Political Ideology thread: Progressive Conservatism

[immamac 42518]

With all the talk surrounding current candidates and what they do or don't do to represent or whether they are "left" or "right" or "blue" or "red" the discussion has shifted away from fundamental political ideologies into who's team can win the game at whatever cost, including at the cost of actual functioning government in nearly all forms.

I want to start a series of discussions for people to discuss the merits of specific political ideologies and potential policy platforms that could make up these ideologies in today's modern America. If candidates fit the mold or exemplify some of these policies it's a great place to showcase them. The great thing about this is that nearly no candidates fit into any ideology because the last 3 decades have shifted us away entirely from a mentality of what is best for me and my fellow Americans to "what do I not hate".

Anyway - onto the meat!

Progressive Conservatism: the core belief structure is that 

Quote

 changes to society were needed to improve human and environmental conditions. However, this progression needed to be done through conservative thinking and policies, namely that the government can do good and should get involved, but only when it is necessary and within its own means, being a limited but obligatory government. The idea advocates that a social safety net is required, but only in a minimal form.

Personally I feel like many Texans share this mentality and way of thinking, especially when you look at our local and state government. Hesitant to change, but deliberate with change when it happens by definition and by constitution.

What do you think are some Progressive Conservatism policies that could make a positive impact on your life in modern America?

 

[softlynow 1783]

Sounds like a good line for the kleptocrats to turn to now that "libertarianism" has been exposed as mere justification for their fleecing of the middle class.

[immamac 42518]

8 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Sounds like a good line for the kleptocrats to turn to now that "libertarianism" has been exposed as mere justification for their fleecing of the middle class.

actually no, this has existed for a lot longer than you realize. would you like to add anything to the discussion or just baselessly say that "libertarianism" which is a completely different political ideology is failed and this is the bastard child of it?

Do you disagree with the core beliefs or are you just here to lump this in with Libertarians that have failed?

[Anastasis 23395]

21 minutes ago, immamac said:

 

What do you think are some Progressive Conservatism policies that could make a positive impact on your life in modern America?

 

 

I don't know about this term progressive conservatism.  Haven't seen it before. 

But I think that there is a clear opportunity to operate along the lines of the quote that you posted in healthcare.

I have outlined my thinking previously in detail, but I think there is a clear opportunity to weave "progressive" goals in terms of universal healthcare and backstopping with market driven "conservative" policies that streamline regulation, create a functional market place, and rewards innovation. 

[Parliament 14134]

How is it different from libertarianism?

[ndawg 1242]

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit it, but I've never heard of "progressive conservatism." I'm sure now that I have been exposed to it, I'll start spotting it everywhere.

My main criticism of the political left in this country (and I'm definitely a lefty myself) is that they can talk about what outcome they want all day long, and usually have reasonable plans for bringing it about, yet they often don't really think through unintended consequences.

I don't think today's conservatives are a really good example of a helpful "conservative" perspective, but if we had good conservative thinkers, they would serve an important function of raising the bar for selling policy change. I'll take a slower rate of progress in exchange for a drastically lower likelihood of missteps. The wrong approach to solving the right problem doesn't help anybody, and eliminating waste (bureaucracy, budget, etc.) creates net value for the citizens. Basic management theory, really.

Plus, the term "progressive conservatism" throws a metaphorical bucket of ice water on the heads of people who are stuck inside gross oversimplifications.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

 

1 hour ago, immamac said:

With all the talk surrounding current candidates and what they do or don't do to represent or whether they are "left" or "right" or "blue" or "red" the discussion has shifted away from fundamental political ideologies into who's team can win the game at whatever cost, including at the cost of actual functioning government in nearly all forms.

Progressive Conservatism: the core belief structure is that 

 

 

 

Do you mind sourcing your quote/definition?

[softlynow 1783]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

actually no, this has existed for a lot longer than you realize. would you like to add anything to the discussion or just baselessly say that "libertarianism" which is a completely different political ideology is failed and this is the bastard child of it?

Do you disagree with the core beliefs or are you just here to lump this in with Libertarians that have failed?

I didn't say anything about it being new, and I'm not lumping anyone together. I'm talking about the usefulness of ideology to people with outsized levels of greediness operating in the political sphere. Now that libertarianism is less useful, conservative think tanks will look for other ways to convince the have-nots to vote against their economic interests.

I was aware of this philosophy, having read a bit about the Disraeli ministries after hearing Theresa May call herself a progressive conservative a few years ago. I also stumbled upon this article a few weeks ago: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-not-progressive-conservatism/. There's much to take issue with in there, but this:

Quote

Trump has consistently conveyed the message that we shouldn’t divide ourselves on the basis of race or sex.

tells me that Progressive Conservatism is just another vaguely stated, enticing-sounding ideal that any moderately-talented, morally-unmoored hack can hail as their guiding principle as they carve out a career accomplishing nothing for the general welfare.

To me, ideology is useful in an educational setting, in teaching people how to think. Beyond that, it's mostly useful to sell books and candidacies. I don't care what any particular ideology says about an issue, I care about the effects of the policy choices to be made.

Now, as a persuasive tool in a debate or sales pitch, ideology is immensely useful in shifting the opinions of people who haven't investigated a subject or given a subject much thought. But it is appeal to the listener's ideology that's important, not my own.

I don't need to debate ideology to understand issues and how I feel about them, not there's anything wrong with those who do.

[Rougarou 594]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Do you mind sourcing your quote/definition?

https://www.gotquestions.org/progressivism.html

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

16 minutes ago, ndawg said:

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit it, but I've never heard of "progressive conservatism." I'm sure now that I have been exposed to it, I'll start spotting it everywhere.

My main criticism of the political left in this country (and I'm definitely a lefty myself) is that they can talk about what outcome they want all day long, and usually have reasonable plans for bringing it about, yet they often don't really think through unintended consequences.

I don't think today's conservatives are a really good example of a helpful "conservative" perspective, but if we had good conservative thinkers, they would serve an important function of raising the bar for selling policy change. I'll take a slower rate of progress in exchange for a drastically lower likelihood of missteps. The wrong approach to solving the right problem doesn't help anybody, and eliminating waste (bureaucracy, budget, etc.) creates net value for the citizens. Basic management theory, really.

