The REAL CONSERVATIVE National Review


#1

The Father-Führer

National Review’s Kevin Williamson believes Donald Trump’s appeals to the white working class are “immoral” because that demographics way of life deserves to die out.

“It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces …The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible”

Read more at: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/432569/father-f-hrer

Are all you Trump haters onboard with this philosophy?

PS I got these excerpts from Breitbart, I won’t pay the 25 cents to National Review Online to read the complete piece. National Review is going on my growing list of magazines (print or online) that I will never buy again along side (Un) Scientific American and Playboy (without naked girls).


Anti-Trump Central Command: at the intersection of Wall Street, K Street and Pennsylvania Avenue


#2

No.

</thread>


#3

I doubt it, but I can’t see the context for this excerpt. I’m not sure what he’s saying.


#4

Neither can I. I nominate you to pay NRO 25 cents, read the article and report back. If you ever find yourself in Sierra County, New Mexico I will treat you to lunch at the greasy spoon of your choice.


#5

[quote=“old_dog, post:4, topic:48451”]
Neither can I. I nominate you to pay NRO 25 cents, read the article and report back. If you ever find yourself in Sierra County, New Mexico I will treat you to lunch at the greasy spoon of your choice.
[/quote]Hehe, not gonna happen, that first part; but I had a subscription for a few years back in the 90s. It is possible I’ll visit New Mexico in the next handful of years btw, but not buying an NR story, so you won’t have to feed me.

Didn’t realize you were in that neck of the woods. I realize Gary Johnson is probably not your guy, but what did you think of him when he was governor there?


#6

He left office a year before I moved here from the left coast of Florida (still trying to figure out why). In general I am OK with libertarian policy domestically but their world view reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s global village.


#7

If I found the article text somewhere else, am I gonna get banned for posting a link?


#8

Don’t ask me. If you send me a PM, I will never tell.


#9

Of course not.

[quote=“old_dog, post:6, topic:48451”]
He left office a year before I moved here from the left coast of Florida (still trying to figure out why). In general I am OK with libertarian policy domestically but their world view reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s global village.
[/quote]I suppose a lot of Republicans see it that way.

Also drug policy, immigration, free trade…

But Hillary’s probably the warmongerest candidate in the race and the quickest to sacrifice Americans to whatever it is she wants to achieve.

Hehe I made a new word!


#10

The Father Führer


#11

Not sure what you are implying here. I favour total legalization of all drugs; including prescription drugs to end the AMA monopoly. Controlled immigration based on sane economic growth and preserving an approximation of the racial, ethnic and religious makeup of the country. By sane I mean not suppressing wages of Americans or having them train their replacements not just to tweak the GDP and line the pockets of big corporations. Make one more wise crack about supporting Sanders and I will put you on ignore forever.

Regarding free trade and taxes in general: Eliminating all taxes and relying on user fees I don’t see as a real world solution. If we compare taxes (income, sales, excise, death, tariff); the tariff seems to be the closest to a voluntary tax. You can (usually) choose domestic or imported. All of the others are collected at the point of a gun. If it were ever possible to get the federal government down to its constitutional limits I would think it possible to fund it with a very low across the board tariff plus a gas tax used strictly for highway construction and maintenance. All of this would require a sea change in the attitudes and expectations of the American public which just isn’t in the cards. Electing Gary Johnson, Cruz, Trump or anyone else isn’t going to get us there. My support for Trump is in the hope that he can derail the gravy train, the unholy alliance of “pay for play” and “pay for votes” conducted by both parties with unions, big business and feeders at the public trough. My highest priorities (which seem to be Obama’s lowest) are to have a military and space program second to none and protect the civil liberties of all Americans.


#12

It’s true. Great article. Outstanding article. I can’t believe a Republican wrote it. Amazing. Can’t believe that first sentence in the OP is what you took from it. A lot of stuff is cut out in that ellipsis. And that ain’t an establishment thing. The establishment is trying to “save” places like this too. Trump is “establishment” with a loud mouth. This, this is rebellious in today’s political climate.

If you ever make it to Oregon, I’ll feed ya and I’ll show you why this article is spot on.


#13

[quote=“old_dog, post:11, topic:48451”]
Not sure what you are implying here. I favour total legalization of all drugs; including prescription drugs to end the AMA monopoly. Controlled immigration based on sane economic growth and preserving an approximation of the racial, ethnic and religious makeup of the country. By sane I mean not suppressing wages of Americans or having them train their replacements not just to tweak the GDP and line the pockets of big corporations. Make one more wise crack about supporting Sanders and I will put you on ignore forever.
[/quote]Oh, I probably will. Might as well stick me there now :stuck_out_tongue:

Those three things and others are definitely items of contention between Republicans and Libertarians in general terms.

