Election 2020 - Page 596 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15159851
I would be opposed to the existence of even the most ideal conservative movement, because the fundamental bedrock ideas of it are that capitalism should be promoted and that governmental intervention is not ideal. This doesn't even touch on the fact that we spend more than the next ten countries combined on our military, which is such a given in American governance that I don't even consider it to be a left/right proposition. Although I would consider it the one area of government a no-true-Scotsman platonic conservative would fund without question.

But we don't have an "ideal" conservative movement. We have what reactionary thought has always been: a loosely tied coalition of grievances between disparate groups who are unable to muster political will on their own. Reactionary and conservative thought will always be nothing more than a bunch of knee-jerking collection of personality disorders who are angry that 1) some peoples have more recognition and rights than they did before and 2) the idea that a better world is possible through collective action.

Modern American conservative "thought" does not exist without losers and villains. If you fail in capitalism you are a loser (nevermind that capitalism is inherently competitive, and therefore naturally produces losers). If you are an illegal immigrant who came here to take a job that was offered to you then you are a villain. These are predictable outcomes of our current system and necessary for the current functioning of our country. It would somehow be more monstrous if American conservative thought was able to acknowledge this; instead they play Fortress America and pretend that the poor and the illegals are what are making American capitalism not function at 100% capacity, when it actually it is functioning as intended.

Also @verv maybe listen to the people who are saying that rubbing elbows with nazis because you love ideas isn't a good... idea. If you love ideas so much friend people who aren't nazis online. Like Jesus Christ you defended Nick Fuentes, why would you put yourself in such a weak ideological position?

Just to reiterate: All conservative and reactionary thought is stupid and invalid. If you are rightwing you are retarded. There are literally zero conservative philosophers alive right now, all you have are MLM style conmen. Conservativism is dead and has been replaced with middle men selling you virility pills, as was intended by the ideology the original thinkers espoused.
#15159855
Fundamentally, rightwing thought is incoherent and premised on being angry at vague boogeymen like the cancellation of Dr. Seuss books nobody has ever read. It requires a bunch of jangling, shiny keys on failing culture war fronts to keep people distracted from the fact that 1) they are fundamentally losing the culture war and 2) the political option they have to support this losing culture war is an austere and libertarian economic policy that benefits almost nobody except the ultra wealthy.

Conservatives are retarded. Every single one. Even if you're Verv, nobody is stopping you from living your failed guilt-ridden lifestyle of Christian asceticism to atone for the vague guilt you feel for having had fun at any point in your life. But if you vote for the loudest and angriest person you can find who hates the people who don't have your weird hangups then you can feel good about yourself, because you are punishing the right people who don't feel bad about doing the same things you do/did.

Modern conservatism:



All of modern conservatism is about working the referee, and not about advancing ideas. This is why when you point out to people, like Verv, that their ideas target specific races (in regards to immigration) and don't actually address any of the problems they profess to care about that they respond with deflections like "Are you calling me a nazi?!" and "I'm not saying I'm not a nazi, but you're calling me one, and that reflects poorly on you."
By B0ycey
#15160095
Random American wrote:Did anyone here on this forum actually believe that there would be a coup March 4th with the "great" President Trump coming back?


I wish. That would have made some awesome comedy. Even @annatar1914 didn't claim that one. :lol:
User avatar
By Drlee
#15160098
Today the overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court denied Trump's last election appeal without comment.

One can logically assume that if there was a scintilla of evidence of fraud or irregularities of any kind the court would have, at least, taken it up. There was not and so Trump's profoundly stupid followers, still clinging to idiotic notions of unconstitutional procedural irregularities, are all in.

Of course there are a great many of them who are simply not intelligent enough to understand nor intelligent enough to understand the game that is being run on them, who will blather on. Never underestimate the danger of stupid people in large numbers.
User avatar
By Beren
#15160168
Drlee wrote:Today the overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court denied Trump's last election appeal without comment.

The SC is overwhelmingly establishment as well, or rather they're not Trumpers at all at least, no matter if who appointed them. I guess there wasn't any judge with the same views as Trump he could have appointed to the Supreme Court with the slightest chance of being approved by the Senate. I wonder if how many Trumpers are among district court judges to start with. I wouldn't think students experience the MAGA spirit at US law schools. :lol:
User avatar
By XogGyux
#15160174
Beren wrote:The SC is overwhelmingly establishment as well, or rather they're not Trumpers at all at least, no matter if who appointed them. I guess there wasn't any judge with the same views as Trump he could have appointed to the Supreme Court with the slightest chance of being approved by the Senate. I wonder if how many Trumpers are among district court judges to start with. I wouldn't think students experience the MAGA spirit at US law schools. :lol:

There is a simple explanation for all of that. Most people that make it high in the goverment are not morons (a few are) and realize that Trump is a fking moron, with no morals, no ideals, no loyalty. They all know and understand that he is a dreadful president and a pitiful human being. They overcome the repugnant thought of supporting him by balancing their own interests above anything else. Openling oposing Trump is a deal breaker for half the country, so they pretend they like him for that. They want to maintain the cushy jobs, they make ~300k/year base, to that add all the perks of the job, the conections, the ability to "insider trade :D " it is a fucking cool job to have.
We see a trend, those in the house, that have shorter time between elections (2 years) tend to be better supporters than those in the senate. Those in the supreme court no longer give a fuck about elections and at that point they are concerned more about their long-lasting image.
Do you think Ted cruz and Lindsay like to appear weak ass kissers? No... if they had a chance they would throw trump under the bus, but for them, if they do that they are pretty much out of job. So now their job is to slowly and gently use their tongue to does impact the crap out of the cheese induced constipation in Trump's rear.
By annatar1914
#15160221
B0ycey wrote:I wish. That would have made some awesome comedy. Even @annatar1914 didn't claim that one. :lol:


''even''? :roll:

The whole thing, the insurrection fears and date setting, is a guilt laden fit of feverish hysteria from ninny BlueAnons, brought on by the original sin that the 2020 election became, was destined to become.

It shows the gigantic divide between the lunatic liberal bourgeoisie, increasingly infested with degeneracy and mad illusory post-human concerns, and the great masses of normal laboring human beings who have to deal with actual reality every day head on.
User avatar
By Verv
#15160222
Beren wrote:The SC is overwhelmingly establishment as well, or rather they're not Trumpers at all at least, no matter if who appointed them. I guess there wasn't any judge with the same views as Trump he could have appointed to the Supreme Court with the slightest chance of being approved by the Senate. I wonder if how many Trumpers are among district court judges to start with. I wouldn't think students experience the MAGA spirit at US law schools. :lol:


This is an interesting statement.

Of course, the 40-50-year old candidates for SCOTUS graduated law school & started their career paths long before 2016 and Trumpism.

Presumably, there is some minority of legal scholars who dissent from more conventional conservative thought (like Adrian Vermeule) that are young students that are coming up. But my guess is that, still, the bulk of law students today are more conventional conservative 'Ted Cruz' conservatives.

But it seems likely that there is loads of institutional inertia and no footholds for conventional GOP judges.

After all, the Neocons were in the business of purging Paleoconservative/'America First' elements from their support base in the 1970s. There's books about this. There's already a litmus test in place. My guess that the system has already self-selected against non-Neocons for a while now. They're starting from scratch.

It would not make sense for someone who is truly a robust MAGA-head to necessarily pursue a career in the judiciary because not even Trump was able to get the judicial stamp on things while President. What chance do unconventional conservatives stand? So, I think you're right: there probably aren't many young legal minds that are Trumpists.

This can be celebrated, but it is really just something that will increase the amount of regime cleavage we will see.
#15160720
Verv wrote:Of course, the 40-50-year old candidates for SCOTUS graduated law school & started their career paths long before 2016 and Trumpism.


Clarence Thomas was the first SCOTUS judge to get appointed to the SCOTUS without the approval of the American Bar Association (since its creation in the modern era). He had no experience as a judge and Bush Sr. literally picked him because he was a black man replacing Thurgood Marshall, a thoughtful liberal judge with experience because all black people are interchangeable for Republicans, with the only significant factor being how they conform to party thought.

So just lol @ your care about experience.

Biden is partially, if not mostly, to blame for having a completely incompetent and inexperienced Thomas on the SCOTUS. He allowed the nomination hearings to devolve into a witch hunt against Anita Hill, a woman Clarence Thomas sexually harassed in the most incredibly creepy and awkward ways. Biden allowed the less organized and militant 80's GOP to steamroll him into making Thomas' hearing about a woman defending herself against his harassment and I don't expect better from him now. Biden was in charge of the Thomas hearing in the Senate btw, so I don't know why any GOP supporter would be afraid that Biden is going to interfere with their agenda.

Likewise, Kavanaugh had credible accusations of rape and a history of ~mysteriously~ only hiring young female interns while also having a magically alleviated six figure "baseball ticket" debt that was cleared before his own hearing. This totally wasn't gambling debt, btw, and the GOP put forth a man who cried on the national stage while asking sitting Senators if they like beer. Because if you like beer, then you would understand why a man would cry because he remembered the time he looked at dad's beautiful, beautiful calendars.

I can't imagine how stupid you could possibly be to think that the purpose of nominating a GOP judge to the SCOTUS is experience and not party loyalty.