Plus, the term "progressive conservatism" throws a metaphorical bucket of ice water on the heads of people who are stuck inside gross oversimplifications.

I'm pretty sure that the Venn diagram of things that you and I would normally agree on as a manner of policy has very very very little overlap, but this post hits me right exactly where I am and my problem with liberalism and progressives in America.  I feel like the prescriptions are really of the type that can fundamentally undue lots of good things that are right with the system and there are just a lot of unintended consequences in messing with any complex system.  I think it's the job of liberals to point out what's wrong and how we can be better, and it's the job of conservatives to make sure we make those changes as small as possible, and as narrowly tailored as possible, in order to reduce the law of unintended consequences as much as we can and make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I've always been of the belief that voting for conservatives is the safest course of action- because society pushes change at all times and nobody ever sees anything rolled back once change has been made, and I've always been of the opinion (maybe it's white privilege) that the status quo is maintainable in whatever form it exists, b/c we all get up and go about our day to day and the world doesn't come apart. The world feels like it's coming apart at the seems right now, so maybe that's no longer correct. 

Anyway, thanks for this post- it's interesting to read from someone whose 180 from me on most issues.  I too have never heard of progressive conservatism.  

[David Dennison 18656]

Progressive conservatism, like conservatism in general (and libertarianism), sounds good until history gets in the way and forces the state to reckon with a population that demands more. 

[SydneyCarton 47876]

I know one thing that absolutely shouldn't be considered in that platform and needs to be excised completely is any interweaving of religion into politics. Many will say that's impossible, and it might be at this point, but the separation of church and state need to be reinforced and taught as a major tenet anew to much of America. Generally, as a recovering Conservative, the idea of streamlining efficiencies and removing regulations that hinder growth and innovation are extremely appealing to me. But I'm tired of having that go hand in hand with bickering over judges and a woman's right to choose. Government should be about governing. 

I'm not sure the word "progressive" is ever going to jibe with "minimal form" in regards to government in people's brains. I think those words are just too strongly associated with strong gut-level emotional responses right now. 

There's so much fucking monetary waste at every, and I mean every level or branch of the government, we have more than enough money to do most of the shit progressives want and still pay down our fucking debt, but it doesn't happen. THAT is a political ideology I want to follow. Seriously, finally own up to your failures, and stewards and admit the Military pisses away billions upon billions of dollars per year. Now do that exercise everywhere. 

I do think that there is a role for expanded government jobs of all kinds which would be a massive increase in government that I'm also not sure will ever coincide with what you're proposing here. A specific example would be the creation (or if it exists rapid expansion of) a federal fire fighting unit. Specifically to be able to assist with the kind of wildfires in California, but more specifically to do all of the required controlled burns to keep this from happening again. Everyone knows it's a problem. Bite the bullet, hire 3k, or 5k firemen and women, and fucking clear out the goddamn brush the way scientists and experts tell you just be done. Is that kind of thing considered overreach to many conservatives? Because to me it seems like a common sense solution to a problem. And not one where cutting salaries to be the guy who can privatize and do it cheaper is necessarily an effective alternative. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

There's so much fucking monetary waste at every, and I mean every level or branch of the government, we have more than enough money to do most of the shit progressives want and still pay down our fucking debt, but it doesn't happen. THAT is a political ideology I want to follow. Seriously, finally own up to your failures, and stewards and admit the Military pisses away billions upon billions of dollars per year. Now do that exercise everywhere. 

 

I don't think this is true at ll.  It would be wonderful if this was true, b/c it would essentially mean that we don't have to make any tough choices and we can have whatever we want and cake is slimming and broccoli is bad for your health- so eat dessert instead of your vegetables.

I'm not disputing that you can make serious cuts to the military. But you could cut the military to zero and still be running a deficit, let alone getting into paying down debt, and lots of military spending is on troops- it's a jobs program and a step up the ladder for many poor kids- both out in the sticks and in the inner city, and to the extent that it does that it's pretty fucking valuable as a social works program and creator of hope and opportunity and forging of character.

I'm open (and would truly be thrilled) with the idea that you are right and I'm wrong, b/c holy shit that would make things so much easier and better for everyone. I don't think that we can Dave up the budget though and get rid of commercials that make us feel good about buying our cars so that we can get a jobs program passed, but if we could I'd be happy to see the math on that b/c that would be awesome.  

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=breakdown+of+federal+budget+pie+chart&sxsrf=ALeKk01dk0-zGk3omSizwWxa-GqWKvYhag:1601407062340&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=2ZACKFh7UDzS_M%2Chz_Mk2m_TD5vLM%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQhT69a1gD1FekQWIqla0kj3Z7gEw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjslt2Yio_sAhXvmq0KHYxEAvEQ9QF6BAgDEEU&biw=1600&bih=757#imgrc=2ZACKFh7UDzS_M

 

Keep in mind- we are running trillion dollar deficits on 4 or 5 trillion budget spends, so even cutting the military down to nothing doesn't get us to positive. I know you said start there- but look man- health and social security are damn near half the budget and there just isn't that much waste, fraud and abuse to move the needle there I don't think.  

[immamac 42518]

It's interesting to see the general response to the ideology and what it's core belief system is and how it's been conflated and misconstrued because of the current political climate with a complete lack of any type of guiding ideology behind policy.

It is very much not Libertarianism, which is basically "no government, unless we are preventing anarchy, every man for himself"
It is partly Progressivism, which ends up being "change for the sake of good change doesn't matter how big or small the government portion is" - You can think of this as the AOC/Bernie bro crowd who combines it with liberalism and that may be why you are led to think that Progressivism is Liberalism by nature, when in fact it is it's own distinct ideology.

This is, we recognize that government needs to be iterative and change based on newly available data. We want to make changes that enable the populous, but also do not expand the governments reach beyond what the current scope already is, and if it does, do so as minimized as possible.

So lets take a look at Climate change through the lens of these different ideologies:

Libertarianism: "If we give people absolute control over their air, their dirt, their water, their minerals it's in their best interest not to ruin their neighbors air because all their neighors will hate them and stop letting them use the roads on their land or their section of the river or or or"
Progressivism: "Fossil Fuels, Coal, and most traditional energy sources are proven to be the cause of global climate change. Large sweeping policy to limit production and use with offsetting cost for use is necessary to stop climate change"
Progressive Conservatism: "Fossil Fuels, Coal, and most traditional energy sources are proven to be the cause of global climate change. Limited regulations on businesses that contribute to climate change followed by a period of observation and additional regulations if necessary"

All 3 are valid in the intellectual sense, but how people solve problems is drastically different, some people just want the problem solved and it doesn't matter what the cost because unless the cost is another equivalent sized problem it will be worth it. Some people want to solve the problem, but are okay with iterative improvement instead of trying to solve the problem all in one go. Some people really just want people to take their lives into their own hands and spend every waking moment solving their own problems and if they did that no one else's problems would be problems for them.

How would you approach solving the problem and maybe we can identify what ideology fits best with it?

 

[softlynow 1783]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I know one thing that absolutely shouldn't be considered in that platform and needs to be excised completely is any interweaving of religion into politics. Many will say that's impossible, and it might be at this point, but the separation of church and state need to be reinforced and taught as a major tenet anew to much of America. Generally, as a recovering Conservative, the idea of streamlining efficiencies and removing regulations that hinder growth and innovation are extremely appealing to me. But I'm tired of having that go hand in hand with bickering over judges and a woman's right to choose. Government should be about governing. 

Another reason ideological discussions are limited in their usefulness is they ignore the necessity of coalitions to attain power. Until the Traditionalist Conservative marriage to the flavor-of-the-month limited government bait-and-switch scheme ends, your wish will never come true.

Quote

There's so much fucking monetary waste at every, and I mean every level or branch of the government, we have more than enough money to do most of the shit progressives want and still pay down our fucking debt, but it doesn't happen. THAT is a political ideology I want to follow. Seriously, finally own up to your failures, and stewards and admit the Military pisses away billions upon billions of dollars per year. Now do that exercise everywhere. 

Waste, like the deficit, is only an issue for the party out of power. It's also inherent with large organizations. Oversight should be honest, diligent and vigorous. That would require, however, that CONGRESS be honest, diligent, and vigorous. Sure.

[SydneyCarton 47876]

15 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I don't think this is true at ll.  It would be wonderful if this was true, b/c it would essentially mean that we don't have to make any tough choices and we can have whatever we want and cake is slimming and broccoli is bad for your health- so eat dessert instead of your vegetables.

I'm not disputing that you can make serious cuts to the military. But you could cut the military to zero and still be running a deficit, let alone getting into paying down debt, and lots of military spending is on troops- it's a jobs program and a step up the ladder for many poor kids- both out in the sticks and in the inner city, and to the extent that it does that it's pretty fucking valuable as a social works program and creator of hope and opportunity and forging of character.

I'm open (and would truly be thrilled) with the idea that you are right and I'm wrong, b/c holy shit that would make things so much easier and better for everyone. I don't think that we can Dave up the budget though and get rid of commercials that make us feel good about buying our cars so that we can get a jobs program passed, but if we could I'd be happy to see the math on that b/c that would be awesome.  

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=breakdown+of+federal+budget+pie+chart&sxsrf=ALeKk01dk0-zGk3omSizwWxa-GqWKvYhag:1601407062340&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=2ZACKFh7UDzS_M%2Chz_Mk2m_TD5vLM%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQhT69a1gD1FekQWIqla0kj3Z7gEw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjslt2Yio_sAhXvmq0KHYxEAvEQ9QF6BAgDEEU&biw=1600&bih=757#imgrc=2ZACKFh7UDzS_M

 

Keep in mind- we are running trillion dollar deficits on 4 or 5 trillion budget spends, so even cutting the military down to nothing doesn't get us to positive. I know you said start there- but look man- health and social security are damn near half the budget and there just isn't that much waste, fraud and abuse to move the needle there I don't think.  

There was an article I read years back that I can no longer find (I've tried) discussing one military commander who was so fed up with waste he was going to report it, and fix it, and streamline it. Then, once he dug in, he buried it because he said if the American people got wind, they'd never vote another red cent for the military, it was that bad. 

Here's the thing, I'm pretty sure we could have desert all the time. And when I say cut the military, I don't mean cutting the number of soldiers. I mean cutting the miles and miles of wasted money that gets lost in the system. But the things you're suggesting will be extremely painful, and extremely difficult to implement and will make many people unhappy. Is it shutting down some bases and expanding others to be more efficient? That will get politicians voted the fuck out of office, so they will have to be made to do it kicking and screaming. 

The thing about waste, and graft, and everything else, is that it exists everywhere in the government but but it's not reported or prosecuted because politicians at all levels are in on it, or they're be blamed for it regardless so it's not in their interest to shine a light on it. Sylvester Turner, the mayor of Houston, is one of the most corrupt and dirty motherfuckers in the game. The vegetables you talk about being forced to eat come in the form of having to disinfect the entire system with sunlight. Politicians will be voted out. Some communities will suffer, lots of people might have to move, folks probably need to go to jail to fix the system. 

You focused too much about military spending, when it was an example. The waste is everywhere. Even before Betsy Davos started fucking with schools, did you notice most public schools particularly in urban areas were shitty? Why do you think that is? It's because school districts are notoriously, NOTORIOUSLY easy to embezzle from. Urban and wealthy alike. That kind of graft isn't necessarily taking place at the highest level, more likely local. But it all needs to be identified and prosecuted. Would you be surprised to learn that most places could actually have well funded schools if we just fixed the holes that currently exist (both in theft, money distribution, taxation, regulation, etc)? I can't give you a supporting article, but I bet some simple (but extremely difficult to get buy in and implement) changes to funding (maybe not entirely based on property taxes of a district) and federal distribution could fix our school systems without costing much additional funding. 

But the pain, the pain involved in a real accounting of just how fucked up things are would be extremely painful. But it would be long term beneficial, both for America to see how the sausage is made up close as well as the benefits the services themselves being improved upon would remedy long term. 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[immamac 42518]

40 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Progressive conservatism, like conservatism in general (and libertarianism), sounds good until history gets in the way and forces the state to reckon with a population that demands more. 

Oh you mean for a period of decades at a time? The part of the American government that is so beautiful is that roughly every 4 years or 8 years max there is a political cycle we can go through.