Glad you favor legalization of all drugs. You may be one of three of us here who do – maybe more, but mostly it’s been me and Bremen. Maybe AS. It’s much rarer than the pot advocates, who are pretty much hypocrites in my book – liberty for me and not for thee. But that’s about as likely as your discussion on free trade or paring down to Constitutional limits unfortunately. Would require a sea change in how we the people understand the purpose of government.

Immigration? Illegal or not, least of my concerns right now. Wanna get authoritarian about it, fine. I won’t stand in your way much. I’d take that in exchange for other more substantial economic reforms. I do think building a wall is a waste of money and time.

My highest priorities match yours. I’d say an effective military program that we use rarely and only in defense of us or our allies. Space program? Yeah, I like it, and I’m hypocritical on it. I really should support cutting it, but space is really cool, and I’m sad we aren’t doing more.

I agree we aren’t going to get anywhere without sweeping changes in social attitudes. Don’t know how that happens. This article is a case in point. This article is right, but it’s met with revulsion. Sort of like mourning the buggy whip industry. But slowly over time, perhaps liberty will be valued in economics as well as the bedroom and the grow room. Maybe not. I’m going to try like others before me. The same discussions have happened for the past century. I just read a piece by Ludwig von Mises in 1944 on Nazi economics. It could have been written today.

The Economic Policy of the Nazis | Foundation for Economic Education

As for Trump, he’s not gonna change much. He’s a product of the system, the establishment. He’s been the guy paying for the votes. Now he’s going to switch sides and throw out the system? I doubt it, and if he did, we have no idea what he’d actually do with it. He is very loud, and he does say what folks want to hear. I understand why some folks like him for president. To me, he just sounds like a dishonest used car salesman.


#14

If we legalize all drugs, can we make the deadliest ones the cheapest and most available? Heroin and meth tend to kill people pretty quick. I like that.

I do agree on the space program. It could be the welfare program. To Hades with food stamps, give the people jobs at NASA. Their janitorial staff are well paid too.
Not that I really advocate “creating jobs” through the gov’t, but that’s better than welfare I think. Think of all of the tech advances that came about due to the space program. It’s staggering how far we’ve come, and it is all because of it.


#15

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:9, topic:48451”]
But Hillary’s probably the warmongerest candidate in the race
[/quote]Now that Rubio has dropped out.
I’m encouraged by the fact that Republican voters have finally put aside candidates who believe in perpetual war.

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:13, topic:48451”]
the pot advocates, who are pretty much hypocrites in my book – liberty for me and not for thee.
[/quote]There was a time when I agreed with you, until I began to examine why I typically think more freedom is better, and when that leads to a nearly universal bad outcome. Some things are just objectively bad and come with basically no upside. That’s how I see meth and heroine. Unlike pot, or even cocaine, there is just no such thing as a casual user. And while some people may ruin their lives with pot or alcohol, they can do it with other things too(like consumerism, porn, work). The threshold I settled on is a majority threshold. Does this thing seriously cripple someone’s life in a majority of cases? That’s true for only a few narcotics. Continuing to keep them banned seems like a fairly good idea to me. Most people can drink responsibly, smoke pot responsibly, not work themselves to death, not become basement dwelling porn aficionados. Nearly everyone that starts using meth or heroine for even a couple of weeks ends up as an addict, and it’s usually less than a year before their entire life falls apart. Restricting that freedom just doesn’t seem to be a problem for me. I see the case for restricting this freedom, as more clear than restricting the freedom to counterfeit. And most libertarians are against counterfeiting due to property rights.