Verv wrote:After all, the Neocons were in the business of purging Paleoconservative/'America First' elements from their support base in the 1970s. There's books about this.



Which books?

Have you read them, or are you just assuming they exist and support you?
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15160732
SpecialOlympian wrote:Clarence Thomas was the first SCOTUS judge to get appointed to the SCOTUS without the approval of the American Bar Association (since its creation in the modern era). He had no experience as a judge and Bush Sr. literally picked him because he was a black man replacing Thurgood Marshall, a thoughtful liberal judge with experience because all black people are interchangeable for Republicans, with the only significant factor being how they conform to party thought.

So just lol @ your care about experience.

Biden is partially, if not mostly, to blame for having a completely incompetent and inexperienced Thomas on the SCOTUS. He allowed the nomination hearings to devolve into a witch hunt against Anita Hill, a woman Clarence Thomas sexually harassed in the most incredibly creepy and awkward ways. Biden allowed the less organized and militant 80's GOP to steamroll him into making Thomas' hearing about a woman defending herself against his harassment and I don't expect better from him now. Biden was in charge of the Thomas hearing in the Senate btw, so I don't know why any GOP supporter would be afraid that Biden is going to interfere with their agenda.

Likewise, Kavanaugh had credible accusations of rape and a history of ~mysteriously~ only hiring young female interns while also having a magically alleviated six figure "baseball ticket" debt that was cleared before his own hearing. This totally wasn't gambling debt, btw, and the GOP put forth a man who cried on the national stage while asking sitting Senators if they like beer. Because if you like beer, then you would understand why a man would cry because he remembered the time he looked at dad's beautiful, beautiful calendars.

I can't imagine how stupid you could possibly be to think that the purpose of nominating a GOP judge to the SCOTUS is experience and not party loyalty.




Which books?

Have you read them, or are you just assuming they exist and support you?


SO, moral assassinations are as old as history itself. The problem is that they don't tell much about the competence or absence of competence in a candidate. You can blame the Romans for this tactic by the way, the basic idea of which is that if there is nothing to criticize policy wise then you go for character assassination.
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15160955
JohnRawls wrote:SO, moral assassinations are as old as history itself. The problem is that they don't tell much about the competence or absence of competence in a candidate. You can blame the Romans for this tactic by the way, the basic idea of which is that if there is nothing to criticize policy wise then you go for character assassination.


Thomas was explicitly rejected by the American Bar Association and the argument put forth for Kavanaugh was that he couldn't be criminally convicted of attempted rape, which in itself ended up being a rehashing of the Anita Hill trial. Nobody ever advocated that Kavanaugh was a particularly competent judge or sound legal mind. Kavanaugh himself never cited his own judicial experience while he was sobbing and shouting about how much he loved beer and how his father's beautiful, beautiful calendars inspired him to record his own boofing schedule.

The closest argument made for competence was for Gorsuch, whose guaranteed admittance to the SCOTUS basically flew him in under the radar as such a strict "Originalist", or someone who claims to divine the will of the great founding fathers, that he could be described as being on the patriotic spectrum. One so strict that he helped render the decision that indigenous peoples of Oklahoma are now under the jurisdiction of tribal courts in roughly half the state, and definitely not the kind of ruling anyone who supported him expected him to actually make since it ended up benefiting non-white peoples.

Neither character or expertise is an issue when it comes to advancing GOP candidates for any position. You only need to look at Donald Trump to know this is true. Expertise and moral consistency are hindrances to ideological purity, which is constantly shifting because there is no actual foundation to that ideology.

This is just a symptom of how modern conservatives reject expertise and knowledge as a whole. Expertise and knowledge are only useful when you have a concrete objective that you are working toward. Modern conservative thought can be reduced to "Own da libz," which is inherently reactionary and has no clear end goal because the libs must be continuously owned in new ways to satisfy the base. No planning or ideological consistency is necessary when your raison d'etre is to continually own the liberal boogeyman, who is simultaneously weak and an existential threat to your existence.

There is no modern conservative intellectual thought. There are op-ed writers who like to pretend they are conservative intellectuals, but nobody listens to them and they all write for NYT.
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 13 Mar 2021 12:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15160960
The closest argument made was for Gorsuch, whose guaranteed admittance to the SCOTUS basically flew him in under the radar as such a strict "Originalist", or someone who claims to divine the will of the great founding fathers, that he could be described as being on the patriotic spectrum. One so strict that he helped render the decision that indigenous peoples of Oklahoma are now under the jurisdiction of tribal courts in roughly half the state, and definitely not the kind of ruling anyone who supported him expected him to actually make.