Any single ideology being in power for too long is going to be completely ass tier. Communism is only great until it isn't. Socialism is only great until time gets in the way! Liberalism is only good until we don't get to keep any of the money we make and turn into socialists! Conservatism is only great until we miss the boat on regulations that needed to exist forever ago!
 

Wake up, I'm not saying everyone gets on board with this ideology for their entire life, I'm saying what do we think this approach can do in 1 country in the near term in the USA or you know...don't and just keep voting for team red and team blue who have no ideology whatsoever and just play to win and enrich themselves. Everyone knows Oligarchy is the best way to run government and then ideology doesn't matter because the ruling class just dictates what the sheeple need instead of them letting the governors know what they need!

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

There was an article I read years back that I can no longer find (I've tried) discussing one military commander who was so fed up with waste he was going to report it, and fix it, and streamline it. Then, once he dug in, he buried it because he said if the American people got wind, they'd never vote another red cent for the military, it was that bad. 

Here's the thing, I'm pretty sure we could have desert all the time. And when I say cut the military, I don't mean cutting the number of soldiers. I mean cutting the miles and miles of wasted money that gets lost in the system. But the things you're suggesting will be extremely painful, and extremely difficult to implement and will make many people unhappy. Is it shutting down some bases and expanding others to be more efficient? That will get politicians voted the fuck out of office, so they will have to be made to do it kicking and screaming. 

The thing about waste, and graft, and everything else, is that it exists everywhere in the government but but it's not reported or prosecuted because politicians at all levels are in on it, or they're be blamed for it regardless so it's not in their interest to shine a light on it. Sylvester Turner, the mayor of Houston, is one of the most corrupt and dirty motherfuckers in the game. The vegetables you talk about being forced to eat come in the form of having to disinfect the entire system with sunlight. Politicians will be voted out. Some communities will suffer, lots of people might have to move, folks probably need to go to jail to fix the system. 

You focused too much about military spending, when it was an example. The waste is everywhere. Even before Betsy Davos started fucking with schools, did you notice most public schools particularly in urban areas were shitty? Why do you think that is? It's because school districts are notoriously, NOTORIOUSLY easy to embezzle from. Urban and wealthy alike. That kind of graft isn't necessarily taking place at the highest level, more likely local. But it all needs to be identified and prosecuted. Would you be surprised to learn that most places could actually have well funded schools if we just fixed the holes that currently exist (both in theft, money distribution, taxation, regulation, etc)? I can't give you a supporting article, but I but some simple changes to funding (maybe not entirely based on property taxes of a district) and federal distribution could fix our school systems without costing much additional funding. 

But the pain, the pain involved in a real accounting of just how fucked up things are would be extremely painful. But it would be long term beneficial, both for America to see how the sausage is made up close as well as the benefits the services themselves being improved upon would remedy long term. 

 

 

I'm all for the most painful and uncomfortable audit we've ever had into any level of government spending. I'd welcome it wholeheartedly. It's all our money and if it's thieved from us we are all worse off for it, as well as it robbing us of ways to improve peoples lives and outcomes.  And- nobody wants extra money from me?  And maybe Sylvester Turner has to eat a shit burger along the way?  Well sign me up- I'm certainly not in on any of the grift- I'm one that is harmed by it.  
But, I think if you squared everything away (and I recognize you weren't merely talking about the military but picking that out b/c it's the easiest/biggest target in the budget) at every level of the government you'd find billions upon billions of dollars. And that'd be cool. And I support your platform to do that. But the debt is measured in Trillions, the deficit is roughly a trillion a year, and the shopping list for the progressives runs into the tens of trillions over the course of their programs lifetimes.  I think you'd find 100 billion a year in waste. Maybe 200 Billion.  So, lets do it. It's worth doing.  

It's funny, my mom was bitching about how awful and corrupt Turner was and I was basically yawning about it. She was like- he's wasting tens of 100's of thousands on personal stuff and we can't get our potholes fixed.  My response was- it takes $3,000,000 to build a mile of roads. I can't imagine Turner junkets are a pimple on the ass of the Houston overall budget. I'm going to continue to be more or less happy Houston has Turner as a mayor, b/c while he's focusing on feathering his own nest in a small way we don't see rampant crazy shit going on in our city like we do in Austin or Portland- so I will call that a win and leave him to it.  

Maybe I'm incredibly naive and he's stealing 10's and 100's of millions and not just a small level of 'run of the mill graft' and I'm completely wrong. 

[softlynow 1783]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

Oh you mean for a period of decades at a time? The part of the American government that is so beautiful is that roughly every 4 years or 8 years max there is a political cycle we can go through.

Any single ideology being in power for too long is going to be completely ass tier. Communism is only great until it isn't. Socialism is only great until time gets in the way! Liberalism is only good until we don't get to keep any of the money we make and turn into socialists! Conservatism is only great until we miss the boat on regulations that needed to exist forever ago!
 

Wake up, I'm not saying everyone gets on board with this ideology for their entire life, I'm saying what do we think this approach can do in 1 country in the near term in the USA or you know...don't and just keep voting for team red and team blue who have no ideology whatsoever and just play to win and enrich themselves. Everyone knows Oligarchy is the best way to run government and then ideology doesn't matter because the ruling class just dictates what the sheeple need instead of them letting the governors know what they need!

How do we exercise our option to take the ProgCon approach as opposed to voting team Red or team Blue?

Are you ignoring that some are claiming that Trumpism IS the approach you're advocating?

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

Oh you mean for a period of decades at a time? The part of the American government that is so beautiful is that roughly every 4 years or 8 years max there is a political cycle we can go through.

Any single ideology being in power for too long is going to be completely ass tier. Communism is only great until it isn't. Socialism is only great until time gets in the way! Liberalism is only good until we don't get to keep any of the money we make and turn into socialists! Conservatism is only great until we miss the boat on regulations that needed to exist forever ago!
 

Wake up, I'm not saying everyone gets on board with this ideology for their entire life, I'm saying what do we think this approach can do in 1 country in the near term in the USA or you know...don't and just keep voting for team red and team blue who have no ideology whatsoever and just play to win and enrich themselves. Everyone knows Oligarchy is the best way to run government and then ideology doesn't matter because the ruling class just dictates what the sheeple need instead of them letting the governors know what they need!