#16

[quote=“CWolf, post:15, topic:48451”]
Now that Rubio has dropped out.
I’m encouraged by the fact that Republican voters have finally put aside candidates who believe in perpetual war.
There was a time when I agreed with you, until I began to examine why I typically think more freedom is better, and when that leads to a nearly universal bad outcome. Some things are just objectively bad and come with basically no upside. That’s how I see meth and heroine. Unlike pot, or even cocaine, there is just no such thing as a casual user. And while some people may ruin their lives with pot or alcohol, they can do it with other things too(like consumerism, porn, work). The threshold I settled on is a majority threshold. Does this thing seriously cripple someone’s life in a majority of cases? That’s true for only a few narcotics. Continuing to keep them banned seems like a fairly good idea to me. Most people can drink responsibly, smoke pot responsibly, not work themselves to death, not become basement dwelling porn aficionados. Nearly everyone that starts using meth or heroine for even a couple of weeks ends up as an addict, and it’s usually less than a year before their entire life falls apart. Restricting that freedom just doesn’t seem to be a problem for me. I see the case for restricting this freedom, as more clear than restricting the freedom to counterfeit. And most libertarians are against counterfeiting due to property rights.
[/quote] Nonsense. You’d be hard-pressed to find ANY addict of ANY substance or behavior that’s willing to admit that they ARE addicted. I’ve known dozens of kids who became literally AND figuratively addicted to pot, then went looking for a stronger, more long-lasting “high” and wound up either dead or permanently disabled. Regardless of what the pro-pot folks say, pot IS a “gateway drug”. While it may be true that only 15 or 20% of pot users turn to something like heroin or meth, it is ALSO true that virtually 100% of heroin or meth addicts’ FIRST experience with mind-altering substances was with POT.


#17

The definition of an addict is someone who can’t go more than even a few days without whatever it is they use.
Pretty much everyone I know who drinks or smokes weed, can go a good few weeks without touching the stuff. Most people who smoke weed are causal smokers. Most people who drink, are casual drinkers.
There are no casual meth or heroin users.

There is a case to ban pot, but it requires we ban cigarettes and alcohol as well(as both of them are more harmful). I understand some of the points of the temperate argument. I don’t happen to agree with them, but they’re logically consistent.

I was mostly addressing RWNJ’s assertion that you either have to favor all legalization, or you’re being hypocritical. I don’t agree, because different drugs rise to varying levels of harm. Setting a threshold for banning is perfectly fine. Even if that threshold encompasses pot, alcohol, and cigarettes. That’s just a lower threshold to ban. But it can be logically consistent.


#18

[quote=“Devilneck, post:14, topic:48451”]
If we legalize all drugs, can we make the deadliest ones the cheapest and most available? Heroin and meth tend to kill people pretty quick. I like that.
[/quote]Absolutely. It’s the only way you’ll ever make them cheap enough to do the job.

[quote=“CWolf, post:15, topic:48451”]
Now that Rubio has dropped out.
I’m encouraged by the fact that Republican voters have finally put aside candidates who believe in perpetual war.
There was a time when I agreed with you, until I began to examine why I typically think more freedom is better, and when that leads to a nearly universal bad outcome. Some things are just objectively bad and come with basically no upside. That’s how I see meth and heroine. Unlike pot, or even cocaine, there is just no such thing as a casual user. And while some people may ruin their lives with pot or alcohol, they can do it with other things too(like consumerism, porn, work). The threshold I settled on is a majority threshold. Does this thing seriously cripple someone’s life in a majority of cases? That’s true for only a few narcotics. Continuing to keep them banned seems like a fairly good idea to me. Most people can drink responsibly, smoke pot responsibly, not work themselves to death, not become basement dwelling porn aficionados. Nearly everyone that starts using meth or heroine for even a couple of weeks ends up as an addict, and it’s usually less than a year before their entire life falls apart. Restricting that freedom just doesn’t seem to be a problem for me. I see the case for restricting this freedom, as more clear than restricting the freedom to counterfeit. And most libertarians are against counterfeiting due to property rights.
[/quote]I see your point. Maybe it’s not hypocritical. I strongly disagree with your criteria, but the point of my post wasn’t to argue for drug legalization, so I won’t jack this thread into a drug legalization thread. That said, I am aware of at least one functional meth user.


#19

Regarding the above, we are 100 percent in agreement!

JWK


#20

The space program is way more than “cool”.

  1. Like it or not, space is going to be militarized and we will either be number one or not.

  2. Helium-3 offers the possibility of virtually unlimited clean energy and can be transported to earth in a cost effective manner. Gold bars on the moon are worthless for the same reason.

  3. The Last Frontier. The disappearing frontier on earth has always been a safety valve for civilization; a place for political, religious, economic refugees and people who just don’t fit in.

  4. Survival. The end of life on earth could be in millions of years or next month. A self-sufficient human colonization on Mars might take several hundred year to achieve. It has to start somewhere. 2 is 1, 1 is none.

Hell, I will vote for any candidate who makes a believable commitment to making the United States number one in space; although unlikely, that would include Hillary or Bernie.

:freaked: