The perfect summary of my opinion of my party.

[Pale Man In Black]

Republicans were never the nativist party that was just something that came up after the southern strategy attracted disenfranchised democrats.

So its quite hilarious from your part to be calling old school republicans to be RINOs.

Like who?
Please enlighten me as to what my beliefs are and why.
The arrogance is atounding.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

From the outside looking in, this wasn't my impression. Of course the other side would probably say the same about themselves.

In short, I was under the impression that conservatives actually believed things about free trade, balanced budgets, character and respect for constitutional rights. Then along came this campaign.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

It's a good article. The article echoes my thoughts espoused prior many times to even election itself that the two party system has run its course, and we are in DESPERATE need of a credible third party. When you have two candidates with such massive disapproval ratings being the only two choices this is not working.

The article mentions polarization. How bad is it? We are willing to pretend The Don is a conservative because at least he isn't half black Muslim or criminal murderer Hillary.

 

[Ruprecht]

Political dialogue is currently the weakest I've ever seen in terms of policy ambition or ideology.
This isn't just limited to the Republican party or the US though.

 

[Rod1]

Like who?
Please enlighten me as to what my beliefs are and why.
The arrogance is atounding.

Like who what?

You claim that republicans that are not isolationists and nativists are RINOs, i guess that discredits Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.

So who are these true republican leaders of the past and future? Trump? give me a fucking break.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Political dialogue is currently the weakest I've ever seen in terms of policy ambition or ideology.
This isn't just limited to the republican party, or the US though.

Which is quite odd considering we are living in the post information explosion world of the internet.

It is really a sad comment on the general character where tools are out there, but people don't want to use them because their version of education is talking to equally vapid friends or watching TV.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Strange that the author neglected to mention Republicans slandering supporters of entitlement programs as "socialists". It sounds like nonsense coming from Republicans only started to bother him when social group membership came into play.

 

[Ruprecht]

Which is quite odd considering we are living in the post information explosion world of the internet.

It is really a sad comment on the general character where tools are out there, but people don't want to use them because their version of education is talking to equally vapid friends or watching TV.

Yeah... Apparently the explosion of information hasn't lead to improved education and techniques for filtering and focusing attention, so much as superficial engagement, echo chambers and self affirmation.

 

[ripskater]

Strange that the author neglected to mention Republicans slandering supporters of entitlement programs as "socialists". It sounds like nonsense coming from Republicans only started to bother him when social group membership came into play.

I'm slow and I didn't get you there sabretruth. Can you edit or say it again?

 

[RockstarChris]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/o...where-the-right-went-wrong.html?smid=tw-share

As opinion pieces go, it hits all of my biggest concerns. It's the quintessential summary of everything that's gone wrong with conservative media over the last decade or more.

I'm not posting it to change anyone's opinion. One of the takeaways from this piece is how impossible that is in our modern environment. But it is better written than anything I've written on the subject so I think it's worth reading, even if you don't agree with the author.

My opinion on my party.

Won. Deal with it.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I'm slow and I didn't get you there sabretruth. Can you edit or say it again?

Republicans going full retard by slandering opponents as socialists didn't seem to bother this guy, Sykes. Hearing Republicans make epithets against Muslims and use crude language towards women did however.

 

[Pale Man In Black]

post got fuckedup

 

[klnOmega]

Lol like I'm clicking an NYT link

 

[Pale Man In Black]

Like who what?

You claim that republicans that are not isolationists and nativists are RINOs, i guess that discredits Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.

So who are these true republican leaders of the past and future? Trump? give me a fucking break.

The Bushes are prime examples of RINO's. Globalist neocons, you even listing them shows you don't know what you're talking about.Reagan for his time was a Conservative, but he wasn't perfect. Mainly, he was a great communicator. Nixon was OK, but I never really followed his presidency too closely. He got us out of Nam, that was good. Inflation was bad. He dropped the gold standard, don't like that.