I'm in favor of the Oligarchy you described. How do I apply to be an Oligarch? I think that's essentially what Aristotle argued was the best form of government- enlightened monarch/enlightened oligarchy.  It simplifies a lot of the messiness involved in letting the sheeple have any input.  The only catch is that whole enlightened part. 

[David Dennison 18656]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Oh you mean for a period of decades at a time? The part of the American government that is so beautiful is that roughly every 4 years or 8 years max there is a political cycle we can go through.

Any single ideology being in power for too long is going to be completely ass tier. Communism is only great until it isn't. Socialism is only great until time gets in the way! Liberalism is only good until we don't get to keep any of the money we make and turn into socialists! Conservatism is only great until we miss the boat on regulations that needed to exist forever ago!
 

Wake up, I'm not saying everyone gets on board with this ideology for their entire life, I'm saying what do we think this approach can do in 1 country in the near term in the USA or you know...don't and just keep voting for team red and team blue who have no ideology whatsoever and just play to win and enrich themselves. Everyone knows Oligarchy is the best way to run government and then ideology doesn't matter because the ruling class just dictates what the sheeple need instead of them letting the governors know what they need!

It's my opinion that any type of conservative ideology is a pretext for helping those who don't need it at the expense of the least among us. It's an excuse for cruelty.

[BradInATX 9208]

I used to consider myself sort of what your original post outlines, @immamac. I guess early in my political life, in the 2000s. My thought was that we obviously need a social safety net because we can't just let people starve and die, but it needed to be so spartan and terrible that people would be heavily incentivized to provide a better life for themselves***.

But over time, I became more analytical as my career sort of pushed me that way. And what I realized is that almost every single time, "doing the bare minimum" ends up costing you more money in the long run.

I'll just use healthcare as an example. I am by no means a far left progressive. But the "bare minimum safety net" is basically what we have now which is that uninsured won't be turned away from the ER. And because of that, every single person who is insured or capable of it ends up making up for all of those walked checks, because the hospital is going to get their nut one way or another. And when you get into those numbers and inflated costs and add those up with all of the other hidden (and not-hidden) costs of our current healthcare system, it becomes plainly obvious that a single-payer or M4A system would be cheaper in the long run for everyone involved. 

So while "free shit for everyone!!" does not at all resonate with me, as a fiscal conservative, single-payer or M4A is the obvious answer. I also don't at all have a single molecule in my body of "WHY SHOULD THEY GET IT FREE WHEN I WORKED FOR IT" because I'm a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind, not a hateful embittered hick. 

You could do the same exercise for almost every Republican dog-whistle policy. Food stamps, abortion, legal marijuana/drugs, the criminal justice system, etc. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Everything our government does, particularly when Republicans are in charge, is penny-wise but pound-foolish. 

So IMO, your proposed ideology doesn't really exist. You're proposing a fiscal minimalist approach to these issues which has been the problem all along. There's no such thing. Instead of the trite "fiscally conservative", we need to be "fiscally intelligent". 

 

*** to my asterisked point about making the social net so spartan and terrible that people want to get out of it... that's our approach to the prison system as well, and the sure as fuck doesn't work given we have the worst recidivism rates in the world. Why would it work fiscally? It's stupid.

[immamac 42518]

14 minutes ago, softlynow said:

How do we exercise our option to take the ProgCon approach as opposed to voting team Red or team Blue?

Are you ignoring that some are claiming that Trumpism IS the approach you're advocating?

in 2020 election? we can't in 2022, 2024, 2026 definitely things that people can do. All you need is to learn about candidates that you feel represent those values. Trump's body of work is very anti-ProgCon and that's extremely obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells so don't act like finding some full retard articles on the internet saying Trump is the bastion of ProgCon are really serious claims, especially from those on this board.

[BradInATX 9208]

And if we're going to start applying "the bare minimum safety net" then let's fucking start with corporate welfare and hold them to the same standard that we hold the poors and coloreds to.

[Goredho 17348]

23 minutes ago, immamac said:

So lets take a look at Climate change through the lens of these different ideologies:

How would you approach solving the problem and maybe we can identify what ideology fits best with it?

 

Deny its existence and party like its 1999.

[immamac 42518]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I used to consider myself sort of what your original post outlines, @immamac. I guess early in my political life, in the 2000s. My thought was that we obviously need a social safety net because we can't just let people starve and die, but it needed to be so spartan and terrible that people would be heavily incentivized to provide a better life for themselves***.

But over time, I became more analytical as my career sort of pushed me that way. And what I realized is that almost every single time, "doing the bare minimum" ends up costing you more money in the long run.

I'll just use healthcare as an example. I am by no means a far left progressive. But the "bare minimum safety net" is basically what we have now which is that uninsured won't be turned away from the ER. And because of that, every single person who is insured or capable of it ends up making up for all of those walked checks, because the hospital is going to get their nut one way or another. And when you get into those numbers and inflated costs and add those up with all of the other hidden (and not-hidden) costs of our current healthcare system, it becomes plainly obvious that a single-payer or M4A system would be cheaper in the long run for everyone involved. 

So while "free shit for everyone!!" does not at all resonate with me, as a fiscal conservative, single-payer or M4A is the obvious answer. I also don't at all have a single molecule in my body of "WHY SHOULD THEY GET IT FREE WHEN I WORKED FOR IT" because I'm a "rising tide lifts all boats" kind, not a hateful embittered hick. 

You could do the same exercise for almost every Republican dog-whistle policy. Food stamps, abortion, legal marijuana/drugs, the criminal justice system, etc. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Everything our government does, particularly when Republicans are in charge, is penny-wise but pound-foolish. 

So IMO, your proposed ideology doesn't really exist. You're proposing a fiscal minimalist approach to these issues which has been the problem all along. There's no such thing. Instead of the trite "fiscally conservative", we need to be "fiscally intelligent". 

 

*** to my asterisked point about making the social net so spartan and terrible that people want to get out of it... that's our approach to the prison system as well, and the sure as fuck doesn't work given we have the worst recidivism rates in the world. Why would it work fiscally? It's stupid.

