Domain: tiger-web1.srvr.media3.us User Profile: wackatimesthree | TigerDroppings.com
Favorite team:
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:11118
Registered on:10/10/2019
Online Status:
 Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

As MAGA I want targeted government intervention to prevent the average person from simply being a sheep to the wolves of the rich and powerful.


How is that not EXACTLY what I said populism was about?

The part that you left out is that you want to use government to " to prevent the average person from simply being a sheep to the wolves of the rich and powerful," AND SO DO THE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT.

The only difference—and it's a big one—is that they define the "rich and powerful" differently than you. According to them, YOU are the rich and powerful. If you're male and white, YOU are the wolf who needs to have government used against them.

That's why this:
quote:

you think you're being virtuous for fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

You're willing to let those with more access to the levers of power take advantage of you simply because of your "principles."

you're willing to let it wither to crony capitalism and corruption just so you can continue the illusion that your principles matter when others don't play by the same rules.




Is just silly bullshite.

In your world what you end up with is a situation which competing tribes who all hate each other and all think the other tribe is responsible for their supposed "ruin" (despite the fact that we live in the most comfortable society the world has ever seen) are constantly trying to use to force of government against each other. And you won't always win that war. In fact, you'll lose as often as you'll win.

In my world the government mostly leaves me and everybody else alone and I control most of the factors relative to my success in life, not the government, and not people I disagree with. In my world I retain the ability to resist government because the fundamental Constitutional protections for citizens against government remain intact. In your world they don't. They go away one by one.

So all of this, "You won't fight because you care about principes" reveals a low IQ that is incapable of examining history to see what the real threat is. The real threat is government. It always has been. Rich people—on their own, without government—have never rounded people up and put them in camps. They've never disarmed the populace. They've never publicly executed people for "sedition" when they were just speaking out against the government.

But government has done that a bunch.

So my stance is based on preserving the protections we have against the real threat, not giving it more and more power so that I can use it against my perceived enemies. Because it WILL turn around and bite you. You think you can be a snake charmer but eventually the cobra will turn on you. It always has and it always does.

You idiot populists can't fathom that, though. Your attention span is about three seconds long and immediate gratification is all you can muster.

You don't like crony capitalism? Me either. The way I would reduce it is to reduce the power that the government has to intervene in the situation so that government couldn't create that situation.

The way you would try to do it is to increase the power of the government and use it against the entities you deem Them.

Finally, the big factor that makes populism work is that it demands an unreasonable degree of discontent which it feeds with constant conspiracy theories and doomsday predictions. Despite the "crony capitalism," "disappearing of the middle class" sloganeering, we live in the most financially comfortable society that has ever existed. Our poor people live as well as middle class people did 100 years ago. Our middle class lives better than most rich people did 100 years ago. The average American has 30% more disposable income than the average European, and a similar greater percentage of living space. We have the least racism, the most redress for the government violating civil rights, the most egalitarian society in history, with the most freedoms. "Crony capitalism" didn't prevent any of that from happening, but you know what could have? Government.

All of that was achieved despite "crony capitalism" having existed for our entire history, from the framers of the Constitution right on up to what we have today. There's nothing different about the way the rich use government today vs ever except that the government is more powerful now than it ever has been in America.

In Europe they are arresting people for what they tweeted or said. Mind crimes. We'll end up the same way if conservatism doesn't make a comeback.

quote:

Many conservatives have fallen into the trap of idealism, but the world doesn't follow the rules they want.


Again, low IQ analysis. It's BECAUSE government doesn't follow the rules we would want that conservatives want to retain the protections against it. Populists for some reason think they can trust government. It's the conservatives who know that we can't.

quote:

Libertarianism is a cool theory and idea when applied to a moral, rational, and productive population on a smaller scale.

When you scale out with the levels of diversity and newcomer foreigners, and emotional single women… it is an absolute useless philosophy that will never work.

Do you really think Abdullah Ahmad who just showed up yesterday from Afghanistan, who can’t speak English, and has been given free housing, food stamps, healthcare, and education for his 7 children and 3 wives, could care at all about this country’s founding principles?

With mass diversity, you have to throw all these cool concepts out the window, and everything simply becomes a race to secure the most resources for your people or tribe.

I also will never understand why we should care whether we have “illegal” immigration or legal immigration. I don’t really care if it’s technically legal or illegal. We have way too much immigration of any kind, and it simply all needs to stop for at least 5 or 10 years.


This is the correct answer. All of it. Sovereign nations have the right to decide exactly who, when, and how many people get to enter the country at any given time.
quote:

Whatever you are I want no part of it


I'm a conservative, and I'm quite certain it is true that you want no part of that.

quote:

it’s clear you’re against Trump and his supporters.


That's what you can't grasp, Jughead, because you're a populist. I'm against Trump and his merry cult of populist supporters when they support policies that are not conservative, and I'm FOR Trump and his merry band of cult supporters when they do support conservative policies.

That's what I tried to explain to you. For a conservative the policy is what's important, not the personality. For a populist it's the other way around.

Like I said, for a populist there is only one guiding principle. Us vs Them. I can't really come up with a better example than you've already given with your post to illustrate that truth.

quote:

This is such a silly argument


Then goes on to validate everything I said in it.



:lol:
quote:

Are you being serious?


Are YOU being serious?

Do you read this board?

What do you think "fatigue" means?
quote:

One thing I know for sure is they are going to catch hell when he does go after them


We'll see.

If he hasn't done anything yet, he's not going to relative to this incident.