My political beliefs line up mainly with Goldwater, Buchanan and to a degree Ron Paul. There are others, but they are the main ones. Small government, less taxes and more protectionism / less foreign intervention. Any globalist that calls themselves a true Conservative is full of shit.
Anything else, smart guy?

 

[nostradumbass]

Another anti-Trump article on the NY Times, way to branch out. It's honestly gotten so far beyond pathetic by now. It was sexism, it was racism, it was fake news, it was the Russians. Jesus, the guy is still more than a month from taking office and half the articles on NYT would be wastelanded if they were put on Sherdog.

Did this ass write a piece on what went wrong with the party when they were losing elections? I'm not sure why he felt the need to say conservative media is broken and the conservative movement compromised, as if it applies especially to conservatives. Megyn Kelly, Stephen Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, whoever the hell Charlie Sykes is, and a lot of establishment republicans were very critical and unsupportive of Trump and didn't vote for him. Can the same be said of democrats with Hillary?

 

[Pwent]

I disagree with the author that conservatism is about free trade and how one carries themselves

To me, conservatism is about small government. Low taxes and small spending, with the government interfering as little as possible. They also defend changes to the constitution and fundamental American values

I feel like conservatives have made a mistake by pandering to evangelicals who only care about same sex marriage and abortion, which run contrary to the message of a government who leaves you alone as much as possible

The main sticking points liberals seem to have with republicans are those two battles, which frankly, are not likely to be won by conservatives. However if you ask the average republican why they support the party, they usually bring up taxes and economical issues. I think if the Republican Party moved more towards libertarianism, they would win every time

 

[nostradumbass]

Yup, facts and logic are obsolete. Well until things get fucked up enough and rational people have to step back up an fix shit...again.

lol "facts and logic". IT'S AN OPINION PIECE! Just saying "facts and logic" where they don't apply doesn't make your arguments any stronger.

 

[Pale Man In Black]

I disagree with the author that conservatism is about free trade and how one carries themselves

To me, conservatism is about small government. Low taxes and small spending, with the government interfering as little as possible. They also defend changes to the constitution and fundamental American values

I feel like conservatives have made a mistake by pandering to evangelicals who only care about same sex marriage and abortion, which run contrary to the message of a government who leaves you alone as much as possible

The main sticking points liberals seem to have with republicans are those two battles, which frankly, are not likely to be won by conservatives. However if you ask the average republican why they support the party, they usually bring up taxes and economical issues. I think if the Republican Party moved more towards libertarianism, they would win every time

Pretty much this.

 

[Rod1]

The Bushes are prime examples of RINO's. Globalist neocons, you even listing them shows you don't know what you're talking about.Reagan for his time was a Conservative, but he wasn't perfect. Mainly, he was a great communicator. Nixon was OK, but I never really followed his presidency too closely. He got us out of Nam, that was good. Inflation was bad. He dropped the gold standard, don't like that.

My political beliefs line up mainly with Goldwater, Buchanan and to a degree Ron Paul. There are others, but they are the main ones. Small government, less taxes and more protectionism / less foreign intervention. Any globalist that calls themselves a true Conservative is full of shit.
Anything else, smart guy?

Buchanan, Goldwater and Ron Paul were never big players in the republican party.

Your argument was that your beliefs are the true beliefs of the republican party and all else are RINOs thats completely false, and how was Bush Sr a RINO but not Reagan they had the same agenda.

Fuck, Reagan was talking about NAFTA since 1979.



Lincoln cared about emancipation of slaves, Eisenhower called for the desegregation of the armed forces, and Teddy was a major interventionist.

So no, you are not "taking back your party" when it was never yours to begin with, people like you throwing the word RINO as if it meant something because you latched on republicanism as a remora as part of a party strategy to get said vote.

I dont pity republicans, they courted that element for years and now they lost their party to it.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

But a tariff is a tax!