I really like this take a lot, however I don't think that intrinsically Progressive Conservatism has much to do with budgetary conservatism or "fiscal conservatism" it's more about policy, don't make policy unless we need it, but if we move forward with policy do that policy in a way that is measurable and not trying to solve the entire problem (big problems) in one go.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

I’m not looking any of this up but isn’t this basically Teddy Roosevelt’s platform? That guys was a crazy motherfucker. Politics! 

[ndawg 1242]

22 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I'm pretty sure that the Venn diagram of things that you and I would normally agree on as a manner of policy has very very very little overlap, but this post hits me right exactly where I am and my problem with liberalism and progressives in America.  I feel like the prescriptions are really of the type that can fundamentally undue lots of good things that are right with the system and there are just a lot of unintended consequences in messing with any complex system.  I think it's the job of liberals to point out what's wrong and how we can be better, and it's the job of conservatives to make sure we make those changes as small as possible, and as narrowly tailored as possible, in order to reduce the law of unintended consequences as much as we can and make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

I've always been of the belief that voting for conservatives is the safest course of action- because society pushes change at all times and nobody ever sees anything rolled back once change has been made, and I've always been of the opinion (maybe it's white privilege) that the status quo is maintainable in whatever form it exists, b/c we all get up and go about our day to day and the world doesn't come apart. The world feels like it's coming apart at the seems right now, so maybe that's no longer correct. 

Anyway, thanks for this post- it's interesting to read from someone whose 180 from me on most issues.  I too have never heard of progressive conservatism.  

Likewise, I appreciate your reply.

I think something really awful has happened to humans in the last 50 years. Our brains are more capable than ever at storing massive inventories of information (and quickly accessing an even larger inventory on the internet), but are worse than ever before at actually doing anything intelligent with all that data. As a result, we get suckered into adopting a mindset that's entirely ideological, and not at all practical. After all, ideologies have names, and names are search terms, so you can look them up on Wikipedia. We're becoming smarter in all the ways that computers are already smart (retrieving information quickly), and stupider in all the ways that computers are already stupid (making decisions in situations we've never encountered before).

So, today's capitalists have conditioned themselves to believe that the solution to any economic problem is more capitalism. Today's socialists believe that the solution to any deficiency in standard of living is more socialism. Every bit of rationale people give is nonsense manufactured on-the-spot to address a particular challenge posed by someone else. Need some evidence or rationale to support your position? Google it! People don't engage in political discourse anymore, they engage in a video game about political discourse.

[immamac 42518]

1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I’m not looking any of this up but isn’t this basically Teddy Roosevelt’s platform? That guys was a crazy motherfucker. Politics! 

Yes, as well as Angela Merkel and Theresa May.

[SydneyCarton 47876]

24 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I'm all for the most painful and uncomfortable audit we've ever had into any level of government spending. I'd welcome it wholeheartedly. It's all our money and if it's thieved from us we are all worse off for it, as well as it robbing us of ways to improve peoples lives and outcomes.  And- nobody wants extra money from me?  And maybe Sylvester Turner has to eat a shit burger along the way?  Well sign me up- I'm certainly not in on any of the grift- I'm one that is harmed by it.  
But, I think if you squared everything away (and I recognize you weren't merely talking about the military but picking that out b/c it's the easiest/biggest target in the budget) at every level of the government you'd find billions upon billions of dollars. And that'd be cool. And I support your platform to do that. But the debt is measured in Trillions, the deficit is roughly a trillion a year, and the shopping list for the progressives runs into the tens of trillions over the course of their programs lifetimes.  I think you'd find 100 billion a year in waste. Maybe 200 Billion.  So, lets do it. It's worth doing.  

It's funny, my mom was bitching about how awful and corrupt Turner was and I was basically yawning about it. She was like- he's wasting tens of 100's of thousands on personal stuff and we can't get our potholes fixed.  My response was- it takes $3,000,000 to build a mile of roads. I can't imagine Turner junkets are a pimple on the ass of the Houston overall budget. I'm going to continue to be more or less happy Houston has Turner as a mayor, b/c while he's focusing on feathering his own nest in a small way we don't see rampant crazy shit going on in our city like we do in Austin or Portland- so I will call that a win and leave him to it.  

Maybe I'm incredibly naive and he's stealing 10's and 100's of millions and not just a small level of 'run of the mill graft' and I'm completely wrong. 

Turner's graft isn't the embezzlement. It's the handouts to friends and families expected to win city contracts and do business. This isn't the kind of taxpayer theft that really fucks us. However, I mentioned it because he does dabble in the other, and the idea is to send people to prison so they stop abusing the system. That's key to fixing the problems.

I think waste is much larger then 200 billion. But I can't fact check that shit. But I would be willing to wager that the savings alone could fund one or two majorly broken systems in the united states, such as educated or health care. It's not a cure all, but if you feather it with common sense tax reform and closing so many tax loopholes, actually going after people who don't pay their fucking taxes, and a few other things...now the ball is rolling. 

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

I really like this take a lot, however I don't think that intrinsically Progressive Conservatism has much to do with budgetary conservatism or "fiscal conservatism" it's more about policy, don't make policy unless we need it, but if we move forward with policy do that policy in a way that is measurable and not trying to solve the entire problem (big problems) in one go.

Fair enough, but what's the point of incrementalism? Isn't it mostly a fiscal thing?

But to your point, there are a lot of cases where I'd prefer a much more incremental approach than progressives would. During the great M4A vs. single-payer debates of 2020, I was firmly on the shitlib side. Because there is absolutely no reasonable counter to the approach of "if we do single-payer and it's implemented well and works, the entire country will move to it and private insurance will die" and letting it prove itself out. None. 

But incrementalism for the sake of trial and error and actually learning from our mistakes and successes is almost impossible in our political climate today. Inevitably something will always be attached to one side and that side will say it's the greatest thing ever and the other side will say it's the worst thing ever. Our politicians and really our populace is not patient, informed, and nuanced enough to basically run the scientific method of build->test->analyze->refine because every step will be politicized. I mean half of our country won't even wear a fucking mask.

So "incrementalism" really just becomes an excuse for fiscal cheapness and to avoid helping people. I get where you're trying to go but I don't think that type of approach is possible in our country today, largely because of politics and stupid people.

[immamac 42518]

1 minute ago, ndawg said:

Likewise, I appreciate your reply.