He may screw with Iran later, but if he was really going to step in and defend the protestors he would have done so by now.
quote:

The whole system is populism, the person who can get the most support and votes.


No.

Populism doesn't mean "popular."

Populism is a philosophy of Us vs Them. "Us" being whatever the populist group considers to be the disadvantaged, downtrodden, ordinary citizen with little or no power and "Them" being the "Elites" or the power brokers.

The left has been dominated by populism for decades. The right has only been dominated by populism for 10-15 years.

"Us" to the right = white people, men, middle class people, working class people, normies, families, and "Them" = some nebulous, shadowy secret cabal that goes by "Deep State," "Globalists," "Illuminati," and that supposedly runs the world, Joos, black people, rich people (except the ones who agree with them), academia, LGBTQ+ people, etc.

To the populist left, "Us" = Queers, LGBTQ+, illegal immigrants, women, poor people, black people, brown people, academia, and "Them" = men, middle class people, rich people (except the ones who agree with them), white people, normies, families, working class people, native born Americans, etc.

Policy matters very little to either side, unless it's policy that is seen as punitive towards "Us."

That's why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on tariffs, for example.

Conservatism is very different. It doesn't care who someone is. Conservatism welcomes anyone who supports policies that promote traditional values, smaller government, lower taxes and less spending, strong military, and maximum freedom and personal responsibility, and who supports the foundational principles that make that freedom and responsibility possible.

Populism is an inherently collectivist philosophy, which is why it always pulls to the left. It likes bigger government, as long as government is intervening to benefit "Us." It also has little regard for foundational principles (unless they happen to benefit "Us."). It doesn't mind if the first amendment is violated, for example, as long as it is in the context of suppressing speech it doesn't like.
quote:

Why would you assume this concern wouldn’t be expressed?


Maybe because it's such a minor difference it's not logical that it would persist in spite of addressing it.

quote:

That’s when the dissatisfaction really gets amplified.


In that case, it's not really about work at all. It's about resentment for not being listened to.
quote:

What oppressor premise? You have the oppressor premise, not me.


Nope.

You basically quoted Force Doctrine. That's a feminist doctrine.
quote:

But, in all seriousness...


I tried being serious about 8 times before I started mocking.

The problem is that that isn't the only problem with cub's narrative here. By a long shot.

Her claim is that abandoning marriage by young women is a sensible thing for them to do because "it takes too much work for women to be married."

But by her own numbers—the ones she typed out and gave—we're talking about less than a 5% difference between men and women. Pretty much a rounding error. Easily addressed. Throwing out marriage because of it would be like abandoning your car on the side of the road because a bird air-bombed the windshield. Totally irrational.

Then you have the people who pointed out that the difference is even smaller than that because (surprise) the data seems to be selectively collated for the purpose of skewing it against men.

Then you have the data that says that women are happier, healthier, live longer, and are wealthier than unmarried women. She says there is conflicting data on that but won't post any, which leads me to believe it either doesn't actually exists or it's more books that have been cooked to support feminist dogma.

It is extremely clear that one of two things is going on. Cubs is indoctrinated (just like I've been saying) and starts with the conclusion that marriage is too labor intensive for women and then refuses to let go of that even when it's been shown to be nonsense, because it's feminist doctrine and she is a true believer, or she really is SFP and he's trolling the entire board with this thread.

She acts incredulous when I affirm that I hold that as a possibility, but when she does stuff like this it becomes entirely plausible to me. I only see two possibilities and frankly, that one seems more likely at this point.
quote:

I’m more libertarian than whatever ‘conservative’ is these days.


Probably not.

You're probably either more conservative than populist (which is what tries to pass for "conservative" now), or you're more populist than either libertarian or conservative.

I could be wrong, but odds are it's likely one of those two.
quote:

This is an attempt to help American auto makers


Not exactly.

It's an attempt to be able to say, "See, 'muh tariffs worked! People bought more American cars this year!"
quote:

Why do you assume I am incapable of drawing my own conclusions?


Because they've been rather stupid on this thread.

He's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are indoctrinated rather than concluding that you actually believe the nonsense you've repeated on this thread, against all evidence to the contrary.

Believe me, that's the better, more respectful option in this case.
quote:

It means that working outside the home all day, then coming home and taking care of kids, a house and a grown man is too much work when subtracting the care of the grown man is also a possibility.


Damn right.

2% difference.

Good gosh. Who could ever believe women would put up with that kind of inequality?

It's very clear why they would simply abandon the institution rather than even up that 2%.

I know you're actively ignoring me, but everyone else on the thread is not.

That is an achingly stupid narrative you've chosen to double, triple, quadruple down on.
quote:

They are clinical observations that make people uncomfortable because they challenge prevailing cultural narratives.


The prevailing cultural narrative the feminist one.

At least in the western world.

You're not the outlier who is too smart for the sheep, you ARE the sheep.

And the clinical reality that you mention that "makes people uncomfortable" is the opposite of what you act like it is.

You know this, of course.
quote:

I’m discussing marriage as an institution, not my own marriage.


:rotflmao:

You've been talking about your own personal marriage the entire thread.

Good grief!
quote:

it may be that you're so enveloped in the oppressor belief set that you don't even recognize the influence. But the influence is there nonetheless. It's evident in the incompatibility of your social and personal characterizations.


You think?
quote:

Power comes from force and weapons.


On which a monopoly is held by whom?

Go ahead...bust out with the full theory. Don't be scared.
quote:

Why do I need to subsidize someone else's new vehicle purchase again?


Because Trump is a populist.

I wouldn't have thought there would be six Kamala Harris fans on the board. But I guess there are.