Gorsuch is a logically and morally consistent Originalist, which makes him freakishly unusual. Bertolt Brecht once pointed out that, in order to be consistent in practice, the bourgeoisie must often be inconsistent in theory. In other words, to obtain the practical results which (for reasons of material gain) they desire, they are perfectly happy to say or do logically inconsistent things. Practice will almost always trump theory, because money. Lol. Gorsuch, on the other hand, seems to actually be sincere about his Originalist beliefs. If the Founding Fathers wanted half of Oklahoma to become an Indian reservation, then so it must be, regardless of any material or financial losses suffered by white people. The people who put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court must be frothing at the mouth by now.... :lol:
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15160962
To be clear, Oklahoma didn't become 50% reservation. It only applies to indigineous peoples and basically expanded the areas in which they would fall under native court jurisdiction for state level crimes. They're still subject to federal prosecution no matter where they happen to be in Oklahoma.

Like my understanding is that if you're drunk driving as non-native through a reservation and get pulled over you'd just deal with regular state court.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15160975
SpecialOlympian wrote:To be clear, Oklahoma didn't become 50% reservation. It only applies to indigineous peoples and basically expanded the areas in which they would fall under native court jurisdiction for state level crimes. They're still subject to federal prosecution no matter where they happen to be in Oklahoma.

Like my understanding is that if you're drunk driving as non-native through a reservation and get pulled over you'd just deal with regular state court.

Understood, but this is a major legal decision which went against the interests of the kind of people who put Gorsuch in his position. It's also a tribute to Gorsuch's integrity. Or autism. Whichever. Lol.
By wat0n
#15160992
Potemkin wrote:Gorsuch is a logically and morally consistent Originalist, which makes him freakishly unusual. Bertolt Brecht once pointed out that, in order to be consistent in practice, the bourgeoisie must often be inconsistent in theory. In other words, to obtain the practical results which (for reasons of material gain) they desire, they are perfectly happy to say or do logically inconsistent things. Practice will almost always trump theory, because money. Lol. Gorsuch, on the other hand, seems to actually be sincere about his Originalist beliefs. If the Founding Fathers wanted half of Oklahoma to become an Indian reservation, then so it must be, regardless of any material or financial losses suffered by white people. The people who put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court must be frothing at the mouth by now.... :lol:


Doesn't Brecht's maxim apply to basically everyone?
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15160994
wat0n wrote:Doesn't Brecht's maxim apply to basically everyone?

Indeed, but his point is that almost everyone pretends otherwise. The ruling class, in fact, pretend to be completely logical and scrupulous in everything they do, when in fact they clearly aren't. From the Age of Enlightenment onwards, the ruling elite have claimed to be inspired by pure Reason; the American Declaration of Independence even talks about "these truths" being "self evident". Self-evident in what way? Self evident to human reason. Yet it is all just a false front, a pretention to reason.
By wat0n
#15160998
Potemkin wrote:Indeed, but his point is that almost everyone pretends otherwise. The ruling class, in fact, pretend to be completely logical and scrupulous in everything they do, when in fact they clearly aren't. From the Age of Enlightenment onwards, the ruling elite have claimed to be inspired by pure Reason; the American Declaration of Independence even talks about "these truths" being "self evident". Self-evident in what way? Self evident to human reason. Yet it is all just a false front, a pretention to reason.


No disagreement there, and the alternatives to the current ruling class also do the same. That makes Gorsuch even more interesting, I guess.

Although on the other hand, you could claim the stakes weren't all that high (and pretty much non existent for the Federal Government) and hence that his opinion was more self-serving than it would seem, as you actually want to be regarded as being consistent and even more so when you are a SCOTUS judge.
User avatar
By Verv
#15161164
SpecialOlympian wrote:Clarence Thomas was the first SCOTUS judge to get appointed to the SCOTUS without the approval of the American Bar Association (since its creation in the modern era). He had no experience as a judge and Bush Sr. literally picked him because he was a black man replacing Thurgood Marshall, a thoughtful liberal judge with experience because all black people are interchangeable for Republicans, with the only significant factor being how they conform to party thought.

So just lol @ your care about experience.


You thought I was signaling about how much I care about conservatism? I think you were just eager to talk about Clarence Thomas.

I was pointing out that the populist conservative movement (if that is what we can refer to Trumpism as) is very young, and there'd be nobody in the 1990s that was in the midst of law school anticipating this.

If there are any young people seeking legal careers that are Trumpists, this would all be happening now.


Which books?

Have you read them, or are you just assuming they exist and support you?


Paul Gottfried's The Great Purge deals precisely with this topic.

I believe there's many books out there that deal with this in addition to it, whether directly or indirectly.

My knowledge about it comes from old articles that have referenced the phenomena as I have not read this book but would definitely like to.
  • 1
  • 594
  • 595
  • 596
  • 597
  • 598
  • 599

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]