I think something really awful has happened to humans in the last 50 years. Our brains are more capable than ever at storing massive inventories of information (and quickly accessing an even larger inventory on the internet), but are worse than ever before at actually doing anything intelligent with all that data. As a result, we get suckered into adopting a mindset that's entirely ideological, and not at all practical. After all, ideologies have names, and names are search terms, so you can look them up on Wikipedia. We're becoming smarter in all the ways that computers are already smart (retrieving information quickly), and stupider in all the ways that computers are already stupid (making decisions in situations we've never encountered before).

So, today's capitalists have conditioned themselves to believe that the solution to any economic problem is more capitalism. Today's socialists believe that the solution to any deficiency in standard of living is more socialism. Every bit of rationale people give is nonsense manufactured on-the-spot to address a particular challenge posed by someone else. Need some evidence or rationale to support your position? Google it! People don't engage in political discourse anymore, they engage in a video game about political discourse.

I think the problem is that once you pidgeonhole yourself it defines your ideology like several people in this thread have indicated. Apparently once you feel one way and feel that "hey maybe socialism could be good for a little bit" then you are now a lifelong card carrying member of the socialist movement. it's trash tier logic leaps like this that keep people from actually voicing what they think in the near term (2 year term for HoR, 6 year for Senate, 4 year for prez) could actually be beneficial for them and the people around them.

What if everyone was an independent voter every election and there was no continuity to party at all? What would people do in America? Would they just pick a color? 

[Brisketexan 104609]

I think you need to subscribe to this newsletter I heard about, "How to be a straight guy who has sex with other guys."  It's a real page-turner.

[immamac 42518]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I think you need to subscribe to this newsletter I heard about, "How to be a straight guy who has sex with other guys."  It's a real page-turner.

Wrong thread?

[Brisketexan 104609]

Just now, immamac said:

Wrong thread?

Well, I mean.... I KNOW it doesn't go in the Steel Shank thread, so.....

[BradInATX 9208]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if everyone was an independent voter every election and there was no continuity to party at all? What would people do in America? Would they just pick a color? 

We'd move on to something else to argue about, like whether or not cilantro tastes good. It does not, by the way. Fight me.

Edited September 29, 2020 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 18656]

23 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

And if we're going to start applying "the bare minimum safety net" then let's fucking start with corporate welfare and hold them to the same standard that we hold the poors and coloreds to.

Let's also talk about the military.

[ndawg 1242]

8 minutes ago, immamac said:

I think the problem is that once you pidgeonhole yourself it defines your ideology like several people in this thread have indicated. Apparently once you feel one way and feel that "hey maybe socialism could be good for a little bit" then you are now a lifelong card carrying member of the socialist movement. it's trash tier logic leaps like this that keep people from actually voicing what they think in the near term (2 year term for HoR, 6 year for Senate, 4 year for prez) could actually be beneficial for them and the people around them.

What if everyone was an independent voter every election and there was no continuity to party at all? What would people do in America? Would they just pick a color? 

I agree with all that, but I think there's more at play. I see Dunning-Kruger come up a lot here on this board, so using that as a frame of reference. I think ready access to the vast amount of information that's on the internet leads many people to become very overconfident in their opinion in the DK sense. One of the many stupid things that conspiracy theorists trot out all the time is the line "do the research!" Like, they think that their cursory google search constitutes actual research. Conspiracy theorists are a really dumb minority, obviously, but I think there's been a more subtle shift across the entire bell curve. On the whole, I think people have more unjustified confidence in their political stance than they used to have. Being in possession of facts about something makes us feel more informed about it -- and our increased proximity to facts is making us feel like we're more informed about everything.

[softlynow 1783]

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

in 2020 election? we can't in 2022, 2024, 2026 definitely things that people can do. All you need is to learn about candidates that you feel represent those values. Trump's body of work is very anti-ProgCon and that's extremely obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells so don't act like finding some full retard articles on the internet saying Trump is the bastion of ProgCon are really serious claims, especially from those on this board.

Who? What specific solutions are ProgCons pushing? What's the ProgCon health care plan, plan to secure our elections, stance on and solutions to slow climate change, immigration solutions . . . ?

And we're ultimately talking about another possible strain of Team Red, right? So, we're really talking about voting for the pols who get donations from, and are answerable most readily to, the same interests as the current Team Red, but maybe with some Never Trumpers back in the fold, right?

 

[Goredho 17348]

So seriously, pragmatically, how does a prog-con movement get off the ground?  I have a hard time seeing how this is more than just ideological masturbation unless it involves the GOP being burned to the ground and reforming itself towards the middle where a prog-con ideology could arise within the party.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Goredho

[Brisketexan 104609]

2 hours ago, immamac said:

changes to society were needed to improve human and environmental conditions. However, this progression needed to be done through conservative thinking and policies, namely that the government can do good and should get involved, but only when it is necessary and within its own means, being a limited but obligatory government. The idea advocates that a social safety net is required, but only in a minimal form.

And, to be on topic.....I agree with this partially.  I actually see a larger role for government, and a larger social safety net, subject to strong checks by a functioning Rule of Law.

While I remain somewhat fiscally conservative (spending decisions should be thoughtful, should weigh costs v. benefits, etc.), and that means that I would very much want to cut spending on things that are high dollar and have room to cut (I'm looking at you, Defense budget), I also think we need to look at a lot of our government spending as INVESTMENT that pays off in a high-functioning society and economy.

For example, having been in countries hobbled by a shitty highway system, I see that a dollar spent on having good roads translates into a LOT of dollars in the form of being able to move goods quickly and easily about the country.  Strong education and higher ed?  Same.  Basic medical care, vaccinations, etc.?  Same.  Basic food aid to kids in their formative years?  Same.

In recent years, I've come around on two big policy issues that are seen as rather progressive.  First, universal health care.  It's quite simply indefensible NOT to have it.  We spend more, get shittier results, and still have a huge portion of our population that can't afford regular healthcare (meaning that their only path is to be poor folks who go to the ER when the get sick).  A hybrid model, Medicare for all with an upgrade available, I'm open to lots of ideas.  But when all is said and done, we need to get with the 20th Century (let alone the 21st), and have reasonable healthcare, including preventative and basic care, easily and readily available for all.  Take the dollars we're spending on healthcare now, inefficiently, and bundle them to get a more efficient and broad result.

