about productivity, and slowly weaned folks off of relying on governmental care, as needed. I wanted to see neighbors caring about neighbors enough that they were willing to help them out when they saw them struggling. But people are inherently selfish, and so are businesses and business leaders. So are politicians. I don't think any positive outcome comes from hate, no matter the side. I can't afford to hate my fellow person, so I have to understand them. I will bite my tongue and listen, because I need the same respect in return.
I think, honestly, we have to find a way to live with the president we receive, come November, and we have to figure out how not to implode if it's not the candidate we want at the helm. So. What's good, conservatives? How will you make this country great, if we have Madame President? And if we have President Trump, what will you be doing to help balance the fallout?
Trump is not conservative, not in the real sense. Its funny too because the main reason Republicans hate him is because he not only cut in line, he blew it apart. It has nothing to do with his stance on anything. But it serves them right. For years they have not been listening to the people that support the RNC. The RNC actually allowed Jeb to run... The RNC has ignored the peoples call to correct the illegal alien problem.
Trump will be a horrible President. But he has my vote because it is a gut punch to the RNC and to keep Hillary out of tbe Whitehouse at all cost.
Hmmmm... after reading some of these replies has anyone given much thought to 'Four Years Of Freedom ??
Picture this:
what would happen if we ran the country for four years government free? Allowing each 'communitee' to design & run its own course.
Would it create anarchy? Desention? New platforms of reform? Innovation? Gratitude?
Picture this:
what would happen if we ran the country for four years government free? Allowing each 'communitee' to design & run its own course.
Would it create anarchy? Desention? New platforms of reform? Innovation? Gratitude?
Did the RNC "allow Bush to run" or did he just run because he wanted to run? Bush was rejected by the base of the party because they have succumbed to the fantasy that "white knight" can save them now, this person who stands outside politics, untainted by the corrupt and evil system, who will go in and clean things up, restore order and justice, based only on his knowledge of business and "success" as a billionaire. Sounds great but in the process everyone forgot the presidency is not an entry level position and Trump is all just smoke and mirrors anyway.
As far as the "illegal alien problem" this represents the conflict between the establishment and the base. The establishment likes illegal immigration because it keeps labor costs and profits high, and the base doesn't like it because many people on the low end of economy have seen their wages stagnate for the same reason. People in the base are starting to figure some things out, like their interests don't align with the 1%, lower taxes for the wealthy don't benefit them, entitlements for corporations and not individuals maybe isn't a wise way to spend tax dollars.