The other thing I've come around on -- and this is a MUCH bigger leap -- is moving towards a Universal Basic Income.  My conclusion on that is driven by our shift away from being the world's largest industrial producer (there just aren't as many good auto worker jobs around, and they aren't being replaced 1 for 1), including the displacement that will only get worse with AI (goodbye, great truck driving jobs).  Yet we still produce incredible GDP and wealth -- we're rich as a nation, but the chances for folks who were good factory workers, truck drivers, etc. (read: not geniuses, but decent, honest people) to make a good income are going away.  We need to have a plan for their future in the US.  And to make that a decent, stable future, UBI can get us there.  It shouldn't pay for everything, a life of luxury, etc.  But if you can get a UBI, and supplement it with a decent job (even something individual, creative, gig-related, etc. -- make furniture, be a bartender, do local delivery work, whatever), that can be a good life.

Otherwise, I think the biggest change we need is to recapture the importance of the Rule of Law being both written and applied more equally, with justice for all.  Capitalism works quite well, when it is subject to reasonable rules that don't unduly favor those who are already successful, allow for rent-seeking or anti-competitive behavior, and provides for readily available remedies and mechanisms to enforce the rules.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

21 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Turner's graft isn't the embezzlement. It's the handouts to friends and families expected to win city contracts and do business. This isn't the kind of taxpayer theft that really fucks us. However, I mentioned it because he does dabble in the other, and the idea is to send people to prison so they stop abusing the system. That's key to fixing the problems.

I think waste is much larger then 200 billion. But I can't fact check that shit. But I would be willing to wager that the savings alone could fund one or two majorly broken systems in the united states, such as educated or health care. It's not a cure all, but if you feather it with common sense tax reform and closing so many tax loopholes, actually going after people who don't pay their fucking taxes, and a few other things...now the ball is rolling. 

Sure. It's not fact checkable. It's just something you'd have to do and see what the answer is- this is just me speculating.

I run a business I have almost nothing to do with. But I keep the books and the people are on profit share. They were like- I don't understand- why aren't we profitable.  I knew we were going out to too many lunches or spending too much on stupid shit.  I was like- nah- that's not it- we can't really spend our way into lack of profitability- most of our costs are baked in.  We went over the budget line by line for 3 months and they found $2,000 or $3,000 that they could excise. This is on a $65,000 a month budget. I told them basically- don't worry about that shit- it makes your lives and the employees lives a little better (premium coffee service buying lunch for the office once a week when we are busy- cleaning crew coming 2 times a week so they don't have to do it) almost all of our costs are pretty structural to running the business.  Go focus, instead, on landing 2 new customers next month and grow revenue $10k instead of cutting costs 2k.  They got it.  I suspect the federal budget is much worse but still operates the same.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

There’s room for a progressive movement on the right, (in a post-Trump America), but you’d have to organize around a few big ideas like anti-corruption legislation and going back to 1950’s tax policy where the wealthy carried more tax burden.  Corporate media would likely vilify it as radical populist movement.  
 

ETA: The issue is the Republican Party, they have to implode first before there’s any kind of reformation with new ideas.  It’s going to take a while (What Goredho said).

Edited September 29, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Goredho 17348]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There’s room for a progressive movement on the right, (in a post-Trump America), but you’d have to organize around a few big ideas like anti-corruption legislation and going back to 1950’s tax policy where the wealthy carried more tax burden.  Corporate media would likely vilify it as radical populist movement.  
 

ETA: The issue is the Republican Party, they have to implode first before there’s any kind of reformation with new ideas.  It’s going to take a while (What Goredho said).

lol, am I your sock or are you mine?

[TwiceHorn 31273]

Sounds like a philosophy I can get with.

Current "conservatism" opposes liberal progressive policies by refusing to even discuss the existence of a problem. And wants to undo whatever is currently in place.

Healthcare?  Not a problem, except ACA, repeal it, no replacement.

Climate?  Not a problem.

Wealth/Income inequality? Not a problem.

Racial/Economic discrimination? Not a problem.

Police Brutality? Not a problem.

Cost of college education?  Not a problem.

A progressive conservative could at least concede that these things may be a problem and that the unregulated market doesn't provide any or adequate solutions to them.  But also mindful that the government doesn't offer complete or optimal or cost-effective solutions all the time either and they come with massive unintended consequences at times.

And then, there could be, gasp, debate and compromise on what solutions are adopted to these problems.

Also, quit harping on social issues that have little or no bearing on welfare of the nation or its ongoing existence:  mythical wars on religion; abortion; opposing attempts by legitimate groups to secure civil rights; etc.

Edited September 29, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[F250 28682]

I'm here to discuss the merits of Georgism and fact that cilantro is an herb gifted to us by God.

 

 

 

[F250 28682]

On a serious note, progressive conservativism doesn't seem to be an actual political ideology but rather a marketing strategy to just package centrism. It just states the obvious (mixed economy, need for social safety net, etc..) without any guidance on solutions.

Theoretically, liberalism and conservatism exist within a classical liberalism framework and have a push - pull relationship with regards to negative and positive rights. Libertarianism heavily favors negative rights while being leary of positive rights and progressives tend to heavily favor positive rights. The things that are considered when deciding policy.

This progressive conservativism seems to skip that part and assumes there already is an assumed threshold of what is and isn't acceptable with regards to the balancing of positive and negative rights.

 

 

[justhookit 4180]

9 hours ago, BradInATX said:

We'd move on to something else to argue about, like whether or not cilantro tastes good. It does not, by the way. Fight me.

Negged.

[justhookit 4180]

Seriously though I’m not writing paragraphs right now, but I’d guess there are a fair number of us that just gave up. Those two fucks are the best we can trot out there for our first presidential debate? I’m done with this shit and refuse to even give my opinion either here on the website or in person with friends or people I meet that for some reason want to discuss politics. My worst fear is coming true - I’m agreeing with Lobo - whoever wins in the election won’t matter much; it’s going to get ugly. We’ve got a reality tv show going on and it’s passing for political debate. I was already disgusted so not sure what the new term for it would be. Uphauled, I guess.

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by justhookit

[BradInATX 9208]

Negged.

.